It’s time for another installment of Ask Cranky. This question is a great one, and I could have sworn I wrote about it before. But my intensive (read: 10 second) search didn’t turn up anything. Even if I have, it’s worth addressing again.

I often take UA 732 from SEA to ORD, “with continuing service to Jacksonville”. Every week, at landing they announce “there will be a plane change for passengers continuing to JAX…” If the plane isn’t the same, how exactly is this a “continuing flight”? Why doesn’t the ORD to JAX flight just have a new number?

Thanks,
Patrick

You guys have probably seen this a million times, because it’s a very common occurrence. In this case, United flight 732 looks like this:
Lv Seattle 6a Arr Chicago 12p
Lv Chicago 126p Arr Jacksonville 451p

You would think that with one flight number, it should be the same airplane the whole way through, right? That’s not the case. In fact, this flight is scheduled with two completely different aircraft types operating each leg. The first is on a 757 and the second on an A319. What gives?

Back in the early days, one flight number would usually have one airplane the whole way. Heck, it was more likely for the airplane to stay the same than the actual airline! (There used to be interchange flights where one airline would take the airplane part of the way and then they’d turn the airplane over to another airline to go the rest of the way.)

But in the 1980s and 1990s, the airlines started getting (too) smart (for their own good). They realized that in the Global Distribution Systems, nonstop and direct flights (the latter being flights with a stop but no change) received preference. And just like with Google search results today, those flights that showed up first got the most bookings. The airlines wanted more of that so they started designing flight numbers to match those routes with the most demand.

It got out of control quickly as airlines tried to cheat the system. I remember flipping through a timetable when I was young seeing Delta with a ton of high four digit flight numbers that were all assigned to the same flight. So maybe you would see London to Atlanta as one flight, but then they would overlay a bunch of flight numbers so it looked like you could go on a direct flight from London to all the big cities in the US. I don’t remember when that stopped happening, but I assumed it was a government regulation that ended that misleading practice.

But that didn’t mean airlines still couldn’t get creative about how they assigned their flight numbers. It didn’t take long to realize, however, that the flights that were ideal for marketing as direct weren’t the same flights as what would be ideal from an operational perspective. Certain aircraft had to go to maintenance, others just weren’t the right size to operate both legs. So the operational side of the airline started shifting airplanes around regardless of the number attached. That’s where we are today, at least with most airlines.

You still see the old method when you fly Southwest, but that’s the extent of it with large airlines. I don’t know numbers, but I’d imagine it’s less common for one airplane to work multiple legs on a flight than it is or there to be a change in the middle. And that’s because the marketing and operational arms work in different ways. There is now actually a third consideration as well.

Airlines are running out of flight numbers.

With all the codesharing occurring between airline after airline, the big guys are running out of four digit flight numbers. Could they go to five digits? Yeah, right. It would take the industry years to do the programming work required for something like that. Instead, the airlines start cramming more flights on each flight number.

Delta flight 4509 goes from LAX to San Diego and then back to LAX. Clearly nobody is taking both segments of that flight, so why bother lumping them together? Because there just aren’t enough flight numbers to split them apart.

And that’s why you see some goofy things with flight numbers today.

It’s time for another Ask Cranky. Today, we’re looking at an operations question from a reader.

How many extra planes do airlines keep on hand to fill in for maintenance issues that require longer than a day to fix? Or maybe a maintenance issue that is longer than a day to fix is very-very rare? I’d imagine that a small international carrier that flies a 747 on a route does not keep an extra 747 to fill in if they have equipment problems and that they delay flights or cancel and rebook on another route/carrier. However, it’s hard to imagine that Delta Airlines does not keep an extra few A320/737′s parked in Atlanta ready to go on a moment’s notice. So what is it like out there? How many extras do airlines generally have and where do they keep them?

Jeff Z.

It’s a great question, and it’s one that’s going to vary by airline. In general, the smallest airlines probably won’t have a spare on hand. It’s just too expensive to keep an airplane down, waiting for another to break if you’re so small in the first place. But as airlines get larger, they need more spares.

I remember when I worked at America West, we ran a terrible operation in the summer of 2000. Part of the fix was increasing the number of spare aircraft in the Phoenix hub to be able to recover more quickly when an airplane broke. (And they broke a lot back then.)

I went to US Airways and asked them about their spare situation today, and the answer was an interesting one.

Since we operate a “different” schedule each day the number fluctuates a bit.

