United plans for new image overhaul

by Katie Hammel on

After coming in last among large airlines in customer satisfaction surveys for two out of the last three years, United Airlines has been overhauling its operations in an effort to increase on-time performance and win back customers. Now the airline is working on the physical appearance of its planes and crew.

Every single one of the airplanes in United’s fleet will be getting a make-over. The grey with black and red stripes interiors (knows within the company as the “tequila sunrise” scheme) will be replaced with blue leather. The 1980’s-era overhead bins will be updated as well. The airline also announced that fashion designer Cynthia Rowley will be creating more stylish, updated crew uniforms.

With a reputation for poor customer service, delays, cancellations, broken guitars, safety violations, and lost luggage, can United really overhaul its image with a few aesthetic updates? Probably not, but airline officials hopes they can continue to address the issues that have led to its poor satisfaction survey rankings and eventually turn things around. Apparently, they just want the airline to look good while they do it.

United Airlines adds flights to Africa, the Middle East and Europe

by Katie Hammel on

Starting May 2, 2010, United Airlines fans can fly the carrier from the US to Africa for the first time in the company’s history. United will offer flights from DC to Accra, Ghana (and then on to Lagos, Nigeria). Beginning April 18, 2010, passengers flying from DC to Kuwait can also continue on to Bahrain.

Chicago to Brussels nonstop on March 28, 2010. The carrier also added several other new routes this year, including DC to Moscow, and DC to Geneva.

“Our first-ever non-stop service to Africa will offer customers convenient and comfortable travel opportunities to visit two of the fastest-growing cities in the continent,” United’s senior VP of planning said in a press release. “In addition, our new services to Bahrain and Brussels will open more international routes to our customers throughout Europe and the Middle East.”

Poll: Have you ever passed up the cheapest airfare to avoid a bad airline?

by Aaron Hotfelder on

People love to complain about the dismal state of air travel these days. Whether it’s the stomach-churning airline food (and there’s so little of it!), the complete lack of leg room, or the fact that your luggage was for some reason routed through Honolulu, we’ve come to expect some pretty poor service from quite a few airlines these days.

In any other industry, customers register their indignation by refusing to spend money at the offending establishment. Found a finger in your Caesar’s Salad? You’re probably never visiting that restaurant again. Tired of your cable cutting out in the middle of House? You just might cancel that company’s service and call up their competitor (who’ll probably even throw in a year of Starz at no extra charge!)

But with airlines, we’re like the pathetic girlfriend who’s been cheated on five times but still believes her boyfriend when he says, “Seriously, this time will be different! I’ve changed!” The worst airlines stay in business because by and large people are willing to put up with crummy service if it means they get a cheap flight.

I mean, imagine you’ve just done a search on Kayak for a flight from San Diego to Boston departing on November 4 and returning on the 15th. The lowest fare shows up as $228, but it’s with an airline that’s burned you in the past. (Let’s call them Cut-Rate Airlines.) This is an airline that’s arrived to its destination late almost half the time you’ve flown with them. They’ve lost your bags twice, and both times they shipped them to you two days later. Their food stinks and the flight attendants have never been especially pleasant either.

Fortunately, there’s an almost identical flight aboard Pleasant Air, a carrier you’ve flown with a dozen times without any problems. But that flight costs $288, sixty dollars more than the flight on Cut-Rate. So what do you do?

I’m interested in this question because as much as people love to complain about airlines, especially those incompetent bastards at [insert bad airline here], I usually find that people prefer the lowest airfare to paying more to fly with an airline with better service.

So, Gadling readers, am I wrong? Can airlines continue to treat their passengers like crap as long as they offer low fares? Make your voice heard in the poll below– or in the Comments.

United to receive heavy fine for towel stuffed in engine

by Katie Hammel on

US Airways and United Airlines both stand to receive multi-million dollar fines from the FAA for maintenance violations.

US Airways’ violations include failing to inspect cargo doors and landing gear on a few plans and for failing to perform routine checks on dozen of others. US Airways responded quickly to the news, saying that the violations stem from the integration of their maintenance systems back from October 2008 to January of 2009, and that they are working on addressing the issues. The airline could be fined up to $5.4 million. This is the isn’t the first time US Airways has been fined this year either. In January, they were fined for violating rules involving oversold flights.

