Lies, damned lies, and airfare statistics

Recently, I was asked by a news service if Airfarewatchdog would be interested in providing airfare statistics on various routes to compare average airfares from month to month and year to year.

I don’t think this was the answer they were hoping for, but this is what I told them:

It’s really, really hard to get accurate, meaningful airfare statistics. In fact, it’s pretty much impossible. There are so many different types of fares sold, such as consolidator (bucket), corporate, and negotiated fares, in addition to published airfares. And airlines do not divulge, for competitive reasons, how many seats they actually sell at what fares on what routes. The airlines’ published fares are public record, and they do report overall revenue figures for the airline as whole, but ticketed fares route by route, or airport by airport? My friends who are airline insiders tell me it’d never happen.

As Singapore Airlines spokesperson James Boyd explains, “When an airline launches a sale, it’s an attempt to grab market share. An airline would never publicize how many seats were sold at what price on what routes, because it would give competitors too much information.”

The best one can do is to compile sales data from large ticket sellers, such as Expedia, Travelocity and Orbitz, route by route, and figure out what consumers actually paid for their tickets over various time periods. Still, this data will not include all fares sold to the public (in addition to the fare types mentioned above, airlines are increasingly selling special promo code fares on their own web sites in order to drive web traffic and undercut the third party online agencies). And none of the online travel agencies sell Southwest Airlines’ or Allegiant Airlines’ fares, so that’s another missing piece of the puzzle.Most importantly, beware of anyone offering fare statistics if they do not sell seats. There is a huge difference between published fares and ticketed fares.

“Sold versus published does provide a better window into the real world,” confirms airline industry consultant Bob Harrell of New York City-based Harrell Associates. “It’s just harder to get [the] data.”

For example, in January American published fares from Delta’s US hubs to Lima, Peru for $330 return, including all taxes. These routes are normally twice that or even higher. A source that merely tracks the ups and downs in published airfares might report that fares on that route came down over 50% in January 2009. But is that accurate? How many seats were sold at $330 during this unadvertised sale? How many at $500? How many at $600? How many were sold through consolidators on that route in January? Just because the published fare went down to $330 for a brief period, doesn’t mean that the average fare on that route paid by consumers was $330. There’s simply no way of really telling, unless you can aggregate data from each airline serving the route, and the airlines are not going to share this information, because it will give competitors too much information.

As a journalist, it makes me cringe when I see a news report stating that “Airfares went down 15% year over year,” without revealing the methodology for determining that statistic and all sources providing data. Was that published fares or ticketed fares? If ticketed, what was the source? If published, how was the statistic calculated? And did this include taxes and all ancillary fees paid by passengers on that route, from that airport, or during that time frame? Unless a source or journalist shares all this background information, airfare statistics are, if not exactly lies, meaningless and misleading.

George Hobica is the founder of Airfarewatchdog™, the most inclusive source of airfare deals that have been researched and verified by experts. Airfarewatchdog compares fares from all airlines and includes the increasing number of airline-site-only and promo code fares.

Former airline employee allegedly robs bank — dressed in his airline uniform

Why is it that we never hear stories of smart bank robbers? For some reason, when someone decides to rob a bank, it is usually someone as dumb as a bag of rocks. Take for example 24 year old Deoquisto Dennis.

According to the FBI, this Chicago resident walked into a TCF bank branch on South Cicero Avenue in Burbank, handed the teller a note demanding cash, and threatened to harm if his demands were not met.

Now, most bank robbers use face masks, and dark clothes — they understand that leaving any clues about their identity may screw up their plans of instant wealth. Sadly, Mr. Dennis could not find a suitable bank robbers outfit, so he allegedly put on the uniform he used to wear when he worked for Southwest Airlines.

Imagine a bank robber walking in with a Southwest Airlines sweatshirt and a fluorescent ramp workers vest — can you think of a more useless outfit? Of course, with the whole thing caught on tape, all the cops had to do was take the footage to Midway airport, interview a couple of employees and within hours they had a name.

Dennis has now been charged, and was released under bond with a home confinement, awaiting his next court date. In addition to his TCF Bank heist, he is also a suspect in four other Chicago area bank robberies around the same time.