Today for instance, we currently have 340 active lines of flying on the mainline operation. Here is what we have built into the schedule for spares:

13 spares total….

2 737’s (covering 300s and 400s), 7 Airbus (covering 319/320/321), 2 B757 (covering 757/767), 1 A330 (covering A330-200 and 300) and 1 EMB 190.

So there you have it. Each fleet type has at least one spare available, but it might not be an exact match. For example, if a 767 breaks, then only a 757 will be able to step in with about 25 fewer seats. During the off-peak winter season, that might not be as big of a problem as it may be during the packed summer season.

Every airline has a different philosophy on how many spares to keep and it will change within each airline. At America West, for example, when the airplanes were at a place where they became more reliable, they could look at reducing spares again.

It’s time for another Ask Cranky question. This is one that has been asked in various forms over the years. In fact, I hope I haven’t already written about this before. But it’s a great question and it doesn’t make sense to a lot of people why this happens.

A little bit ago I was looking for a flight from Los Angeles to Hawaii on one of the random cheap flight websites. When I put in the search requirements, it came up with the cheapest flights having a layover in San Francisco. Figuring it wasn’t that far just to drive to san francisco, I picked there as my originating airport. I even chose to leave right before the layover flight would have normally taken off. The site then told me that I had to take a layover in Los Angeles to continue to Honolulu. Is this really all based on economics or just a sneaky way of the airlines getting a little bit more of your money? It’s obvious they have non stop flights from both Los Angeles and San francisco. Why the layovers? I would think it would cost more over all for fuel, and using terminals.

Michael

The first thing to keep in mind with something like this is that airlines don’t price based on costs. They price based on demand. When schedules are set at least a couple months in advance, predictions about revenues have been made and the hope is that the flight will be profitable, but airlines never know for sure. Once the schedule is set in stone, costs aren’t going to change, so it’s up to the revenue management team to simply maximize the amount of revenue that gets onboard that airplane.

One thing that we know without question is that a lot of people will pay more to fly nonstop, so even if a connecting itinerary may cost an airline more to fly, the airline doesn’t care about that. It only cares about getting as much revenue as it can on each flight, and that might mean pricing connecting itineraries less than nonstop.

This one looks like it’s probably on United from the routes involved, so let’s just pretend that’s the story. Here’s what I think is happening. United thinks that it can sell a lot of seats on those flights to passengers wanting to fly nonstop. But it doesn’t expect that it’s actually going to fill up every seat with those higher fares. It could reduce prices on the nonstop to increase demand, but then it dilutes the fares that all those other people would have paid and that could result in less revenue even if it puts more people on the airplane. So it tries to find another way to fill up those seats.

There is a segment of the population that will be willing to make a connection if it means cheaper flights. Those people might be considering flying a different airline like American or Delta or not traveling at all with the current nonstop fares being charged by United. So how can United find a way to keep those passengers without diluting the existing fares? It can route them over a connection. That means those who want to pay more for the nonstop will still pay more, but United can fill up empty seats with that connecting traffic from the truly price-sensitive traveler.

In the end, United fills more seats and makes more money, even though it may seem counter-intuitive at first glance.

I know I’ve touched on this many times before, but reader Morgan would like to know more about why I don’t consider frequent flier programs when traveling. Seems like a good time for the latest installment of Ask Cranky . . .

I’d be interested in hearing more about why you don’t consider frequent flyer benefits when making your personal travel reservations. I believe you’ve mentioned this as your policy several times, but never (that I have seen) with elaboration.

With all the turmoil going on with the SkyMiles program and speculation about major changes to Mileage Plus, I’m starting to wonder if all the effort I put into obtaining and maintaining status is worth it. You travel plenty and yet seem to feel that no carrier will compensate you adequately for your loyalty. I’d love to hear why — I’m willing to be convinced.

Morgan

There are actually a lot of things that go into my decision to not care about frequent flier programs, so let’s get started. First of all, I should stress that I’m more than happy to take advantage of frequent flier programs. I belong to many programs and always make sure to earn miles when I fly. I just don’t let those programs impact my decisions.

Part of this is probably because of where I live. From the Los Angeles area, there is no dominant airline. American, Delta, Southwest, and United can get you to most places you want to go from LAX. As a Long Beach resident, however, I often skew toward JetBlue because it’s more convenient. The point is – I have a lot of choices here in Southern California.

