During the Phoenix Aviation Symposium last month, I sent out a tweet quoting US Airways CEO Doug Parker as saying that he didn’t see any domestic air service growth potential beyond growth tied to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country. In other words, we have all the service we need domestically now and the only growth will come from further economic growth. That set off a good back and forth between me and Greg Principato, the President of Airports Council International – North American (ACI-NA). I thought it would be worth revisiting the discussion here.

ACI-NA is the big trade group representing airports, so you can imagine that our discussion quickly turned toward airports in relation to growth. Did Doug’s statement mean that there wasn’t a reason for airports to build and grow? Greg sees Doug’s underlying point as being that there’s “no need for new investment.” But when it comes to airports, Greg certainly thinks there is a need. So, is there?

Readers of this blog may think that I’m against any airport investment, but if you think that, you’re misreading me. I’m against stupid investment, and there is a lot of that around the country. I’m all for smart investment when it makes sense. My favorite example is, of course, JetBlue’s Terminal 5 at JFK. JetBlue needed a new operating space and they built one that’s excellent and not overly-expensive. I’m also a fan of San Francisco’s redo of Terminal 2 for Virgin America and American. I’m even a fan of the recent refurb of LAX’s Terminal 6.

But there are far more examples around of wasted expense. Think about Sacramento’s new monster, the new terminal building in Indianapolis, or the new Bradley Terminal expansion at LAX. Don’t even get me started on Miami.

Those are projects that cost a lot and inevitably hurt the air service in the community. Now, Greg was quick to remind me that “‘cost-effective’ and ‘cheap’ are not synonyms.” That is very true. But these projects were simply overbuilt. Does LAX need a soaring roof to look like the waves and the mountains? Does Sacramento need a train to get people to the new concourse? No. In both those situations, there was a need for something new. LAX has a Bradley Terminal with small holdrooms and almost no concessions behind security. It’s a mess. And Sacramento had an old terminal that was falling apart. But these facilities could have been built for function instead of form, and the benefits to the public would have been greater.

The way airports are funded in the US means that airports need to be smart about this. They can’t just go and build a massive, gleaming new operation like in Beijing because travelers will have to pay for it. In the US, they either pay directly via the Passenger Facility Charge (which tops out at $4.50 after Congress refused to allow an increase to $7.50) or they pay indirectly via higher fares because it costs the airlines more to operate.

So if an airport builds too much at too high of a cost, then it stands to lose service. Greg points out that it should be the community’s decision, and he’s right. As he says, “There is that risk that communities must, and are willing to, accept. Should not be up to feds or airlines.” But the problem is that the community doesn’t have much of a say.

If someone says to you, “hey, you want a fancy new airport?,” you’re going to say yes. But what if they say you can only have it if it means fewer flights? Then it’s a different story. But it really doesn’t matter what you say because the airports aren’t often run by elected officials. You can’t vote out an airport executive if she does something against your interests. You don’t get to vote on how airports spend their money. So the community doesn’t really get to decide.

Instead, airports that build smart and keep costs low benefit from greater levels of service. Those airports that build too much and get too expensive risk losing out. Think about LAX. Will it lose a lot of Asia flights if costs go up by $10 a person? Maybe not. But the airport is set on spreading those costs around to all airlines. So will Southwest be hurt on its flights to Phoenix if costs go up by $10 a head? You bet. Those flights may not be as glamorous, but they’re very important to a lot of people, and they will see cutbacks.

So, airports should be able to spend money as they see fit, but when they mess up, they risk losing service and doing a great deal of damage to the community. Responsible spending by an airport is great, there just needs to be more of that.

Earlier this week, I was on a panel at the Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA) conference down in San Diego talking about airports. The panel was called “The Air Travel Experience-Is This As Good As It Gets?” The general answer was “no” but everyone talked about different aspects of the experience. What do people care about when it comes to airports? Here’s what I told them.

Though I had my own ideas, I decided to head to Twitter to get opinions, and you guys delivered. There were more than 60 responses, so thank you very much. If you had to guess what the top two responses were from a tech-savvy, Twitter-using crowd, what do you think they would be? You probably guessed wi-fi and power outlets, and you’re right. Those were the most popular requests.

For many, the wi-fi request was really for FREE wi-fi, of course. Someone from Boingo, a provider of paid (and other) wi-fi services, came up after to discuss. He talked about all the technical issues and the fact that the free wi-fi experience isn’t as good and tends to be slow due to all the users. That may be true, but it doesn’t matter. It’s still what people want, so the airports need to figure it out.