A description of one of his robberies, along with more photos can be found on the Chicago Bandit tracker site. His “wardrobe mistake” may now end up costing him 20 years of his life.%Gallery-76818%

%Gallery-68288%

The next step in in-flight Wi-Fi — video on demand in the skies

When I was at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, I had the chance to sit down with one of the executives from Aircell, the company behind the Gogo Inflight Internet service (amongst other things).

Aircell was not at CES to demonstrate anything new, and they had not rented a booth, but they were still interested in letting Gadling in on a couple of new developments. The developments all revolve around video in the skies. I had already heard that “video would be important” when I visited their headquarters last year, but things are really getting serious now.

Here is what their development means for us travelers:

On board the plane, you’ll be able to open up your laptop, connect to Wi-Fi, and purchase/rent a movie or TV show. I was given a glimpse of the interface, and while I can’t share exactly what it looks like, think Hulu meets iTunes. Exact pricing has not been set just yet.

The assortment will vary from blockbuster movies, to TV shows, along with some oldies. Like many video services, movies are rented for 30 days, and once you press “play”, you have 24 hours to finish watching the show (and yes – you can order the movie on the plane, then watch it at your destination on the ground). The programming will be stored on a server on the plane – and according to Aircell, deployment of their video solution involves little more than some minor modifications to existing equipment.

Of course, since the inflight video market is currently non-existent, rolling out this service will be done slowly – mainly to see how the technology holds up, and to determine how users feel about renting a movie on a plane. Personally, I can see this being a fantastic way to kill some time. With so many airlines simply removing inflight entertainment, you are on your own to stay entertained. It isn’t too hard to gather up some content when on the ground, but if the price is the same, I’d have no problem ordering a movie on a plane. As more computers finally come with batteries that last beyond 2 hours, you’ll no longer have to count on the airline to provide something to watch.

Expect the Gogo inflight video system to appear later this year. The airline and exact date have not yet been announced.

Up next in airplane design: Donut planes?

Should the airline industry begin designing donut shaped airplanes? It’s a suggestion posed by the folks over at Lonely Planet, who after running an informal survey discovered that over 60% of respondents preferred sitting in the aisle over the window on an airplane.

Problem is, few seats on an aircraft are actually adjacent to a window. And that’s where the crafty design comes in.

In jest, LP put together a few different concepts to engineer more window-room into an aircraft. Their most adventurous? The donut shaped airplane, where a hole in the middle of the body allows passengers on the inside of the cabin to look down (and across) out into the blue sky.

Another option proposed was the glass bottomed aircraft, so that all passengers can see directly below them at all times. Yikes.

Admittedly LPs sampling for their study is probably a bit skewed — anyone reading their guides or site is probably already more adventurous than three quarters of the world (and thus might have a higher probability to stare out the window) but the survey is an interesting study in “what if.” For now, passengers will have to settle with watching the nose and belly cam of their aircraft on the right In Flight Entertainment.

You can check out the designs crafted by LP over at their travel blog.

Air Canada ordered to offer a no-nuts option for allergic flyers

The Canadian Transportation Authority has ruled that Air Canada needs to create a “nut-free” zone on all of its flights, to accommodate those passengers who are severely allergic to nuts. The order came after two passengers complained that the airline had failed to properly accommodate their allergies, which the CTA ruled should be treated as a disability.

According to Toronto’s National Post, the airline has “30 days to come up with a plan to create a ‘buffer zone'” to separate those who have nut allergies from the rest of the passengers, who may receive a snack with nuts in it.

I feel for people who have severe nut allergies, really I do. The constant worry that something you eat may contain nuts, the fear that someone may eat a nut near you and cause you to have a bad reaction, the pain of not being able to enjoy all the delicious nuts out there in the world. I mean, have you ever had a macadamia nut? Those things are pure heaven.

Should passengers be denied the right to eat something delicious because there is a chance that another person on the plane might be allergic to it? It’s tempting to say no, but really, when you think about it, is offering a peanut-based snack so important that it is worth risking someone’s life? Some allergies really are that severe and there are plenty of other snack options out there that don’t involve nuts. I actually have to side with one of the complaining passengers on this one – it just makes more sense to get ride of nut-based snacks altogether.

[via USA Today]