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]

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]

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]

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]

I know I said in the video that I would be back with video of the gate areas, but I lied. It turns out that very little had changed since my first visit a couple weeks ago. The biggest change is the podiums sitting in the middle. Virgin America’s facilities guy Len Sloper has years of experience in Terminal 3 since he used to be Alaska’s general manager at LAX. So we were lucky to have him come with us and point out some of the things they want to do in phase two. (None of these things are finalized.)

• The posts in the middle of the terminal would be renovated to fit the Virgin America style
• Mood lighting will be added
• They want to add either a tree or a bamboo plant, or something alive to the middle of the terminal
• The signage layer that rings around the terminal half way up will be removed to open up the views further
• There is a ring around the outside of the terminal with ramp lighting that they want to replace with purple lighting so it glows like the pylons at the entrance to LAX

Some of these things sound kind of wacky, but the artist drawings looked pretty cool. Len kept talking about how this one is the only terminal still in its original form, and it has some of the best views of all the terminals at the airport. He wants to open those up and restore it to being much better than it is today. That’s a great goal, but it sounds like he should be working for the airport instead of Virgin America.

Anyway, what they’ve done so far is taken a relatively poor passenger experience and improved it significantly with a more functional check-in area and better passenger flow around the gate areas. For a couple million dollars (much of which will be reimbursed by the airport) this is a smart move.

On an unrelated note, I didn’t cover the airline’s announcement that it would be starting Boston flights for fear of Virgin America overload, but I like this move. The long haul routes make the onboard product advantage that much more important for the customer, and existing airlines have cut their schedules so much on the route that Virgin has a competitive if not superior schedule compared to just about everyone else. Good stuff.

[See all my pictures of LAX Terminal 3]

As you can see, it will ultimately add two concourses to the Bradley Terminal with a host of other stuff in there as well. Fentress Architects, the same people that did Denver’s airport, came up with the design, and they were at the reception to explain to everyone how it took the LA environment into account and incorporated the ocean, the mountains, etc. They even said, and I swear I’m not making this up, that they’re trying to change “LAX into LA-Wow.” Now I’m the first to admit that I’m not a design kind of guy, but I suppose I understand what they were trying to do. My problem is that they shouldn’t have been trying to do it.

We heard a lot from Roger Johnson, Deputy Executive Director of LAWA and head of this project, about how this is going to be an airport that people talk about. It’s going to be an airport that when people arrive, they tell their friends and family that they have to go see it. Who the heck cares? I want an airport that’s easy. I don’t care if it’s pretty. If you go for “pretty,” you end up wasting money (at least $6 or 7 billion in this case) on something that ultimately either leads to higher airfares or loss of flights because it’s too expensive to fly there. To make it a little more clear what they’re trying to do, I’ve gone back to Google Maps. First up we have the plans for Phase I.

So, in the first phase, they’re going to build a new concourse to replace the existing one at the Bradley Terminal. The north side will open in Jan 2012 with the south side opening in July of that year. They’re staggered because of the way they need to knock down the old one to keep enough gates operating during construction. You will notice that the current A380 gate on the north side will actually stick around after this is done because it’s grandfathered in and can’t be replaced.

They will also replace the two side security areas with one large one in the middle of the existing facility. All of this should be completed by September 2013 with a price tag of around $2 billion. That’s right. We get 14 gates, 3 more than before, along with a new fire station and some taxiway changes for a mere $2 billion. Keep in mind that JetBlue built an entirely new terminal in New York with 26 gates for $800 million (though they didn’t have to move taxiways around). This money is all being spent on what Roger Johnson admitted was an “expensive concept.”

But the absurdity really doesn’t begin until Phase II. This part hasn’t been funded yet, but it is expected to cost $3 to 4 billion. (I’ll put money down that the costs double by the time it’s done.) Here’s my map of the second phase.

As you can see, they will now build an additional concourse further to the west. The parking lots for Terminals 3/4 will now be razed and replaced with a new “Central Terminal Area” to serve the midfield concourse. There will be underground parking (and the TSA is ok with this?) to replace the existing parking lots. An above ground people mover (high enough to accommodate an A380 underneath) will connect the CTA, existing Bradley, and the new midfield concourse. But the most shocking thing is that the CTA will only serve the midfield concourse while the existing Bradley terminal will continue to have its own check in area. My head hurts.

And the best part of all? This will not expand the number of gates on property. Thanks to an ill-advised agreement with the surrounding communities, the number of gates is fixed at the airport, so they’ll just close down the remote gates at the far west end of the airport when these new ones open.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention. There’s a separate project that has yet to be funded that will put a people mover around the airport and connect it out to the parking lots and metro rail. I like that idea, but I hate the idea of spending what will likely exceed $10 billion on a project that could be done for far less if we weren’t trying to dazzle the world.

In my opinion, we could ditch the fancy design and put function over form here. Yes, I’d like to see a nice open airport with lots of light, but does it need to have a roof that looks like waves of the ocean? I would say not. I’d much rather have the user fees stay lower so that we can attract more service. Don’t get me wrong, there are some great things happening in this project that should certainly be happening, such as . . .

• Sterile connectors between Terminal 3, 4, and Bradley will be built so that travelers don’t have to leave security to get between them all. I wish we would see more connectors like that built all around the airport so connections could flow more freely.




• There will be far better shopping and dining options at Bradley. I realize that’s not hard to do since it’s pretty much devoid of everything behind security now, but this is a big deal in terms of passenger convenience.




