The discussion about how safe regionals are has been top of mind since the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo last year. A recent Frontline report on regional pilot safety has fanned the flames, and we’ve even had a discussion about this in the comments over the last few days. I’ve received a lot of questions in different forms, but I thought I’d post this particular question as an Ask Cranky since it’s a slightly different take on things. I’m hoping that you pilots out there will hit the comments with your take.

As a loyal American Airlines flyer, I cannot think of another mainline airline whose parent company wholly owns the regional carrier, American Eagle . . . right? Am I correct with this, AMR wholly owns both? My assumption would be if the same folks own AA as American Eagle, surely they are going to act more responsibly in terms of caring for their pilots and keeping the brand comparable in terms of safety regulations? I was curious as to your thoughts on this . . . even United contracts out it’s regional flying.
L. Feldman, California

It’s a good question indeed, and it may be one that many people haven’t even thought about. This awful Colgan crash, congressional hearings, and the special on PBS have really convinced some people that regional flying is incredibly dangerous thanks to inexperienced pilots. So is your life potentially safer on a wholly-owned subsidiary airline as opposed to a contract regional? First, let’s dispel the notion that regional flying in general is unsafe.

Some like to point out that the accidents in the US since the end of 2001 have all been on regionals, but it’s important to note that there still haven’t been that many accidents. Let’s look at every commercial accident in the US since 2002 where someone on board was killed.

2/12/2009 – Colgan Air Q400 in Buffalo
8/27/2006 – Comair CRJ in Lexington
12/19/2005 – Chalk’s Grumman in Miami
10/19/2004 – Corporate Airlines Jetstream 32 in Kirksville, MO
1/8/2003 – Air Midwest Beech 1900 in Charlotte

The Chalk’s one and the Air Midwest (former Mesa subsidiary) one were due to maintenance issues, so of the thousands and thousands of regional flights that have operated in some of the worst weather imaginable during the last 8+ years, there have been three fatal accidents during scheduled service due to pilot error. Is that something we should be content with? Certainly not, but I think it’s important to put this in context. These TV specials always make it sound like you’re likely to die on your next flight.

Yes, regional pilots get paid less (sometimes a shockingly low amount), and they have less experience than their big jet counterparts, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t get you there safely. In fact, those pilots have gotten their passengers to their destination safely all but three times in the last 8 years.

Now, to the question about wholly-owned regional subsidiaries . . . I don’t think that makes a difference. US Airways, by the way, owns a couple of its regional subsidiaries while outsourcing the rest, so American isn’t the only one. Also, while American Eagle is wholly-owned, but there is also American Connection which is outsourced. Now, Colgan was the focus of this program because of their recent accident and other issues they’ve had, but that’s somehow been blown up into the entire regional airline world being unsafe.

Sure, Colgan has some serious issues they need to work out, but every other airline has its share of troubles along the way. Right now, in fact, it’s wholly-owned American Eagle that is on the hot seat. They’ve been hit with two major fines related to how they maintain their airplanes.

So for me, it’s not whether an airline is wholly-owned by its major carrier or not that matters. We simply have to put our faith in the feds and hope they’re regulating the industry properly. That’s a story for another day. In fact, tomorrow, I’ll talk about misguided attempts to change pilot commuting rules.

It’s time for another episode of Ask Cranky. I’ve received this question in many different forms ever since my days doing airline pricing, so I thought now would be a good time to answer it.

Why is it cheaper for me to fly from Fairbanks, Alaska to Denver than it is to fly from Fairbanks to Seattle? What happens if we just don’t get back on the plane after the layover in Seattle?

Kim

There’s nothing worse than trying to figure out airline pricing. After 3 years on the inside, I understand it, but it still makes my head hurt. This question, however, about why two flights cost more than one or why longer flights cost more than shorter ones is pretty easy. It’s actually just economics – supply and demand.

Back in the days of regulation (prior to 1978), pricing was pretty straightforward. There was effectively a price per mile. While that may make sense from a cost perspective (sort of), it doesn’t make much sense from a revenue perspective. So after deregulation, the airlines really started to try to maximize revenue. Crazy idea, I know. Let’s look at these two market to illustrate my point.

Fairbanks to Seattle is a monopoly for Alaska. They fly it nonstop and nobody else does. What’s more, only one other airline even offers fares on that route, and its Delta with a connection in Salt Lake that only goes a few times a week and requires serious backtracking.

So Alaska can really set the pricing in this market to be the most lucrative for them without having to worry about serious competitive threat.

Meanwhile in the Fairbanks to Denver market, it’s a very different scene. Yes, Frontier recently announced seasonal nonstop flights a few times a week, so they can charge a premium. But the competitive landscape puts serious pressure on fares. Alaska can offer several connections per day over Seattle while Delta can offer its connections over Salt Lake as well. This may not be the most competitive route in the world, but it’s certainly more competitive than the Seattle market.

Making problems even worse is the market size. Fairbanks to Seattle is a much bigger market than Denver to Fairbanks. So if Alaska lowers fares in Denver, it may be able to fill up a few seats with connections via Seattle whereas those seats might have gone empty otherwise. And that brings us to the next question – why not just buy a ticket to Denver and get off in Seattle?

If you have a one way ticket and no checked bags, then you can do that and you probably won’t get caught. It’s called hidden city ticketing, but the airlines don’t allow this. So, there’s always a chance you’ll get caught and then made to pay the difference between what you paid and the full walk up fare. (You don’t want to do that.)

If you have a checked bag, then you obviously have a problem. It will go on even if you don’t. And if it’s a roundtrip ticket, there are other problems. If you don’t show up for a single flight in your reservation, the rest of your trip is canceled. So you might be tempted to buy a ticket from Fairbanks to Denver roundtrip. The problem is that once you miss that flight to Denver, your return will be canceled as well and then you’re in trouble. I wouldn’t recommend it.

Happy New Year, everyone. I’ve been looking through my old drafts, and I realized there were a couple of posts that never got published last year, and here’s one of them. It’s an Ask Cranky question . . .

I knew from reading your blog that premium economy was something that lots of airlines had been experimenting with (BA’s Open Skies, etc.), achieving extremely varied levels of success. However, I would love to know more about the rationale for beefing up premium economy on multi-class aircraft. Are airlines making money on customers who choose premium economy? Are [Business] and [First Class] passengers expressing any concern that some of their traditional “territory” (lounges, preboarding, etc.) might be devalued by expanding its availability to non-[Business/First] customers? What is the outlook for premium products, say, over the course of the next ten years?
-Zach in Chicago

I would say the outlook for the expansion of premium economy is good over the next decade. This is a direct result of the gaping hole that has opened between coach and the premium cabins that are out there today.

Think about how it used to be. There was coach and there was first class. As first class started to gain greater distance from coach in price and comfort, airlines began rolling out business class to fill the gap. The problem is that first and business class have continued to get better and more expensive while coach has, well, stayed coach.

These days, the flat beds you find in business class are far superior to anything that used to exist in first class. But coach seats are still just coach seats. If anything, they’ve lost a little legroom. Some airlines decided that first class was a waste of time and simply went with a two-cabin approach of business and coach. But these are all just names. The business class on, say, Virgin Atlantic, would have been worthy of the first class moniker just a few years ago.

So you end up with a funny situation where you can buy a coach roundtrip from the US to Europe for $600 but if you want any more comfort, you’re going to be paying $4,000 to $10,000 for business class. Further, as companies cut back their travel budgets, business class becomes a no-no. So what to do?

Well, the airlines started rolling out premium economy. This has two benefits. One, you can fly it for $2,000 to $4,000 roundtrip, so it provides an in-between price point. Two, it’s a coach seat so some people can still take advantage of it under their corporate contracts.

I don’t count United’s Economy Plus as a true Premium Economy cabin. That’s really just coach with a little more legroom. But the likes of British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Air New Zealand, Japan Air Lines, EVA Air and more recently, Air France and ANA, have put in a better seat, somewhat upgraded service, and branded it under this new name.

The reality, I think, is that you can look at an airline like Virgin Atlantic and it seems the same as things used to be. Sure, they may call it coach, premium economy, and “upper class” but it’s really just coach, business, and first from the old days.

I would expect to see more airlines do this, especially as travel budgets go down for premium class travel. They may have too many seats taking up too much space in business, so the premium economy cabin may grow.

I have an Ask Cranky two-fer today as one reader had two semi-related questions to ask. Fortunately, I’ve got the answers (or as close to the answers as I’m going to get).

Hi Cranky,
A couple questions about FAA Regulations.
1) I’ve often wondered why FA’s are free to walk around the cabin (to check seatbelts, pass out menus, etc) on taxi out but have to remain seated until the plane reaches the gate upon arrival. Same airplane traveling on the same taxiways but different rules. Note: I fly AA – perhaps this is not the case on other carriers.
2) Are the rules regarding no electronic devices upon takeoff and landing really necessary? Are the regulations based on science? Could an iPod or Laptop really bring down a 777?
Buster.

Let’s take these in order.

1. The official ruling is in Federal Aviation Regulations Section 121.391 (d):
   
   During takeoff and landing, flight attendants required by this section shall be located as near as practicable to required floor level exists and shall be uniformly distributed throughout the airplane in order to provide the most effective egress of passengers in event of an emergency evacuation. During taxi, flight attendants required by this section must remain at their duty stations with safety belts and shoulder harnesses fastened except to perform duties related to the safety of the airplane and its occupants.
   So it’s because they get to perform safety-related duties such as checking safety belts upon departure. If they’re handing out menus, well, that’s probably not allowed. I’m sure that if it’s in conjunction with the seatbelt check it’s not a big deal.




2. I have heard a couple different reasons for this, but maybe others can chime in:
   • Some devices could be problematic while others may not be, but it’s easier to just ban them all to avoid any confusion or issues.
   • I’ve also heard that it’s a safety concern in a different way. During the most critical phases of flight (takeoff and landing), it is important that passengers be able to pay attention to their surroundings and clearly understand crew instructions. If you’re listening to your iPod or playing a video game, that might make evacuation more difficult if necessary.

I’ve got a backlog of Ask Cranky questions here, but there’s been so much news lately I just haven’t had time to post these things. Today appears to be quiet, and I have four Cranky Concierge clients traveling, so I thought it would be a perfect day to clear some of this out. A reader contacted me with a very interesting predicament, and I thought it would be worth throwing out to you all to get your thoughts.

On 8/5/09 I booked a flight from Palm Springs to Orlando. The return was United flight 8717 leaving at 6:27pm from Orlando to Denver for a connecting flight. Two days before departure, I rebooked the trip on flight 710 leaving at 3:38pm and connecting in Denver at 6:50pm. I paid the $150 change fee.

The day of the flight, flight 710 was delayed due to “Aircraft Servicing” and did not leave Orlando until 6:15pm, close to the original time. Because of the delay, I did not make the early connection in Denver, which was the reason for the fee change and I was rescheduled on my original Denver to Palm Springs flight.

I have called United Refunds, Customer Service, and emails but to no avail. My next step is to put the charge into dispute. Any suggestions?

The good news is that before I even had a chance to reach out to United, he received a very nice note from the airline apologizing for the experience. The customer service rep included a $150 voucher. He was happy, so kudos to United are certainly due. But this doesn’t necessarily answer the question about how this should be dealt with going forward.

It seems like an easy argument, right? If you bought a ticket, changed it, and then ended up on the same flight you originally had, then you shouldn’t have to pay for it. To me, it seems rather obvious, but what if you ended up on a flight that was 2 hours later than your original? Should you get a partial rebate? This could get ugly really quickly, and that would be unmanageable.

I think this is the kind of thing that needs to be handled on a case by case basis, but if you pay for a change and end up back on your original flight, a refund should be a pretty easy case to make. Anyone disagree?