Four reasons airlines blame passengers for their current woes

by Tom Johansmeyer on

It would be so much easier if we’d just pay more, right? That’s what the airlines seem to believe. It’s impossible for them to turn consistent profits because we just won’t accept higher prices. And, kicking the poor off the plane doesn’t seem to be an option.

I got up this morning and read George Hobica’s hilarious “interview” with Wilbur Flywright, CEO of BrokenWings Airways. In it, I was treated to one airline industry cliché after another. To see them all in one place, it was either eye-opening or strangely reminiscent of an ambitious gate agent’s Twitter account.

Here are the four reasons, according to “Flywright,” airlines blame us – the people who pay their bills – for their inability to run well, despite the fact that some (e.g., Southwest and JetBlue) have actually found a way to thrive.1. We won’t pay more: Of course, I don’t know any industry in which customers pay more than is necessary … at least, not purposefully. You may get suckered at the used car lot, but you don’t go to your local grocery store, demand to see the manager and explain to him, as though he ate too much paste in his youth, that eggs really should cost 34 percent more.

2. We have alternatives: When air travel is inconvenient or expensive, we can take any number of cheap bus services or even drive. Frankly, it takes a strange turn of events to get me on a plane to Boston or Washington, DC.

3. “We” deregulated the industry: It’s the law of the land, and in theory, passengers are voters (we’re indirectly responsible). So, we “imposed” a free market on the airline industry … the nerve of voters in a free society! It may have happened more than 30 years ago, but we still hear airline people gripe about it, even if they were of single-digit age when the transformation occurred.

Hint to airlines: Don’t blame passengers for deregulation – I was only a year old at the time. I assure you, I had nothing to do with it, likewise most of my friends. If we could have done something about it we would have. Also, don’t talk about it as something that killed (or at least maimed) your industry. It was 30 years ago, you need a new lamentation. How about poor customer service levels?

4. We made the airlines cut stuff: Since we won’t pay a “fair” fare, the airlines have had to make cuts. Routes, employee compensation, amenities (if you can call them that) … we now have to pay for what we want in the form of fees.

Taking fees and deregulation together, I just loved this:

So what did we do? We eliminated service. We cut salaries and benefits. No more little plastic wings for the kiddies; if you remember those, then you remember that the cheapest roundtrip coach fare from New York to Los Angeles in 1959 was $231, or about $1,800 in today’s dollars. And if you remember that, then could you please shut up about the fees?

And occasionally, there’s a good point:

Ah, the fees. Can we agree on just one thing? If your neighbor moves, you aren’t going to pay for it, right? No, of course not. Not unless you really wanted him gone. So why should you pay for the jet fuel consumed by some moron who’s flying a 100-pound steamer trunk across the country in our baggage compartment?

[photo by leafar. via Flickr]

Hidden airline fees under attack, industry pushing back

by Tom Johansmeyer on

It isn’t so much the airline fees that are being targeted these days: it’s the extent to which they are hidden. Three advocacy groups are pushing for airlines to do a better job of disclosing how they’ll nail passengers for extra cash. So, a battle of paper is emerging. On one side, advocates are pushing a petition to get airlines to open the kimono a bit more. And on the other, airlines are looking to protect the paper they’re stacking from ancillary fees.

The stakes are high: last year, the airline industry pulled in a whopping $8 billion for extra charges. They stand to do even more this year, thanks to a recovering travel market.

The American Society of Travel Agents, Business Travel Coalition and Consumer Travel Alliance are getting together to push for fee transparency and to “allow travel booking companies access to fee schedules, making comparisons easier among airlines by third parties.”
According to the Dallas Morning News:

Travelers “are tired of arriving at the airport and finding huge unexpected costs for travel services they thought were part of the ticket price,” said Kevin Mitchell of the Business Travel Coalition, which lobbies for corporate travelers. “It’s time for consumers, corporate travel managers and travel agents to stand up and say, ‘We’re not going to take it anymore!’ “

Meanwhile, the airline industry is marking its territory:

“We remain confident that the level of transparency that some opine doesn’t exist, in fact, does exist,” said Air Transport Association spokesman David Castelveter, who points out that coverage of airline fees has become ubiquitous and that even casual travelers are likely aware of fees. “I went to the websites of all our members, and there isn’t one of our carriers that didn’t have bag fees prominently displayed when you book.”

The goal is to drop the petitions to the Department of Transportation on September 23, 2010.

[photo by williamcho via Flickr]

Five business travel factors for Obama and the midterm elections

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Leisure travel is irrelevant during the election season, but the woes of business travelers seem to resonate. With the midterm contests two months away, all eyes are on the White House … and President Obama‘s success rate with road, rail and runway repair.