When it comes to power outlets, that’s even more important now as many airlines have continued to refuse to install power on airplanes. I don’t think it’s an understatement to say that travelers would be happy to see airport carpet replaced with wall-to-wall power outlets just to make grabbing a quick charge easy.

The third biggest issue was a broader one: food. People want good, healthy, and cheap dining options. I don’t think by “cheap,” that means the dollar value meal but rather having it closer to street pricing. If the food is better, people will pay for it. They just don’t want a $20 turkey sandwich. Food becomes even more important now with airlines offering buy-on-board. You never know if they’ll have what you want, or if they do, whether they’ll run out before they get to your row on the airplane. Many people prefer to play it safe and buy grub in the airport.

Food is a good story because some airlines and airports are getting it right. I look at Delta’s efforts at JFK and La Guardia as perfect examples of how this should work. They’ve put food right into the gate areas without reducing the seat count. Now there are plenty of seats that have power outlets and iPad ordering stations so you can wait for your flight and order food from where you sit. That’s the kind of thing that benefits everyone.

Of course, many of the things that you guys want aren’t really something the airport can control. People want shorter security lines, but that requires the TSA to provide more security staff. And you don’t want rude gate agents, but that’s controlled more by the airline than the airport in most cases. Still, there are things airports can do to help in those situations.

But let’s back up here. Sure, you want wi-fi and you want good food, but those are little things. What do you really want from your airport? You want to get out of it as quickly as you can. If you’re flying into a city, you want to get in your car, bus, train, whatever as quickly as you can so you can get to your destination. That’s why people hate those big rental car facilities that require long bus or train rides from the terminal. It just takes up time.

If you’re flying out of a city, you want your flights to be on time and frequently departing for the city to which you need to go. Airports can help with the on time piece by having a good runway/taxiway design (for new airports, as few as there are today) and by clearing snow quickly to keep things moving.

But to ensure that there are frequent flights to as many destinations as possible, it’s important for airports to keep their costs down. I’ve said it many times before (and I can already guess some of the comments that will come in, as usual), but a lot of airports throw money away on things that don’t really matter to the passenger experience. If you’re going to spend money, spend it on things that really improve the travel experience like spacious gate areas with ample seating and power along with short walking distances and good food outlets. Save the architectural flair for something else, some place where it won’t negatively impact the ability of the airport to keep a full schedule flights, just as people want.

[SMF photo via Sacramento Airport]
[LAX photo via Los Angeles World Airports]
[Goldilocks image via Hiro Sheridan/CC 2.0]

It’s incredible to think about how the title of a post or article really sets the tone for a story. For example, if you saw the recent Dow Jones article entitled “Ryanair To Ban Check-In Baggage And Airport Check-In,” you might be surprised to know that it’s referencing the exact same piece of news that I’m discussing here today. The only difference? I see some good in this idea while Dow Jones is clearly going for the sensational, eye-catching headline.

Now before we get into this, I should start by saying that I doubt it’ll actually happen. Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary loves to spout off about his dreams about the future of Ryanair, but that doesn’t mean it will happen. We’re still waiting to see those pay lavs, right? But I think O’Leary’s head is in the right place here.

Yes, it’s true that O’Leary wants to ban checked baggage. Sounds like a bad plan if you like to bring a lot of stuff, but this wouldn’t really prevent you from doing that. Because while he wants to ditch checked baggage, he’d be happy to let you carry on as much as you can drag to the plane. Are you envisioning overhead bins and aisle packed to the gills with bags? Well if they run out of room, they’ll just start putting the bags in the belly, like they do today on regional jets that can’t handle those rollerboards.

If you think about this from a cost savings perspective, it makes sense. You really don’t need ticket counters or any place to for customers to interact with you outside security in this scheme. You also don’t need the complicated luggage transport systems and baggage carts that currently fill the underbelly of every airport. You then need fewer people working on the ramp as well, because you’re making the passengers do the work instead.

For passengers, they’ll have to drag their own luggage all the way to the plane, and I’m pretty sure this will make security lines even more miserable, but if you’re paying a penny for a flight, then you’ll probably just deal with it. And just imagine – no more checked bag fees! Not happy about schlepping all those bags through the airport? I’m sure Ryanair will offer you a pushcart . . . for a fee.

Despite all the decent possibilities of a system like this, I still don’t think it will happen. Why? The government. Any time a plan touches the security process, the government gets involved, and I’m sure they won’t like this idea at all. Oh, and all those carry-on restrictions mean that a lot of passengers who travel with things like guns and knives, not to mention liquids in large containers, will have to fly someone else.

Then there’s the issue of weight and balance in the belly. With carry-on bags, you won’t know how much luggage you’ll have and how it should be spaced out in the aircraft until people board. That will likely delay aircraft turn times, and it will make for a mess of a situation right before departure.

