List of things an airline can get rid of

by Jamie Rhein on

Christopher Elliot of The Travel Critic recently wrote a tongue in cheek and halfway serious post about other ways airlines might save money.

The tenor of the piece, I think, reflects the sad state several airlines have stooped to in their penny pinching ways. Consider the latest Continental Airlines’ venture that Jeffery posted about this past week. Personally, I think reducing the size of carry-on luggage is a crappy idea.

But, I’m one of those people who eyed with interest the cargo pants that Benny Lewis wore in his video on how to pack for a 5-day trip with only a carry-on bag. No, I’m not one of those people who take up more room than my fair share. Plus, I’m not that big, so why not let me have those 6-inches of carry-on space that Continental wants to take away?

But, back to Elliot’s ideas. Here’s what he suggests might be dumped.

  • The bathroom that doesn’t work. As he’s noticed, several planes that he has been on have at least one broken toilet. Get rid of that bathroom. Weight saved.
  • Duty free carts. Who needs to buy that stuff on board a flight anyway? But, as Elliot points out, the carts do make the airlines money.
  • Federal air marshals since they are not particularly cost effective at saving lives –and they fly for free
  • In-flight magazines. (No, no, no Elliot. I NEED in-flight magazines. I read them from cover to cover.)
  • A flight attendant. (Sorry, Heather)
  • A pilot. (Sorry, Ken)
  • XL passengers. Elliot is one of those. He points out that he’s tall and lanky so he poses a bit of a problem when it comes to getting him to fit in the space that he is allotted.

Elliot is not totally serious about this list, but he does have a point about how annoyed a person can feel when, yet again, there’s another change that may or may not make that much of a difference to airline economics. If people are disgruntled and unhappy consumers, that creates a problem, and he sees how flying is on its way to becoming a prison sentence.

For Elliot’s reasons about why a pilot and a flight attendant could be dumped, check out his post.

If you look at René Ehrhardt photo, surely you can find something else to add to Elliot’s list.

Here are some things the airlines probably WISH they’d gotten rid of!


Bunkers – now also a safe haven for Continental airlines

by Scott Carmichael on

What do you do if you own an airline, and watch the devastation from hurricane Katrina on TV? You go searching for your very own bunker where you can safely house your important computer systems and 200 staff members in the event your city gets hit next.

The bunker is located in Montgomery, Texas, and was built by a wealthy Taiwanese businessman with a fear that the Russians or Soviets would attack the US with nuclear missiles. Ling-Cheih Kung made his money in the 70’s with the now defunct Westland Oil company. When oil companies went bust in the 1980’s, Mr Kung lost the title to his property (and bunker) and it sat unoccupied for almost 20 years.

The building itself is 50 feet below ground, and the area occupied by Continental is over 2000 square feet. If the Houston metro area is going to be hit by a category 3 hurricane, they move their IT operations to the bunker facility.

The bunker and surrounding buildings are owned by the Westlin corporation, who spent a small fortune renovating the facilities, and bringing Internet connectivity to companies renting space underground.

Continental Airlines moved into their spot in 2006, after just several months of construction. Some of the more notable parts of the building are jail cells, a decontamination shower (for washing off the radiation), and 2 pagoda shaped entry buildings, complete with gun turrets.

Moving into this facility shows some pretty clever thinking by Continental, and just 2 years after they moved in, Hurricane Ike hit the Texas coast. Thanks to this facility, Continental staff hope to get their operations back on schedule as early as Sunday morning.

Flight attendants to become the porn police

by Jamie Rhein on

Back in December, when Aaron posted about the etiquette questions raised by In-flight Internet, he wrote the prevailing thought was that “decency, good sense and normal behavior” would prevail.

According to this article at FoxNews.com, just in case decency, good sense and normal behavior go out the window, flight attendants will become the porn police.

I imagine that while the flight attendant is taking your money for your snack and beverage that used to be complimentary, but isn’t anymore, he or she can give a peek at your screen to see what you’re surfing and shut you down if you forget you’re not in the comfort of your own home or tucked back in your office cubicle.

If your neighbor is getting grossed out or upset by your viewing, the flight attendant will appear to put an end to the shenanigans.

Some airlines, the article reports, will put a block on sites which should give the attendants a break so they can do other important tasks like make sure they give back correct change when you purchase water so you won’t die of thirst before the flight ends.

Airlines that either do or will filter sites when Internet is made available: JetBlue Airways, Continental and Qantas.

Airlines that will or already do let you surf without a filter, and hope that you use common sense when you do so: Northwest, American, Delta, Alaskan Airlines and Virgin.

Here are concerns being raised: What is pornography or not appropriate content and under what circumstances? Different people have different lenses with which they view what is appropriate. Here are two examples given:

  • A child sitting next to a person watching an R-rated movie that is either sexually explicit or violent
  • A person surfing a Victoria Secret lingerie catalog could be disconcerting as well.

As the article also points out, the reason why these issues are felt so strongly when people fly is that they are confined and can not escape from what is distasteful. You can’t move seats and you can’t get off.

Although flight attendants are trained to deal with conflict, as you may have noticed if you read Gadling comments whenever a flight issue is posed, there are a lot of stresses from flying as it is. It seems to me that Internet may be great to have, but could be adding more trouble than it’s worth.

British, American and Iberia Airlines to sign cooperation agreement

by Grant Martin on

The UK’s British Airways, American Airlines and Spain’s Iberia this morning announced that they would soon be cooperating on flights between North America and Europe while they would also start to collaborate and expand on other routes together in the Oneworld Alliance.

Are the airlines merging? No. But aren’t they already all part of the Oneworld alliance? Yes, they are. What the airlines have agreed to is tighter collaboration among their operations. Ground operations, codeshares and mileage programs will be better integrated to ensure seamless operation among carriers (read: keep passengers hooked in the alliance), while costs and overlapping spending will be reduced.

It’s important to note that the airlines will continue to operate independently, similar to the Continental and United collaboration announced earlier this year. What’s not clear is whether they will be collaborating on pricing. As Virgin Atlantic, the main competition, sulks about the conglomerate having over 50% of the landing slots at Heathrow, many have noted the potential for monopolistic pricing among the new bedfellows.

So will prices actually go through the roof? Technically, less competition in the market suggests that prices may have the potential to rise — but there are still plenty of carriers and entry points into the EU. American, British and Iberia may soon have a good handhold on Heathrow (Sorry, Virgin), but Amsterdam, Gatwick and Frankfurt are still wide open, so with a little bit of creative routing you don’t have to call of your summer vacation.

Several Oneworld airlines are filing for antitrust immunity to get the ball rolling on the cooperation agreement — should this get approved, expect to see small changes in operations over the course of the year.

Flight attendant suing pastor Joel Osteen’s wife for pre-flight assault

by Aaron Hotfelder on

A civil trial pitting a Continental Airlines flight attendant against the wife of Joel Osteen, America’s most popular preacher, began Wednesday in Houston, Texas.

In the suit, the flight attendant, Sharon Brown, is accusing Victoria Osteen of shoving her against an airplane bathroom door and elbowing her in the left breast before a 2005 flight from Houston to Vail. The dispute was allegedly over a stain on Ms. Osteen’s first-class seat.

Although the FAA has already fined Ms. Osteen $3,000 for interfering with a crew member, Ron Hardin, Ms. Osteen’s lawyer, denies her client did anything wrong. “This is a very silly case,” he says.

If she wins the suit, Ms. Brown wants only an apology from Ms. Osteen . No, I’m kidding– she actually wants ten percent of her net worth too.

I’d take an elbow to the left breast for that.

More here.