For most people, price and schedule end up being the most important decision factors, but for me, it’s more about schedule and product. Yes, I will pay more to fly out of Long Beach than LAX. I will also pay more for an airline that has in-seat video. Legroom might not matter a ton to me since I’m pretty short, but I’d even pay a small premium for that.

For most people, nonstop is a hugely important factor, and that’s true for me as well, but I also look for variety. If I have the chance to fly a new airline, connect in a new city, or ride on a new aircraft type, then I’ll usually jump at the chance as long as there isn’t too big of an inconvenience factor.

That’s why frequent flier programs rarely make sense for me as a decision-driver. If I want new experiences, then sticking with a single frequent flier program will prevent that from happening. It might also make me shy away from more convenient options, since the best option from LA can often be on a different airline for every itinerary.

The flip side is, of course, what I’m giving up. There are a lot of supposed benefits to being elite, so let’s look at them and I’ll show you why I don’t care.

• Upgrades – This is always the big sell, but honestly I don’t care. People think I travel a lot, but I really don’t. I haven’t taken a real vacation in over 3 years. I either travel for events with friends and family or I travel for work. When I travel for work, it’s usually on the airline’s dime so I won’t earn miles anyway.

  Last year, I traveled 34,202 miles. Had I focused on one airline, I might have reached silver status, but even then, what’s the chance I’d get an upgrade? There are so many silver elites at every airline that it’s almost impossible to get an upgrade at that level. Last time I was elite on anyone was 2005/2006 with US Airways. I got an upgrade once from Vegas to LA and another time from Phoenix to LA. That was it. Who cares?

• Priority Check-In/Security/Boarding – I almost never check a bag, so I’m always checked in before I get to the airport. I’m sure there are times I could have saved a little time with priority security, but when I fly out of Long Beach, that doesn’t matter. And when I travel, I use a duffel that can, if needed, squeeze under the seat in front of me. I’d prefer to find bin space, and I usually can, but there’s always a back up so I don’t care if I’m on the airplane that early.
• Free Checked Bags – This has never been an issue for me since I rarely check bags, though that’s about to change with a mini-Cranky on the way. (That’s right, I just dropped that casually into the post.) But it’s still not that much to check a bag.
• Priority Seating – I’ll admit that I do like having priority seating – if there are only middles left on the airplane, then it would be nice to grab that window up front that’s being held back for elites. But with most airlines these days, you can pay for a better seat if you want it. It’s a nominal fee, and I would only bother with it if I couldn’t get a window in the back anyway. As I said, I like more legroom so having Economy Plus on United is nice, but it’s hardly worth concentrating my business just to get that for free. Besides, if I fly JetBlue from Long Beach, I get more legroom automatically.

In short, the benefits of elite status aren’t enough to make me consider warping my decision-making process when it comes to buying a ticket. It’s far more freeing to just fly who I want and then pay for the extra little benefits if I ever feel that I need them.

I’ve got a follow-up for an old Ask Cranky post today. In January, I wrote about why Delta might change flight times by a few minutes here and there. I received a similar question from someone about a United flight recently, but with United, I can give a more exact answer. Let’s start with the question.

Is United slowing down its flights to save fuel? It looks like it. I had a San Francisco – Lihue (Kauai) trip booked already, but the schedule was just changed. The outbound flight now takes 16 minutes longer. The return flight takes 11 minutes longer. Unless United is afraid of getting fined for blowing arrival times, the only other reason I can think of is they’re slowing the plane down to save fuel. Have you heard anything?
Doug

The short answer is no. United is not slowing down its flights. (And it wouldn’t be fined for blowing arrival times unless it happens consistently for several months.) It’s just the way the airline handles its schedules.

When United loads its schedules, it does it in seasonal blocks. Those schedules are firmed up about six weeks before it starts and before that, they just use future schedules. (I’m told that this window is growing now that the airline is under new management.)

Future schedules are rough estimates based on past block times, but they don’t always take seasonality or ultimately, reality, into effect. Winds change seasonally as do airport operations so flight times can vary. There might also be issues around aircraft types changing since some airplanes fly faster than others. But when future schedules go into effect, they aren’t necessarily meant to be completely accurate. In this case, United’s future schedules weren’t perfect.

In fact, for Doug, the flight times in the future schedule were a bit aggressive so while it looks like United added a lot of time to the flights when the final schedules were released, in reality, these block times are 5 to 7 minutes faster than they were last year. So, no, United is not slowing down to save fuel. It’s just the way they handle schedules.