So I don’t think we’ll see this plan come to fruition, but there certainly are some merits to it. At the very least, it’s a creative way to reduce costs, and this industry can certainly use more creativity.

[Original image from wicho via Flickr]

In last week’s internal company newsletter, US Airways noted that it was switching up its boarding process. They’ve gone back to basics. Instead of trying to figure out the best way to board from a time-saving perspective, they’re just gonna let people fight it out.

The new plan is similar to what Northwest does, though I’m not sure if that’s changed under the Delta regime. In short, important people board first, and then everyone else gets to board together in the back. They’ve actually made it much more complicated than that. Here’s the new hierarchy:

• Slow Pokes (Pre-boarding) – Those who need help boarding (disabled or old) or those with kids under 5




• Really Important – Premium cabin passengers and top tier elite members (excludes Silver)




• Sort of Important – Silver elite members, US Airways credit card holders, and people who paid for premium coach seats (exit row, etc)




• Not Important but Cheaper to Process – those who check-in online




• Not Important and More Expensive to Process – everyone else

Seems like a lot of groups to me. The only major thing here that we haven’t seen before is that those who check-in online get to board ahead of those who don’t. It’s a nice little incentive that I would think might help push people to go online. That’s the goal, of course, since it’s cheaper for the airline.

But what’s significant here is that they’ve completely abandoned any sort of science in trying to board people in the quickest way. The old system was called the “Reverse Pyramid” which, besides being a move you’d probably like to see a cheerleader make, also, according to research performed by ASU, was the fastest way to board. Maybe US Airways has decided that it feels the same way about ASU as the Daily Show does.

More likely, however, is that they’d carved out so many exceptions that it didn’t actually help much anymore. See the reverse pyramid plan starts with windows in the back, then windows in the middle and middles in the back, and then windows up front, middles in the middle, and aisles in the back, etc.

In the last few years, so many exceptions popped up that allowed early boarding that the benefits of using the reverse pyramid have probably disappeared. So now they’ll just scrap the system and let the peons fight it out.

[Original Image from Mauricio Santana (Tux) via Flickr]

So, you’ve been trying to get to Seattle for a few days now, huh? I’m one of the lucky ones this year since I’m not going anywhere for the holidays, but if I were, I’m sure that the nasty weather would have me sitting on the floor at the airport for a long time. For those stuck at LAX, you might want to think about spending some time in the new public-access reLAX Lounge, which I recently had the chance to tour. Let’s hope that public lounges catch on and become more commonplace.

The reLAX Lounge is located in the Tom Bradley International Terminal at the end of the horseshoe that makes up the LAX terminal area. If you aren’t in LA, I know there’s a pay per use lounge in Terminal 4 at JFK, but I’m unaware of any other ones in the US. There must be more in smaller cities, but there definitely are not enough.

Sure, there are plenty of airlines that will sell you a one day pass into their lounge, but it usually costs around $50 or so. The lounge is obviously catering to that airlines’ passengers, so if you’re flying someone else, you might find you have trouble getting flight information or anything else catering to your airline.

The pay per use lounges, however, cater to just about every airline. For example, they have flight status for all airlines using that terminal, and they’ll be able to give you airport-wide information instead of just airline-specific stuff.

The one at LAX in particular is also very, very nice. It’s in the old interim First Class lounge at Bradley, and it has all new furniture, computers, printers, scanners, fax machines, etc. You’ll also find free wifi, sodas, coffee, tea, bottles of water, and snacks. They have a snack bar as well that currently sells salads, wraps, etc, and will soon sell alcohol. Oh, and I forgot to mention the absolutely stunning views to the north, west, and south with jumbo jets taxiing right by throughout the day. Take a look for yourself.

The best part of this whole thing? It’s usually $25 for three hours, but they’ve recently introduced a $10 rate for one hour or $35 for five hours as well. That’s a great deal, especially since it includes free wi-fi, something that still costs you in the rest of the airport.

The only problem for this particular lounge? It’s not behind security. So, if you’re catching a flight at Bradley, you’ll still have to cut out a little early to beat the lines. Johnny Jet and I were both touring together, and we both suggested to the lounge manager that he be constantly posting current security wait times. He seemed to like the idea, so hopefully that will make time management easier.

But the good news here is that if you have a long layover in any other terminal, you can come on by and use the lounge. With the great views and free wifi, it’s probably the best place to kill some time in the airport considering the price.

I hope you all have easy travels this year, but from the looks of the weather map, that’s not going to happen for a lot of you. Just hold on and remember that things will be great once you finally get there.

[See all my pictures of the lounge on Flickr]