• This project eliminates the need to use the remote gates. Amen.




• The new concourse will give more space between Bradley and T3 on one side and T4 on the other. That means that planes from each terminal will be able to push back simultaneously and taxi out without having to take turns waiting for the other side to go. This will be a huge productivity gainer for the airport and especially for American and Alaska which sit on the other side of this alleyway.




• They say they’ll redo the customs and immigration facilities so you no longer have to push your heavy luggage up a ramp after you get through the process. There is nothing like watching someone who is exhausted after 12 hours on a plane have to push their luggage up.

If just those things alone were fixed, you’d see a significant increase in user satisfaction at the airport. I’ll say it again, I think the design looks good, but we don’t need a good-looking design to be a functional airport. The more money that gets spent, the more that has to come out of passenger pockets down the line.

See more pictures from the reception

You might recall that LAX moved out a few airlines on the east side of Terminal 3 so that Virgin America could come in and fix up some of the oldest non-renovated terminal space at the airport. This is actually a very good example of how a little money (maybe $5 to 7 millionit was $2.5 million or so?) can go a long way toward improving the passenger experience. When it’s done, there will be better seating, better lighting, and I’ve heard they’re even discussing turning the former outdoor smoking lounge in the middle of the terminal into a nice patio restaurant. Oh, and they old sports grill is already being replaced with a Gladstone’s local seafood restaurant. In addition, they’ve pushed the ticket counters further back so that there’s more queuing space without sending people out the door.

When I contrast this with the multi-billion dollar project LAX is putting together for the Bradley terminal (I’ll have that one this week as well since I went to a reception discussing the project), I have to shake my head. This is the right way to be improving the passenger experience in a terminal that was formerly not in good shape at all. Whether Virgin America should be spending the money on this kind of thing is highly debatable (there are better uses for a cash-strapped airline), but I still like the frugality of the project.

See a few still shots on the inside

Updated 12/12 @ 1030a to reflect actual cost of the project

1. Not once was the back of the plane mentioned in the presentation
2. On time performance didn’t come up in the prepared remarks

I thought it was rather odd that these wouldn’t be discussed, but fear not, it came up immediately after the presentation was done. See, PhoCusWright has a Talkback feature where two people from the industry come in after the presentation to gang up and ask questions. This time, we had Josh Weiss, Delta’s Managing Director of delta.com and Self-Service alongside Jim Young, Frontier’s Vice President of Marketing, Sales, and Distribution (though he has a much longer history in the industry with other companies).

Apparently, Josh and I were on the same page, because he immediately addressed my first point above. He said something to the effect of, “I see a lot about the premium product but what about everyone else?”

Tim then clarified that United’s strategy is to provide a good experience for everyone and a great experience for premium passengers, but we didn’t get any details of what that might mean other than saying that good service was important.

Jim then jumped in and said that everything United appears to be doing is playing catch up. What are they doing to differentiate themselves?

Tim said that service would be the differentiator.

Josh wanted to know what else they were doing besides sending 200 people to Disney for training. What are they doing to help everyone else at the airline?

Tim said they’re having meetings with people every day and they’re really trying to make sure that management is setting them up to succeed. I’d guess few employees would say management is doing a good job of that right now, so there’s a lot of work to be done here.

On time performance did finally come up in discussion and Tim said they were making progress on that. I certainly hope so, because while the details didn’t come up on stage, I looked it up and found that they were 17th out of 19 airlines in September and they’re in 18th place for the full year. They’re also in the bottom half of the pack for lost bags (12 out of 19 in September) and they have well above the average level of complaints. So again, there’s a ton of work to do.

Josh had a good question that seemed to be almost an afterthought, but it was important that it was asked. He wanted to know what “class” the airline was trying to be in when it said it wanted to be “best in class.” Were airlines like Singapore and Lufthansa included?

Tim responded that no, they weren’t. They’re only looking at North American carriers. And then he said, “For us to say we want to be as good as foreign flag carriers is overstretching.” Ouch. So they want to be the best of the worst, apparently.

At this point, everyone started piling on. An SMS showed up on the screen that said, “All this focus on the customer but where were they in that video? I only saw a bunch of suits in downtown Chicago.” Good point.

Then an audience member noted that the magic of Disney is that they treat everyone well while United is “abandoning the back.” Tim tried to respond that you get a very different experience at the Grand Floridian then you do at Port Orleans (at DisneyWorld), but in my eyes that isn’t comparing apples to apples here. I thought about this as the session ended and we all left the room.

United (along with most legacy airlines) doesn’t understand which of its travelers are premium, so it’s pretty ridiculous for them to focus so intently on that area. It rewards its frequent fliers, but those people could have bought the cheapie fares for all their flights. Meanwhile, someone who has never flown United but buys a full fare walkup ticket won’t even get to sit in Economy Plus.

Putting it in DisneyWorld terms, you could have one traveler who goes to DisneyWorld 25 times a year, pays $80, and gets to stay in the Grand Floridian since he comes in so often. Meanwhile, you could have another customer who pays $500 for his only visit of the year and gets put in Port Orleans. That’s not how Disney treats its customers and it’s not how airlines should either. I won’t even get into the fact that even the lowest paying Disney guests are treated very well whereas United has a lot of work to do all around.

In the end, Tim took all the shots pretty well considering that his employer deserved them all, but I ended up almost feeling sorry for the guy. United has a lot of work to do, and they probably shouldn’t be giving a presentation with this title until they get all the basics in order.