United’s violation is perhaps more troubling. The airline faces a $3.8 million fine for a single incident. In April 2008, a Boeing 737 returned to Denver after its engine shut down with low oil pressure. When the engine was inspected, two shop towels were inside. The towels “had been used to cover openings in the oil sump area” instead of the regulation caps. The towels were believed to have been there since December 2007, when maintenance was performed on the engine. This sounds terrifying, but according to the Cranky Flier website, it isn’t quite as scary as it sounds. The caps are only used during maintenance and then removed.

But still, the FAA is taking the incident seriously. “As a result of United’s failure to follow its maintenance procedures. . .it flew the aircraft on more than 200 revenue flights when it was not in an airworthy condition,” the FAA said in a statement.

[via ABC News Denver]

Choosing the right company for your carbon offsets

by Katie Hammel on

According to Carbonfund, with the amount of flying I do annually, I “produce” about 21,000 pounds of CO2 per year. If I want to make up for the environmental damage I’ve done, I can pay $125 to offset my carbon contribution.

But what does that really mean? How can paying $125 make the air cleaner or the ozone layer stronger? Where does that $125 go? Am I just paying to make myself feel better?

Well, as I’m learning, it all depends on which company you choose. Some seem to be more transparent than others about where your money goes, and some seem to offer more assurance in the way of third-party auditing. Two that I have found that seem to be among the most reputable are Carbonfund.org and TerraPass. Both take the money you pay for your carbon offsets and invest it into projects that help reduce pollution, produce clean air and alternative sources of energy, and reduce the effects of carbon-producing technology.

Carbonfund, the company your money will go to if you choose to buy offsets for your next Virgin America flight, contributes to three major undertakings: renewable energy and methane projects, energy efficiency and carbon credits, and reforestation and avoided deforestation projects. According to their website, each project is audited and certified by a third party. The money they receive goes to projects that help offset the damage being done not just from planes, but from all the other carbon-producing technology we use on a daily basis – trains, buses, cars, and home appliances.

With Carbonfund, you can pay for all your environmental sins at once, or calculate more precisely based on a single flight. They also seem to offer very affordable options. If 20 or so flights per year and 12 months of living in a small apartment and riding the city buses and trains only costs me $125, I’m betting a single flight can’t be over $20.

Some of the projects to which Carbonfund contributes include those that: reduce the emissions produced by large transport trucks while they idle at rest stops, protect tropical rainforest land, restore hardwood forests, generate clean electricity from farm waste, and destroy methane produced by landfills.

TerraPass, the offset option offered by Expedia, funds some similar projects. Their big three are wind energy, farm power, and landfill gas capture. Like Carbonfund, their programs are audited and verified by a third party. When you register your flight, your life, your wedding (yes, weddings leave a very large carbon footprint) or your business, you’ll get a total price and also see where that money will be spent and how it will help offset the emissions you have produced. TerraPass seems to be a bit more expensive for me though. It cost more like $150 to combat my yearly output and a single flight (Chicago to CapeTown) was nearly $50. I did, however, really like that they had a comprehensive report published on their website, which listed how much carbon each project reduced over the course of a year.

I also appreciated that both websites make it a point to say that purchasing carbon offsets doesn’t give you a free pass to live a wasteful live. Both promote that, in addition to buying carbon offsets, you should also strive to reduce your carbon footprint by using less electricity, taking public transportation, flying direct when possible, and using alternative sources of energy when you can.

Whether you go with one of these two companies or another, be sure that it is independently audited and verified and that it offers information on where and how your money will be spent. While you can’t chose a specific project, you can often choose what type of project your money funds. Choosing a company that is audited by a third party helps you be sure that your money is going where you think it is, and ensures that companies aren’t selling the same offset credits more than once.

In an age where we seem to be nickle-and-dimed to death by the airlines, it’s difficult to think of voluntarily coughing up another $10-$50 per flight. But this money isn’t going to the airlines. It’s not lining the pockets of some corporate honchos. When invested correctly, it seems it really can make a difference in the fight against climate change.