Browsing Posts in Ask Cranky

We have a two part Ask Cranky today. To be honest, I wasn’t going to address this on the blog, but I was surprised at the number of people asking similar questions. So it seemed like something that you all wanted to talk about. This question comes from someone who lives in Rhode Island and has a real interest in new service in Hartford, Providence, and the latest addition to the network, Worcester. Let’s get started with the first question.

First, when JetBlue has been opening cities such as Providence, Hartford, and Worcester they have only been running flights into Ft Lauderdale, and Orlando. Do you think Ask Crankythis seems like a sustainable strategy? It seems to me that while Florida will definitely be successful for origin & destination passengers, it seems that it doesn’t offer many opportunities for connectivity, either to the Caribbean or transcon. I know JFK is off the table due to slot-constraints, is there another city you could foresee JetBlue using to try open up some connections within its network. I know Rhode Island for Providence, and Massport have worked hard to get JetBlue’s service, it’s a shame the service can’t be more useful.

Yes, I definitely think it’s a sustainable strategy. Look at a place like Hartford. There are a ton of people who want to go from there to Florida, but the only other airline that flies nonstop is Southwest. It’s a big market, and there’s room for a little competition. In this case, the ability to fly nonstop is important and since the flight is relatively short, there’s less tolerance for a connection. So JetBlue should do well.

JetBlue has decided to focus its network around Boston, New York, Florida, and the Caribbean. The flights down to Florida make a lot of sense from that perspective, but they also do provide connections into the Caribbean via Ft Lauderdale and Orlando. (And JetBlue does fly nonstop from Hartford to San Juan too.) What it doesn’t do is open up connections to other Continental US destinations. It would be too much of a backtrack to go via Florida while JFK and Boston are both too close to these cities to support service. JetBlue isn’t looking for a new focus city, so that means the airline has two options. It either doesn’t serve these markets or it serves Florida.

The flights can work, because Florida has a bunch of demand from the northeast. And those Caribbean connections don’t hurt.

Second, do you see JetBlue’s decision to serve Worcester as a legitimate business decision, or something which is being only done to appease Massport (the operator of Boston and Worcester)?

Sincerely,
Daniel

Remember what I just said above? Ok, so whether that applies to Worcester is very questionable. Providence and Hartford have good-sized metro areas with demand to Florida. Worcester is a decent-sized city but it doesn’t have a big metro area with people who prefer it as a primary airport.

Worcester is just 50 miles from Boston Logan, 50 miles from Providence, and 70 miles from Hartford’s airport. It’s convenient for some, but most people in that area have other airports they choose first.

Does this mean it’s destined for failure? Well, Direct Air couldn’t make it work, and they tried a lot of these kinds of markets. Allegiant pulled out as well, but that was a few years ago. Things are a little different with JetBlue. After all, JetBlue is the biggest airline in Boston, so it has some real loyalty building in the region. But is that going to be enough to make it work? Hmm, that’s a tough one.

Maybe something else is afoot. It is definitely true, as Daniel notes, that Massport operates both Boston and Worcester. And Massport has been trying to lure service to Worcester. So did JetBlue do this just to appease Massport? I have no clue, but if that is the case, it’s not a bad plan. Boston is hugely important to JetBlue, and if a couple of flights to Worcester makes the relationship better with Massport, then everybody is happy.

I’ll be interested to see how long it lasts.

I’m guessing you’ve read a lot about Hurricane Sandy this morning, so I won’t bore you with the same. (Summary: lots of cancellations, be patient.) Instead, I thought I’d talk about a short and simple note that came in recently from a reader. I decided to write an Ask Cranky post to explain myself more thoroughly.

Why are you so negatively biased against American Airlines?
Renato R.

Any time I have a string of negative posts about any one airline, this question comes up in various forms. Usually it’s an angry note that doesn’t expect a response, but that wasn’t the case here. It was a legitimate question and I’m happy to provide a legitimate answer.

The truth is that I have no negative bias against American Airlines. I do, however, have a strong negative opinion of the airline’s current management Ask Crankyteam.

American as a Shining Star
Throughout my formative years, American was THE airline to admire. While many old line carriers like Pan Am and Eastern floundered and died throughout the 1980s, American was a shining beacon of awesomeness. It had previously effectively invented the computerized reservation system. It was the first to really make a frequent flier program relevant. It perfected the hub and spoke system. And it successfully developed modern revenue management. For a kid who loved the airline business in the 1980s, American was a marvel.

Many people know CEO Bob Crandall’s name, and he deserves tremendous credit for being willing to innovate, even when things failed. Anyone remember the ill-fated value pricing blunder? How about hubs in Nashville, San Jose, and Raleigh/Durham? Oh, and buying AirCal? None of these worked out, but Crandall and his team were willing to take chances and then backtrack if they failed. What mattered was not that individual efforts failed because that happens to any innovative company, but rather that the airline’s trajectory continued upward.