This is the one time business travelers make the presidential agenda, according to Portfolio.com: “Presidents (or people campaigning for any office) only talk about business-travel infrastructure during election season. Our issues almost never seem to rate presidential attention at any other time in the cycle.”

Well, let’s take a look at what Obama’s done for the white collar travel crowd. Here are five business traveler issues that could attract some attention in November:1. Secretary of Transportation appointed: With passengers’ rights considered and a solution implemented (and one that seems to be working), Ray LaHood seems to have been a savvy secretary. And, airlines have been slapped with some hefty fines, proving that they need to take responsibility for their actions.

2. Not so much at the TSA, though: While Portfolio.com gives Obama high marks on behalf of business travelers for LaHood, it’s a little tougher on his choice for top dog of the TSA. The president waited a year to tap someone for the job, suffered through Senate procedural tricks and eventually had to go with his third nominee.

3. Security is solid: The system is relatively safe, Portfolio.com opines, but expect some rancor over the body scans that are set to be implemented, as “the TSA is about to ratchet up the security kabuki at airport checkpoints.”

4. Travel consumer rights on the rise: It took 47 passengers getting stuck overnight on a Minnesota runway, but passengers finally got some rights. The airline industry warned of (self-servingly) of unintended consequences … which have yet to materialize. The Obama administration has airline fee structures on the agenda now.

5. Merger-mania managed: Despite the fact that the “balancing act is tricky,” the administration has done a decent job of facilitating healthy competition without impeding too much of the urge to merge.

[photo by jurvetson via Flickr]

Could airline baggage fees create another Steven Slater?

by Tom Johansmeyer on


We’re still in the early stages of figuring out just want made flight attendant Steven Slater jettison himself from a JetBlue plane via the emergency slide. There are conflicting accounts from the passengers on board, including those who allegedly pushed Slate over the edge, and then there’s Slater’s story about having been beaten by an unruly passenger’s bag. He raised the issue of how passenger carry-ons are getting out of control – and how they’re only making flight attendants‘ jobs harder.

At the same time, we’ve seen a rise in the number of airlines charging fees for checked luggage. Before this happened, passengers were motivated to bring their luggage on board by the lengthy waits at carousels upon arrival. Now that you’re increasingly likely to have to pay for that dubious privilege, it’s even harder not to carry more on board with you. So, the overhead bins are becoming tighter, and passengers, eager to take their seats upon boarding and get onto terra firma upon arrival, are tangling more and more.

Not everybody has rushed to shove what they would have checked into the overheads, of course. Airlines are reporting billions of dollars in aggregate from ancillary fees, including those for checked bags. That money has to be coming from somewhere, of course. Nonetheless, there’s now even more reason to try to get your bags into the cabin, even with JetBlue’s “first checked bag free” policy.
So, the airlines have realized a return on customer frustration (a financial ratio I wish really existed), making money on checked bags, and at the same time, the flight attendants are sustaining headaches from passengers who are trying to dodge the cost. It’s no fun for anybody, particularly the passengers, who are paying to be put into this situation.

The big question remains: are these policies the breeding ground for the next Steven Slater?

Doubtless, Slater has been off-kilter for a while, having indicated that he’s been thinking about doing something crazy (like this stunt) for most of his career, which is closing in on a quarter of a century. While there are plenty of disgruntled and annoyed flight attendants out there – as there are disgruntled and annoyed people in any profession – this is the first time one of them has a deployed a safety device that could double as a weapon. Most have found ways to cope with the irritations that come with the contemporary flying workplace, and it seems safe to assume that Slater probably hasn’t inspired further in-flight shenanigans.

The implications of having to pay to check your bags are probably being felt in the cabin, but they don’t seem likely to inspire further (alleged) criminal mischief and reckless endangerment. As long as the airlines keep making money of these policies, and it appears likely they will, expect them to stick around for a while. Let’s face it: airlines need the cash. Unless there’s a direct connection between making money and creating another Steven Slater, you’ll have to keep ponying up a few bucks to check extra luggage.

Southwest wins on bet against extra fees

by Tom Johansmeyer on

How did Southwest score its recent record revenue? Well, it could be because it isn’t jacking up fees for all the extras. The decision to do business the old fashion way seems to have been good for a quarterly profit of $112 million and may provide a good reason for other airlines to reconsider these unpopular measures.

In a roundup of coverage on the airline’s quarterly financial results, USA Today, found the answer in reports by Bloomberg and the Las Vegas Sun, attributing the results to “the company’s policy of not charging for bags and excellent customer service offered by employees.”

Rather than take the short returns on charging for blankets and checked luggage, Southwest is apparently making a longer-term bet on customer satisfaction, with a policy that’s more likely to appeal to the average passenger.

Is it sustainable? Well, that remains to be seen. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that Southwest has built its business on something of a contrarian strategy … and it’s been working.

[photo by Mr. T in DC via Flickr]