Airlines watch 15% of last year’s revenue disappear

by Tom Johansmeyer on

U.S. airline passenger revenue fell in October, completing a full year of dismal monthly performances. From October 2008 to October 2008, passenger revenue dropped 15 percent, according to calculations by the Air Transport Association. The study was based on a sample group of more than 24 air carriers. Falling ticket prices are said to be the problem … which means we can trace it back to household finances, throwing the job market into the mix.

With unemployment now above 10 percent, consumers are being careful with their extra cash (if they have any), and dropping cash on plane tickets is pretty difficult. Hey, that’s why more people are driving this year than in the past.

In October, the number of people flying on U.S. airlines fell 3 percent, and the average price to fly one mile dropped 13.5 percent. Basically, the number of people flying hasn’t fallen much, but they’re demanding much better pricing for their business. Airlines have to take it on the chin in order to bring any revenue in the door at all.

New airport tug puts the pilot in charge, reduces emissions

by Scott Carmichael on

Our friends at Autoblog discovered a pretty neat airport tug under development by auto parts maker Ricardo. Airplane tugs are normally only used to push a plane back from its gate, or when they need to tow the plane from a hangar to the gate.

In this new tug design, the plane is clamped to the truck, and then puts the pilot in charge of driving it to the gate. In a normal taxi situation, planes keep their engines on until they reach their parking spot. Of course, anyone who has flown will know that the destination gate is almost always occupied, forcing the plane to sit and wait for up to an hour.

All this time, the engines are still running, spitting out tons of emissions. With this new design, as soon as the plane is clamped to the tug, the main engines can be turned off. The new TaxiBot could save millions of dollars in fuel costs, while reducing emissions.

(Via: Autoblog)

Only approved electronic devices allowed in the cockpit?

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Maybe the flight attendants should start talking to the cockpit, too. When a plane overshot Minneapolis last month because the crew was playing around with personal laptops, national attention turned to what actually goes on in the front of the plane. Congress is kicking around the idea of a new bill that would kick personal electronic devices from the cockpit.

Unsurprisingly, the pilots and airlines aren’t crazy about the idea. They say that the measure would impede progress by making innovation less accessible. Scott Schleiffer, a cargo pilot who’s also thrown some brain time at safety issues for the Air Line Pilots Association, told USA Today, “We would like to have access to tools, and as tools evolve, we would like to have better tools.”

FAA chief Randy Babbit agrees, saying, “We need to be very careful,” in regards to the prohibition of personal devices in the cockpit.

Airlines are starting to bring new technology into the cockpit, with laptops and other devices used to improved weather and safety information. The devices aren’t all that different from what distracted the Northwest pilots who missed Minneapolis. JetBlue has issued laptops to pilots, which are used to push through calculations during takeoff and landing. But, the airline doesn’t allow personal use of them.

So far, two bills have been introduced in the Senate. They would exempt devices used to operate the plane or help with safety issues, but pilots don’t believe that this is enough.

Neither side of the argument addresses the core problem: keeping pilots focused on the job. In theory, extraordinary measures shouldn’t be necessary. Professionals, by definition, should not need that kind of intense oversight. It’s already against the against the law for pilots not to pay attention to their responsibilities, and that’s probably enough regulation. Instead, the solution needs to come to the airlines — organizational measures are needed to ensure that professionals remain professional. Executed properly, the good ones shouldn’t even notice a different.

EasyJet apologizes for Holocaust fashion shoot

by Sean McLachlan on

EasyJet has apologized to everyone who will listen over a fashion shoot that appeared in its inflight magazine.

Did the models wear too little? Did they look like fourteen year-old cokeheads? No, none of the usual stuff; they happened to be posing at the Berlin Holocaust Memorial.

Yes, some fashion photographer decided the concrete blocks known as the “Field of Stelae”, properly called the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, would be a cool place for slinky women to show off designer duds. The editor of the magazine at INK Publishing thought it was a pretty neat idea too, and easyJet didn’t notice until too late.

Now they’ve yanked the issue from all their planes and are “reviewing their relationship” with the publisher.

This was probably an honest oversight by easyJet, who acted quickly and appropriately when the issue came to their notice, but what about the magazine’s editors? Or the photographer? Or the models? Didn’t anyone stop and say , “Hey, millions of Jews died in the concentration camps. Perhaps we should take these photos somewhere else?”

Nope, apparently not.