And continue upward it did, but not just because of Crandall. As with any good company, it’s a team effort. Perhaps one of the airline’s most important member of the executive team was Bob Baker, the airline’s operations guru. Not only was Bob responsible for turning American into an operational king, but he was well-respected throughout the company and the industry. Had Bob been given the keys to American after Crandall retired, I can only wonder what the airline would look like today. (Sadly, Bob passed away in 2003.) But through these execs, American built the most-respected managers in the airline industry. They seemed unstoppable.

The Downfall Begins
American sat in a lofty position in this industry, but that position was squandered by management over the last 15 years. Even before Don Carty took over in 1998, things had already started to head downhill. There were still some bursts of creativity in the early days of that era, but they were largely failures that were not countered by success.

The decision to introduce More Room Throughout Coach in February 2000, for example, was innovative, but it was a flawed plan. United was lucky to stumble on Economy Plus. (It didn’t actually come up with a plan to monetize it for several years.) But the idea that American could get people to pay more across the board for coach was a real, fundamental misunderstanding of consumer behavior.

The acquisition of TWA in early 2001 was the next major misstep. TWA was in terrible financial shape and the economy had begun to tank as the .com bubble burst. The terrorist acts on September 11, 2001 just made things worse than they already were, but even without that, this wouldn’t have been a good idea.

During those dark times, management was very proud to be able to avoid bankruptcy, but it turned out that was probably the worst thing that could happen. While virtually every other legacy airline in the US was allowed to slash and burn legacy costs, including labor rates, American refused. It was a noble gesture but it simply delayed the inevitable. Ultimately, this is a crime of US bankruptcy law, but once everyone else was able to do it, American had to do it eventually as well.

Costs as a Scapegoat
The biggest problem is that this bankruptcy avoidance gave American management a bunch of excuses to use in order to avoid actually putting together a good strategy to run the airline. Sure, things looked up when a decade ago labor agreed to big givebacks to make the airline more competitive. But management blew that up when it put together large variable compensation packages for itself that meant big money while the front line gave back. That set the stage for labor unrest for a decade to come.

Was American at a disadvantage in crafting a new successful strategy? Oh sure. It couldn’t outsource as many aircraft to regional carriers as its competitors could. It had a big pension liability to fund. It simply didn’t have the flexible work rules that it would have liked. But instead of trying to make lemons out of lemonade, American kept saying the problem was one of costs and it didn’t have a strategy problem.

The Cornerstone Plan Hasn’t Worked
Unfortunately, that wasn’t true. It created a cornerstone strategy plan with emphasis on New York, LA, Miami, Chicago, and Dallas. But that has not done well.

Delta made a huge move on New York and, through some serious creativity via the US Airways slot swap, has pushed American down to a distant number three in the area behind it and United.

In Chicago, American should have been riding high off United’s disastrous operation in the summer of 2000 and its extended bankruptcy in the middle of the decade. While it made some early gains, it was never able to turn the corner. Today American faces a greater revenue share gap versus United than it did in 2000 despite all of United’s woes in the last decade.

In Los Angeles, American has tried many different things but nothing has really helped improve the airline’s position there. Too much time and effort has been wasted trying to claw forward. United continues to have the highest revenue share in the market and American has not closed the gap one bit since 2000. But instead of being a clear number two as it was, Delta’s combined position with Northwest puts it in line with a rapidly-growing Southwest just behind American. American is now just one of many competitors in the market.

Miami has clearly been the best success story. It’s certainly been helped by the booming Latin economy over the last few years. But American was not able to prevent Miami Airport from spending a silly amount of money on construction projects, making costs as high as you’ll find anywhere. I hate to think what will happen when the Latin economy finally cools off. It has to happen some day.

And in Dallas, American relied on pouring money and effort into crushing competition with the long-winded fight over the repeal of the Wright Amendment that would allow Southwest to fly beyond neighboring states from Love Field. That is money that should have been spent actually trying to compete. Dallas is now being invaded by Spirit because of the opportunity that airline saw. And Southwest will have a much bigger footprint when the final restrictions are lifted in 2014.

Failure to Invest in the Product
While American whittled away its time fighting outdated legislation in Dallas, it failed to actually improve its offering to customers around the world. Though American had been one of the few to install power outlets early on, it never kept things updated. The decision was made to keep flying MD-80s, but they were still flying around with old cigarette lighter-style emPower outlets and tired interiors. The 757s showed their age and needed attention on the inside. Only the newly-delivered 737s really showcase what a nicer experience flying can be.

Internationally, things are far worse. Around the same time United announced it was installing flat beds in business class, American opted for the already obsolete angled beds that were universally panned. Today, there still isn’t a single flat bed in business class on an American aircraft while Delta and United rapidly move toward having it on their full international fleets. And in coach, the tired 767s that do the bulk of mid- to long-haul flying still have drop down screens from a bygone era with no plans to remedy the situation until those aircraft are retired many years down the line.

Not All is Bad
I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge some of the successes. American’s AAdvantage program is still easily one of the best in the industry. That has been strengthened by recent leadership under Maya Leibman and now Suzanne Rubin. I also like what American’s Twitter team is doing, though that should be an internal function and not something that’s outsourced. [Update: Weber Shandwick, American's PR agency, has informed me that the Twitter team has now transitioned to an internal American team this year.]

But these are the result of good leadership in certain areas, not at the top of the food chain. That’s where the real problem lies.

Despite all these failings, American can still become a great airline. The pieces are there, but they are just not being used properly. The most important thing that can happen in this bankruptcy is that a new management team takes over and cleans house.

The Merger is the Answer
Do I think a merger is needed? I think it can only help. Combining with US Airways, the best merger option out there, will not only provide an excellent management team, but it will also give the airline added heft in the northeast and over to Europe. It will make the airline more competitive with United and Delta.

Is it the perfect merger? No. American and Northwest would have been the perfect merger, but American management refused to bid high enough to seal the deal back in 2000. That would have been a far better use of funds than acquiring TWA. But that ship has sailed, and so American has to plot its best available course today. That course should include combining with US Airways and letting that airline’s management team create what could be one of the strongest airlines in the world.

Am I biased against American Airlines? No, but I don’t believe in the current management team. I do, however, believe in the US Airways team. I grew up in this industry working under the leadership of Doug Parker and Scott Kirby during my America West days. I was proud to be a part of the effort to turn America West into a thriving low cost carrier, and I’ve watched closely from the outside as they have carefully put together an airline in US Airways that has done incredibly well for itself.

If they take over American, you won’t see American become US Airways as the fear-mongers like to suggest. This team is too smart for that. With the assets of American, they will build something much better. I can only imagine what they can do to make it a globally competitive airline. I would think American’s oneworld partners, including British Airways, are privately thinking the same thing. It should make American loyalists happy to just think about the possibilities.

Am I biased against American? No way. In fact, I’d love to be its biggest fan….

It’s been awhile since I’ve done an Ask Cranky post, so I figured we were long overdue. Here’s a question that I imagine a lot of people are curious about.

If you ever have the time, can you please write a blog about how airplanes get from factory to their new owners hub? I found via Google a blog that addresses things like 747 and A340 type planes getting delivered but what about somehting not as long range like a 737? If SAA wants a 737 how does it get from Seattle to Jo’burg?
John

Believe it or not, a 737 isn’t that big of a deal. The original version didn’t have much range, but today 737s can fly far. They can fly even further when they don’t have a full load of passengers, as is usually the case on delivery flights. I actually had an invite to go on a delivery flight for RwandAir last year and I was so sad that I couldn’t make it. Fortunately, David Parker Brown over at AirlineReporter.com took the trip and put together a 4m19s video on the adventure which involved stops in Iceland and Turkey:

In general, crossing the Atlantic isn’t a big deal for aircraft deliveries. There are airports that you can use to hopscotch across the north. St John’s in Canada (which actually has scheduled A319 service to London because it’s so far east) is only 1,600 miles from Keflavik in Iceland (and Greenland is there in an emergency). Goose Bay is 100 miles closer if they need the range. And Keflavik is only 840 miles from Glasgow. So even small Ask Crankyairplanes can generally make these hops on delivery flights.

The mighty Pacific, however, is a whole different story. There is a lot of unfriendly territory between Alaska and many Asian countries, so aircraft will sometimes just go the long way around through Europe in a delivery. But one of the more difficult places to deliver an aircraft to is actually . . . Hawai’i. Sounds strange, but there is absolutely nothing that could be remotely used for a landing (unless you’re Capt. Sully and First Officer Skiles) between the west coast of the mainland US and Hawai’i. San Francisco to Hilo is probably the shortest route and that’s over 2,300 miles. It’s no problem for a current generation 737, but what about those interisland aircraft that hop around all day?

When Hawaiian decided to replace its DC-9s with 717s, it had to figure out a way to get them to Hawai’i. The range on the 717 isn’t quite enough so they had to get creative. Here’s a photo of a couple of fuel tanks installed in the passenger cabin for the long flight over. That did the trick.

Long story short, there’s always a way to make it happen whether it means going the long way around to make a bunch of stops or installing extra fuel tanks to get some extra range. Hopefully I’ll be invited on another delivery flight one of these days so I can give you a view of this up close and personal.

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 theAsk Cranky 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 Ask Crankyhave 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.



About | Directory | Shop | Awards | In the News | Ethics | Cranky Concierge
Powered by WordPress | SRS Solutions | © 2006-2013 Brett Snyder All Rights Reserved | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy