Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Cletis's Rules of Airport (and all other) Bathroom Etiquette for Men (Digestion Post # 3)
As the third installment of the Digestion Post series, I present Cletis's Rules of Airport (and all other) Men's Room Etiquette (CRAMRE). Please review them. And for the good of all mankind, teach them to your children, and to your children's children, so that sanitary urinary conditions shall prevail among the peoples of the earth.
Amen.
"DIVIDERLESS" URINAL ARRANGEMENT
1) Please remember that maintaining maximum horizontal urination separation is the primary concern in a dividerless urinal situation (i.e., no little partitions between urinals). Otherwise, issues like splashback, stagefright, and inadvertent penile viewing may arise. Please note that these same rules apply to troughs and other undivided urinary regions.
So:
Amen.
CRAMRE:
"DIVIDERLESS" URINAL ARRANGEMENT
1) Please remember that maintaining maximum horizontal urination separation is the primary concern in a dividerless urinal situation (i.e., no little partitions between urinals). Otherwise, issues like splashback, stagefright, and inadvertent penile viewing may arise. Please note that these same rules apply to troughs and other undivided urinary regions.
So:
- First guy in, select a urinal on the end. This way, the next guy can select the urinal on the opposite end and be as far away as possible.
- Third pisser in a dividerless urinal situation must select a urinal in the very middle of the urinal bank. Subsequent pissers in such situations are to apply the same principles to maintain maximum urinary separation.
B) NEVER engage your neighbor in conversation, unless you have at least three urinals between you and your fellow conversant. If you are drunk, the horizontal separation can be reduced to two.
C) Eyes forward or up at the ceiling. Why do some people look down? Resist temptation to thread your stream through one of those little holes in the urinal. Looking down is just weird.
D) Wear flip-flops at your own risk; studies done by the PUI (Public Urinal Institute) show that 8% of urine becomes airborne upon contact with the urinal. See the wee-wee pond beneath each urinal for evidence of this fact.
NORMAL URINAL SITUATION (W/ DIVIDERS):
A) If you see a friend in the bathroom, maintaining maximum horizontal urination separation is less important. In any case, maximum separation is always a nice thing.
B) Conversation with people you know is ok in this situation.
C) Ideally, one should look up or look straight ahead. But if you're one of those people who must monitor situations down below in the urinal, it's acceptable in this situation if you absolutely must do it.
DEFECATION:
A) Almost anything goes when one is forced to evacuate his bowels in a public toilet.
B) After you leave the stall, you must ensure that you leave no evidence that you'd been in the stall engaging in a heated game of Texas Don't Hold 'Em. In other words, don't poo on the seat or floor, flush, and keep flushing until all choo-choo tracks have been erased.
C) In small bathrooms (3 or less urinals or 2 or less stalls), a pooer in a non-emergency situation is required to wait until all is clear in the bathroom prior to emitting any substantial sounds. This rules is waived for Excretory Emergencies, obviously.
D) Non-pooers are not permitted to make eye contact with pooers either on their way in or out of the stall; permit them this moment of privacy.
E) No inter-stall communications are permissible while one engages in an evacuation unless arrangements have been made in advance by both parties (in writing, preferably, with the seal of a notary public).
GENERALLY APPLICABLE RULES:
A) Do NOT contribute to any pee-pee ponds underneath any urinal; it is every man's obligation to society to reduce and eliminate such puddles. Why should one be forced to track the pee of every inconsiderate ass in the world around on the bottom of his shoes?
B) Wash your hands afterwards, for the love of god.
C) Don't touch the door handle (if there is one) on the way out of the bathroom, ESPECIALLY if you've violated rule (A) above.
D) Peaking at another guy's contraption is NEVER permissible; if that's your cup-o-tea, so be it. Just save the peepshow for somewhere else.
A Protocol for High-Altitude Eating (Digestion Post # 2)
Last week's post about flying flatulence got me thinking about a few other important digestion-related issue pertinent to modern air travel. We'll designate this post as "Digestion Post # 2.
So with most airlines cutting out (free) meal service on domestic flights, what's the protocol for bringing food onto an airplane these days?
Since this past summer's airline bomb scare, thankfully, the TSA has issued regulations that pretty much prohibit passengers from bringing any outside grub through an airport's security checkpoint. While the critical reader will quickly see how this decision really benefits the airports (airports rely greatly on concession revenues, which have taken a hit quite badly since 9/11, so this decision also has the effect of requiring passengers who wish to take food onto planes to buy that food from only airport concessions), this also greatly limits passengers' choices for the kinds of foods they can schlep onto airplanes. This is a good thing.
With airplane seats stacked right on top of each other, one cannot avoid the smell or the sight of what someone else--the seat neighbor--eats onboard. Like most other people, I've encountered some pretty uncomfortable situations on airplanes with people bringing strong-smelling or unappealing foods onto airplanes. That just ain't cool, so henceforth, all air passengers are required to follow the Cletis Food Protocol (CFP).
The CFP:
- Henceforth, all ethnic foods are prohibited from being carried onboard. For instance, I happen to love eating bagels with lox for breakfast. But in fairness to my neighbors, who may view the eating of smoked salmon for breakfast as absolutely repulsive, I skip the (skeevy) bagel place in the airport, and get something else to eat. Similarly, if you were thinking about stopping at the Panda Express for some spicy prawns, for the love of god, don't do it. Same goes for Indian food (even though I love the smell), Cajun, chili, Wolfgang Puck Express entrees, Thai food, Ethiopian food, cauliflower (I hate the smell), and Kugel in any form.
- Food must be time appropriate. If I have to endure another inconsiderate person sitting near me chowing down on a chili dog at 9:30 a.m., I may just yank the life vest from underneath my seat, tie it tightly around my throat, and pull the red tabs. For this reason, from this day forward, if you're going to eat onboard before 11:30 a.m. (based on the time of your DEPARTURE city), it must be traditional breakfast cuisine. McMuffins. Donuts. Bagels (no lox). But don't even think about breaking out that Philly cheesesteak, Double Whopper with cheese, pork rinds, or california roll before 11:30 a.m.
- Nothing messy please. It's true that I'm more of a germ freak than your average person. But to protect folks like me (the minority) from the tyranny of you (the majority) on airplanes, my CFP is designed to placate even the greatest germaphobe. Accordingly, messy foods that could splatter, drip, spray, bubble, erupt, flake, splash or otherwise contaminate the autonomous region belonging to your neighbors are strictly prohibited.
- Securing drinks in turbulent air. If you have a drink on your tray table and the pilot announces turbulence strong enough for him/her to ask the (snippy) flight attendants to "please be seated," then it is your duty to both sip down your drink to at least the half-full level, AND hold the glass steady until the turbulence ends.
I suspect that I've missed some vital flying food issues in the CFP. Please feel free post comments providing your suggestions, and I'll gladly add them to the CFP.
Happy eating!
Friday, December 08, 2006
Big Order for Boeing: Lufthansa Becomes First Airline to Order New 747-8 Intercontinental
This past week German carrier Lufthansa became the first airline to order the passenger version of Boeing's latest, greatest incarnation of its 747, the 747-8 Intercontinental.
Although Boeing announced the 747-8 project in November 2005, until Lufthansa placed this order, no other carrier had opted for the passenger version of this plane, even though a handful of carriers have already placed orders for the freighter version.Lufthansa selected the Intercontinental, which will seat 467, to position it between the carrier's super-jumbo A380, which will typically seat 555 in a three-class configuration when it comes to Lufthansa in mid-2009, and the carrier's A340-600, which typically seats 380 in a three class configuration.
The 747 has been in service since 1969, and has been updated more than once. The Intercontinental is the first update of Boeing's incredibly successful jumbo since 1988, when the 747-400 went into service. Beyond stretching the fuselage by more than 18 feet, which adds 51 additional seats, what really makes this latest incarnation of the 747 unique are the highly-advanced General Electric engines that were developed as part of the 787 Dreamliner project. Because of these highly-efficient engines, the new Intercontinental will be 10% cheaper to operate (on a "seat-mile" basis, which is the standard unit of measure of variable operating costs in the industry) than the current 747-400. According to Boeing, the Intercontinental will also be cheaper to operate than the A380 (reducing the cost of each trip by 19% and a seat-mile cost savings of 3%. Quite a bold claim, to be frank.
Geek note: You may be wondering why Boeing, after developing the 747-100 (launched in 1968), 747-200 (1970), 747-300 (1982), and 747-400 (1988), has named the latest version of the jumbo the 747-8? There are two reasons: First, Boeing skipped a few numbers and called this version the '-8' because they wanted to signal to customers that this airplane shares many of the technological improvements developed for the 787 Dreamliner project.
The second reason is a little less obvious. For many Chinese people, the number '4' is considered an unlucky number, whereas the number '8' is a lucky number. China has become, and will continue to be, one of the largest markets for the purchase of commercial airliners. To satisfy this, in the last 5-10 years both Boeing and Airbus have tried to incorporate the number '8' into the numbering of their airplanes, while avoiding the number '4' (the first version of Airbus's A380 has been designated as the -800 version; Airbus's forthcoming A350 will be available in -800, -900R, and -1000 variants; and Boeing's 787 Dreamliner will be offered in -800, -900, and -300 versions).
Photos:
Boeing 747-200
Boeing 747-300
Boeing 747-400
Airbus A340-600
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Cletis's Deepest Apologies for Being Absent
My deepest apologies for leaving you high-and-dry without any useful advice and information regarding air travel for the last few weeks. Unfortunately, the Bush administration had me removed to Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant after they wrongly mixed me up with a man who attended a protest against a new law banning smoking outside of bars and restaurants in Santa Rosa, California.
Luckily the mistake was cleared up. After one last waterboarding session with the kind soldiers of Guantanamo, in which they forbade me from discussing what had happened there, I was given a genuine apology (they said, "sorry about that, buddy, here's your stuff, now get the fuck outta here.") and released.
Luckily the mistake was cleared up. After one last waterboarding session with the kind soldiers of Guantanamo, in which they forbade me from discussing what had happened there, I was given a genuine apology (they said, "sorry about that, buddy, here's your stuff, now get the fuck outta here.") and released.
In-Flight Flatulence (Digestion Post # 1)
This past Monday, American Airlines was forced to divert its flight 1053 bound for Dallas/Ft. Worth to Nashville because of an incident involving in-flight flatulence.
That's right--farting caused an airplane to have to divert.
Some passengers on flight 1053 smelled lit matches, became concerned, and reported the smell to flight attendants (lighting matches onboard an airplane is prohibited). The flight crew requested and made an emergency landing in Nashville. After the 99 passengers were removed from the airplane, bomb-sniffing dogs found evidence that somebody had been lighting matches inside the passenger cabin.
After lengthy questioning by the FBI, a woman passenger admitted to having lit the matches. She told the FBI that she had lit the matches to "conceal the odor" of her "troubled digestive system." The woman was released without charges, but forbidden to re-board her flight. American Airlines "has banned her for a long time," said a Nashville Airport Authority official.
Thankfully, this incident brings to the forefront an incredibly important issue relating to air travel: How does one politely and considerately conduct the Intestinal Symphony in Poo Minor while on an airplane?
I've checked with the guru of manners, Ms. Emily Post, to discover the appropriate etiquette under the circumstances. Quite surprisingly, Ms. Post has not addressed this issue before. I guess this leaves the resolution of travel tooting to me.
That's right--farting caused an airplane to have to divert.
Some passengers on flight 1053 smelled lit matches, became concerned, and reported the smell to flight attendants (lighting matches onboard an airplane is prohibited). The flight crew requested and made an emergency landing in Nashville. After the 99 passengers were removed from the airplane, bomb-sniffing dogs found evidence that somebody had been lighting matches inside the passenger cabin.
After lengthy questioning by the FBI, a woman passenger admitted to having lit the matches. She told the FBI that she had lit the matches to "conceal the odor" of her "troubled digestive system." The woman was released without charges, but forbidden to re-board her flight. American Airlines "has banned her for a long time," said a Nashville Airport Authority official.
Thankfully, this incident brings to the forefront an incredibly important issue relating to air travel: How does one politely and considerately conduct the Intestinal Symphony in Poo Minor while on an airplane?
I've checked with the guru of manners, Ms. Emily Post, to discover the appropriate etiquette under the circumstances. Quite surprisingly, Ms. Post has not addressed this issue before. I guess this leaves the resolution of travel tooting to me.
- First of all, during the 24-hour period before your flight, stay away from all foods that traditionally cause gas, like Mexican food, peppers, cheap beer, kugel in any form, Vietnamese food (no matter how tasty it may be) any sort of "mix" plates (e.g., including barbecue mix plates, Nick Tahoe garbage plates), and beans in any form.
- Ideally, an in-flight fart should be performed within the (sticky-floored) confines of the (wee-wee covered) airplane bathroom. This is one of the reasons that Cletis always recommends that travelers choose the aisle seat, to facilitate a quick and easy exit. Most airplanes adequately ventilate these bathrooms so that your flatulence is sucked up and stored in a special tank, later to be used as air freshener for city buses throughout the United States (but primarily in San Francisco).
- When you can't get near your designated toilet (due to beverage service carts or long lines for the bathroom), don't be bashful about heading to the first class bathroom to toot. If the snippy flight attendant in first class blocks your entry, step into the forward galley and let 'er rip. That'll teach 'em.
- Similarly, if you can't get into a toilet in time because of a queue outside, step right into the rear galley and move your methane there. At least the flight attendants are used to the stink and already despise passengers, so you've got nothing to lose.
- But when you've reached DefCon 1 and you know you're not going to make it to a toilet, your strategy wholly depends on the fabric of the airplane's seats. If the airplane has the (dirty, germ-ridden) fabric-covered seats, make sure you've got a good seal between your tush and the seat, and pound that sucker deep into the cushion (in the industry this is known as the "deep drive" technique). Trust me, it ain't gonna matter much, seeing as those cushions are made up of three parts flatulence and one part fabric, anyhow. Your only concern, however, should be if the cushion has reached its maximum fart capacity. If so, although the cushion will absorb your emission, it could dislodge a long-ago deposited stink from the days of yore. You'll release a horrific, well-aged stink that will eclipse the smell of whatever you drove into the cushion, and you'll get no credit from your neighbors for your efforts to follow appropriate etiquette.
- The worst possible scenario is when you've reached DefCon 1 on those airplanes with leather seats. The leather is not cut-cheese permeable, so the deep-drive technique will not work. In a pinch, I suggest that you get up, go BACK in the aisle, and let it go near some other folks. Make a quick return back to your seat, and so long as it's not a trailer, your neighbors will never know.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Oy Vey: Airbus Dealt Another Blow, Boeing Captures the Crumbs
Last week shipping giant FedEx Express CANCELED its firm order and options for twenty super-jumbo Airbus 380 freighters
. At list prices, this deal could have been worth $6 billion.
FedEx stated that its reason for canceling this large order was due to the substantial delays in the A380 project.
FedEx then turned around and placed a firm order with Boeing for 15 777 freighters and took options on 15 more. The firm orders are worth $3.48 billion to Boeing.
Cletis is very suspicious of FedEx's stated reason for canceling the Airbus order and then placing an order with Boeing. This is because the 777 freighter is NOT a comparable substitute for the A380F. The 777 freighter has a max payload of 229,000 lbs and a range of 4,885 nautical miles. In contrast, the A380F has a max payload of 335,000 lbs and a range of 5,600 nautical miles.
Replacing one freighter with another freighter that carries one-third less cargo, with a range that's about one-quarter less does not appear to be an equal substitution. In fact, FedEx could have replaced the A380 orders with more comparable substitutes. Boeing's 747-400ER Freighter--an existing airplane--has a max payload of 272,600 lbs and a range of 4,970 nautical miles. Or they could have ordered the forthcoming 747-800 Freighter, due to be released in 2008, which will have a max payload of 308,000 pounds and a range of 4,475 nautical miles. But FedEx didn't do so.
Cletis's Conspiracy Theory: FedEx may have used the Airbus delays as an excuse to configure their fleet differently than it had planned when it first ordered the A380. The 777 Freighter is clearly designed to serve a different freight mission than the A380F. The Bottom Line is that FedEx may have not been completely honest in its reasons for the large cancellation.
. At list prices, this deal could have been worth $6 billion.FedEx stated that its reason for canceling this large order was due to the substantial delays in the A380 project.
FedEx then turned around and placed a firm order with Boeing for 15 777 freighters and took options on 15 more. The firm orders are worth $3.48 billion to Boeing.Cletis is very suspicious of FedEx's stated reason for canceling the Airbus order and then placing an order with Boeing. This is because the 777 freighter is NOT a comparable substitute for the A380F. The 777 freighter has a max payload of 229,000 lbs and a range of 4,885 nautical miles. In contrast, the A380F has a max payload of 335,000 lbs and a range of 5,600 nautical miles.
Replacing one freighter with another freighter that carries one-third less cargo, with a range that's about one-quarter less does not appear to be an equal substitution. In fact, FedEx could have replaced the A380 orders with more comparable substitutes. Boeing's 747-400ER Freighter--an existing airplane--has a max payload of 272,600 lbs and a range of 4,970 nautical miles. Or they could have ordered the forthcoming 747-800 Freighter, due to be released in 2008, which will have a max payload of 308,000 pounds and a range of 4,475 nautical miles. But FedEx didn't do so.
Cletis's Conspiracy Theory: FedEx may have used the Airbus delays as an excuse to configure their fleet differently than it had planned when it first ordered the A380. The 777 Freighter is clearly designed to serve a different freight mission than the A380F. The Bottom Line is that FedEx may have not been completely honest in its reasons for the large cancellation.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
PROJECT METAMUCIL: Time to Get Rid of the Boarding Area CLOGGERS
They know who the hell they are.
And we know who they are.
Now the time has come to remove the scourge of CLOGGERS from the airline boarding process!
You know who I’m talking about—they’re the people who are so goddamn eager to get on the plane that, even though they’re in the last friggin boarding group (6.02 E23, or 3 E8, or whatever), they still feel compelled to clog up the area of the gate where the people who are supposed to be boarding are queuing up. These are the people who bought the $79 round-trip ticket, so they have the shittiest seats on the plane, but they still feel entitled to get on the airplane before all of the chumps in their boarding group in order to seize the last remaining overhead bin for their Buy-Five-Boxes-of-Pop-Tarts-and-Get-a-Free-Rolling-Suitcase suitcase.
To help you better understand this abomination, I’ve commissioned a highly-technical, to-scale diagram (see below). The people are all in red. But the CLOGGERS are shown in red, highlighted in yellow. Notice how the CLOGGERS effectively prevent the legitimate boarding passengers from flowing through.
What ends up happening with the CLOGGERS is that if you’re in boarding group two, and these cretins are all standing around the queuing area, you never quite know if they’re in the real line or if they’re just CLOGGERS. It makes the boarding process so much more frustrating and time consuming (“excuse me, are you in line?” “No.” “How ‘bout you, are you in line?” “Nah, just waiting.” Etc…). You get the picture.
So what’s Project Metamucil? The object of the Project is to loosen the flow of passengers onto flights by dislodging the frustrating CLOGGERS from the boarding line. To help things flow better in the boarding area, I propose that we revolt against these CLOGGERS by engaging in some civil disobedience.
To start with, try some misdirection. Look at them and say, “I think they called your name at the podium.” They will ask you, “how do you know?” Your response should be, “what’s your name? It looked like the gate agent pointed at you and must’ve called your name.” That should start off the fun.
Next, try some thinly-veiled sarcasm. Say to a CLOGGER, “are you in line?” When (s)he responds in the negative, say (with a smile), “oh, I should have known that you weren't in line by the way you were standing in the middle of the aisle, blocking everyone from getting by you.”
Physical attacks work too. “Accidentally” run your rolling suitcase over as many CLOGGER toes as possible on your way through the CLOGGER swarm.
Revenge is sweet. Once you’ve made it to the ticket-taker, tell the ticket-taker that the gentleman in the sleeveless NASCAR shirt (or whatever the worst-offending CLOGGER’s wearing) has a very strong and objectionable body odor. Even though they’ll eventually let Ernie Earnhardt on the flight, he’s gonna get some “special attention” from the snippy get agents and snippy ticket-takers first.
In short, we must do something to stop the CLOGGER epidemic. Project Metamucil is our only hope.
Please keep The Airline Bottom Line posted as to your successes and failures.
Good luck. And Dog Bless.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
How the Airlines Have Screwed-Up the Hub-and-Spoke System (GEEK POST)
[Disclaimer: On the Walkman Geek Scale, this post is definitely a 10]
In today's airline climate, the way that many of the the "Majors" (American, United, Delta, Northwest, Continental, and US Airways) employ the hub-and-spoke system is, quite frankly, retarded. It's why most of the Majors are in DEEP financial trouble right now.
How Hubs Work
By way of background, the hub system has been the centerpiece of the airline industry in this country for a long time now. The idea behind it is simple: At roughly the same time, many flights arrive at the hub airport from all over the place. The connecting passengers get off their flights, they disperse throughout the hub, and they get onto another flight, heading to their ultimate destination. All those departing flights then leave the hub at roughly the same time.
The benefit of the hub system is that it allows people to travel from virtually any city in the U.S. to any city in the U.S., with only one stop. If the airlines tried to connect every city to every other city directly, they'd be out of business. Consider the following example: How many people do you think would buy tickets for a non-stop flight from Burlington, Vermont to San Antonio, Texas every day? One? Perhaps two or three at the most? If you waited to sell enough tickets to fill a whole flight (even on one the smallest regional jets), you'd only be able to get from Burlington to San Antonio once a month. Not very convenient.
In contrast, if everybody who's flying out of Burlington (regardless of where they're going) takes one Delta flight to Delta's hub in Atlanta. In Atlanta, the two or three people who want to go to San Antonio board the flight to San Antonio. The five people who are going to Los Angeles get on the Los Angeles flight. And so on. In the end, it allows people to go from almost anywhere to almost anywhere.
What's Wrong with Hubs?
Airlines Needed to Create the Shortest Itineraries to be Competitive.
Historically, the centralized computer systems that listed virtually all airline flights (these are the systems used by travel agents and some of the online flight search engines), listed these connecting flights in order starting with the shortest total travel time. Assuming price is the same, people chose the first (and shortest) set of flights on the list. This created an incentive for the airlines to reduce the total travel times for as many of their itineraries as they could. They'd do this by scheduling as many inbound flights as they could to arrive at one time and they'd try to turn those planes back around to depart for their destinations as quickly as possible. Each one of these rushes is called a "departure bank" in industry parlance.
So far, this seems fine, right?
The Costs Associated with Turning so Many Flights at the Same Time are Immense.
Let's say I told you that you had to run a McDowell's restaurant for lunch one day. During the course of the three-hour lunch, you'll need to serve 50 meals (if hydrogenated imitation beef product and sawdust served on a bun-shaped slab of Styrofoam constitutes a "meal"). Let's also say that you know in advance that the 50 customers are going to trickle into the restaurant steadily throughout the three hour lunch.
Considering all these facts, how many McExploited-Employees would you need to employ to run the McDowell's for lunch that day? How many registers would need to be open? How much cooking equipment would you need? All in, how expensive would it be? The answer is simple: Because of the the stream of customers would be rather slow throughout the lunch, you'd need very few employees; you'd probably only need one register open; you'd need a bare minimum of cooking equipment; and in the end, the whole operation would be quite cheap.
Let's change the hypothetical a little bit. Instead of the 50 diners showing up in a steady stream during the three-hour lunch, let's consider what would happen if they all showed up within the same 15-minute period. To serve all these people without making them wait forever, how many employees would you need? How many registers would have to be open? How much cooking gear would you need? And compared to the steady stream of customers arriving, how does this compare in price? This answer is also pretty simple: You'd need scores of employees (perhaps chained to their workstations, per McDowell's company policy) to prepare all the meals within a couple of minutes; you'd need a dozen or more cash registers open; and you'd need a huge amount of cooking equipment to get the "food" prepared. In total, this scenario would be far, far more expensive for you to operate than the "slow trickle" scenario discussed above, even though the revenue you'd generate under both scenarios would be exactly the same. You'd make way more money with the "slow trickle" than with the "everybody comes at once" scenario.
As addressed above, the hub system is designed so that during each departure bank, all the planes land, unload, re-load, and depart at roughly the same exact time. Sound familiar? This is identical to the "everyone comes at once" scenario above. The airlines need more gates to fit all the planes. There needs to be a baggage crew to unload and load every plane, a cleaning crew for each plane, a refueling crew for each plane, gate agents at every gate, a catering crew (also called "provisioning") for every damn plane, a tug for each plane, and baggage equipment at every gate. All of this costs money--buckets and buckets of money. What's more, all of the expensive infrastructure and human labor sits largely idle (for as much as 30% of the day) in between the departure banks. As a result, the cost of maintaining a traditional hub with tight departure banks is incredibly costly.
In contrast, many Low Cost Carriers (called LCCs, including Southwest) have neither hubs nor departure banks. Rather, they stagger the arrivals and departures throughout the day (just like the "slow trickle" McDowell's example). For this reason, the LCCs need far fewer gates, tugs, crews, gate agents, refueling trucks, cleaning crews, and luggage crews and equipment to operate the same number of flights. Thus the LCCs save huge money by not having hubs or departure banks.
Some of the Majors have realized the sky-high costs associated with hubs and departure banks. In response, a handful of airlines have eliminated departure banks and scheduled flights to arrive and depart on an ongoing basis throughout the day (this process if called "de-peaking" a hub). American de-peaked its Dallas hub; United (somewhat) de-peaked its Chicago hub; Continental (somewhat) de-peaked its Houston hub, and Alaska de-peaked its Seattle hub.
Without departure banks, the cost benefit to the airlines is significant. But that cost is essentially shifted from the airline to its customers; this is because a passenger connecting at a de-peaked hub is more likely to arrive at the hub and have a much longer layover than the tight connections associated with traditional departure banks. Good for the airline, but bad for the connecting customer who's in a hurry to pick up his mail-order bride before she gets seized by customs.
Without hubs, there are far fewer cities that are connected to each other with only one stop. Anyone who's ever flown Southwest on connecting flights can attest to this. Leave Cleveland with a stop-over in Nashville. Wait two hours and change planes. Fly to Indianapolis for a stop that didn't show up on your itinerary and remain on the same plane. Arrive at New Orleans two hours later.
At best, non-hub airlines (in Southwest's case, it's what's called a "point-to-point" carrier) can connect people to some destinations after a bunch of stops. But at worst, a lot of smaller markets are simply not serviced by LCCs and other non-hub carriers because it's simply not economically feasible to connect them to other cities.
Conclusion
Hubs aren't necessarily a bad thing; if not for them, most smaller cities wouldn't have regular air service. But the way that many of the Majors have used the hub system, particularly when used with departure banks, is stupid and financially draining. While there will always be a place for hubs, if travelers want cheaper tickets, they'll have to be prepared to spend more time waiting at airports between flights if airlines de-peak in order to shave costs.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
New Low Cost Carrier Operating from....Columbus, Ohio???
Skybus Airlines, a new Low Cost Carrier (LCC) that is to be based in Columbus, Ohio, intends to begin service early in 2007. 
In an unprecedented move for a startup airline in the U.S., last week Skybus announced an enormous order with airplane manufacturer Airbus for 65 new Airbus A319 aircraft. The order is said to be worth more than $3 billion.
Cletis's prediction: A year or two after launching, Skybus will be a memory.
Curiously, Skybus is to be based in Columbus, Ohio--a medium-market city with a population of just over 700,000. Although details of the new carrier are sketchy, it appears that Skybus intends to link secondary cities, and intends to connect them through Columbus.
Skybus does seem to have some pretty positive things going for it. First, they have started with more than $100 million in financing. Second, they have chosen to model the airline on Ireland's successful Ryanair. Moreover, they have attracted the help of some top industry executives to help run the thing, including Ryanair's yield manager, Jim McMahon (not the Bears' former quarterback). And finally, they've decided to launch with an all-new A319 fleet; an airplane proven to provide exceptionally low per-seat costs, and rather popular with passengers.
But industry insiders are not optimistic about Skybus's chances for success. First, and perhaps most problematically, most industry insiders believe that the Low Cost Carrier (LCC) segment of the U.S. air carrier industry is fully saturated--in other words, that all of the routes that can be economically operated by LCCs have been picked clean by existing carriers. Second, Skybus made the unusual choice of choosing Columbus, Ohio as their base of operations, which they plan to use as a hub for connecting traffic. The problem with this is that any LCC employing a hub depends on a significant amount of traffic originating in destined for the hub city (called "O & D" traffic). jetBlue, another LCC with a hub, chose New York City precisely for this reason. But at best, Columbus is a medium-market city that can't supply much O & D traffic. This problem is compounded by the fact Skybus is kicking off service with 65 planes, which means that there will be a tremendous amount of traffic flowing through Columbus. And finally, Skybus's decision to model itself on Ryanair may not go over well with the American traveling public. Ryanair is truly a bare-bones operation. No window shades. Seats don't recline. And the seats don't even have seat-back pockets in front of them. While we Americans may like low fares, one has to wonder whether people will be willing to crowd into airplanes that make San Francisco Muni's 30-line feel like a day at the Four Seasons.
In an unprecedented move for a startup airline in the U.S., last week Skybus announced an enormous order with airplane manufacturer Airbus for 65 new Airbus A319 aircraft. The order is said to be worth more than $3 billion.Cletis's prediction: A year or two after launching, Skybus will be a memory.
Curiously, Skybus is to be based in Columbus, Ohio--a medium-market city with a population of just over 700,000. Although details of the new carrier are sketchy, it appears that Skybus intends to link secondary cities, and intends to connect them through Columbus.
Skybus does seem to have some pretty positive things going for it. First, they have started with more than $100 million in financing. Second, they have chosen to model the airline on Ireland's successful Ryanair. Moreover, they have attracted the help of some top industry executives to help run the thing, including Ryanair's yield manager, Jim McMahon (not the Bears' former quarterback). And finally, they've decided to launch with an all-new A319 fleet; an airplane proven to provide exceptionally low per-seat costs, and rather popular with passengers.
But industry insiders are not optimistic about Skybus's chances for success. First, and perhaps most problematically, most industry insiders believe that the Low Cost Carrier (LCC) segment of the U.S. air carrier industry is fully saturated--in other words, that all of the routes that can be economically operated by LCCs have been picked clean by existing carriers. Second, Skybus made the unusual choice of choosing Columbus, Ohio as their base of operations, which they plan to use as a hub for connecting traffic. The problem with this is that any LCC employing a hub depends on a significant amount of traffic originating in destined for the hub city (called "O & D" traffic). jetBlue, another LCC with a hub, chose New York City precisely for this reason. But at best, Columbus is a medium-market city that can't supply much O & D traffic. This problem is compounded by the fact Skybus is kicking off service with 65 planes, which means that there will be a tremendous amount of traffic flowing through Columbus. And finally, Skybus's decision to model itself on Ryanair may not go over well with the American traveling public. Ryanair is truly a bare-bones operation. No window shades. Seats don't recline. And the seats don't even have seat-back pockets in front of them. While we Americans may like low fares, one has to wonder whether people will be willing to crowd into airplanes that make San Francisco Muni's 30-line feel like a day at the Four Seasons.
Monday, October 30, 2006
New Option for San Francisco to San Diego: Alaska Airlines
Yesterday, Alaska Airlines began operating four daily flights between San Francisco and San Diego. Fares will begin at $79 each way.
This will add additional competition to a route already dominated by Southwest Airlines, which operates from Oakland. Perhaps residents of San Francisco won't have to trek across the Bay Bridge to the beautiful Oakland airport in order to get a decent fare to San Diego.
By the way, I once saw a mouse running up the filthy baggage carousel at Oakland. Nothing but class over there at OAK....
This will add additional competition to a route already dominated by Southwest Airlines, which operates from Oakland. Perhaps residents of San Francisco won't have to trek across the Bay Bridge to the beautiful Oakland airport in order to get a decent fare to San Diego.
By the way, I once saw a mouse running up the filthy baggage carousel at Oakland. Nothing but class over there at OAK....
More Ominous News for Airbus: Emirates Cancels Order for TEN Airplanes
Citing much higher operating costs than the equivalent airplane made by Boeing, on Friday Emirates Airlines canceled an order for ten Airbus 340-600 airplane, with a list value of $2.25 billion.
The A340-600 (shown at right in the Virgin Atlantic livery) is the largest airplane currently in Airbus's fleet. It typically seats about 380 passengers and has a range of about 7,900 nautical miles. But the A340-600 also has four engines, which makes it much more expensive to operate with the current insane fuel prices.
Meanwhile, Boeing's competing airplane is the 777-300ER (shown at left in the Emirates livery). It seats 365 people and has virtually the same range as its Airbus counterpart--it can go 7,880 nautical miles. But the big difference between it and the Airbus is that the 777 only has two engines, which is far less costly to operate.
Given the significant cost savings, most airlines, like Emirates, are choosing the 777 over the A340. The A340 was yet another miscalculation by Airbus (a subject for another post).
The bigger story, however, is that this could be an even more ominous sign for Airbus in light of the substantial delays in the super-jumbo A380 project. Emirates is a launch customer and has ordered more A380s than anyone, and stand to lose a great deal from the delays. Some industry experts believe that it's possible (but not likely) that Emirates may cancel their order for the A380.
The A340-600 (shown at right in the Virgin Atlantic livery) is the largest airplane currently in Airbus's fleet. It typically seats about 380 passengers and has a range of about 7,900 nautical miles. But the A340-600 also has four engines, which makes it much more expensive to operate with the current insane fuel prices.
Meanwhile, Boeing's competing airplane is the 777-300ER (shown at left in the Emirates livery). It seats 365 people and has virtually the same range as its Airbus counterpart--it can go 7,880 nautical miles. But the big difference between it and the Airbus is that the 777 only has two engines, which is far less costly to operate.Given the significant cost savings, most airlines, like Emirates, are choosing the 777 over the A340. The A340 was yet another miscalculation by Airbus (a subject for another post).
The bigger story, however, is that this could be an even more ominous sign for Airbus in light of the substantial delays in the super-jumbo A380 project. Emirates is a launch customer and has ordered more A380s than anyone, and stand to lose a great deal from the delays. Some industry experts believe that it's possible (but not likely) that Emirates may cancel their order for the A380.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
BEST Flight Tracking Website
The BEST flight tracking website for domestic flight in the U.S. is called FlightAware. Check 'er out at: flightaware.com.
Not only does this great website provide the same nifty diagram showing where the plane is enroute, it provides a ton of other information you're not going to get elsewhere. I recommend registering with the website (it's free), as it gives you access to some additional gadgets.
One great feature of FlightAware is that you can find out when a flight you're planning to take actually departs and arrives. For example, let's say you're planning to take US Airways (USA) flight 749 from Philadelphia (PHL) to Las Vegas (LAS). The flight is set to depart PHL at 8:30 p.m. and is supposed to arrive LAS at 10:30 p.m. You want to meet your buddies at the airport, who are coming in from California at about the same time.
One of the great tools that pops up on a FlightAware flight search is called an "Activity Log," which shows the actual departure and arrival time of this flight for the previous ten days or more. And if you look at the Activity Log for USA 749, you see that it almost never departs on time. Most often the flight departs at 9:00 p.m. or later--more than 30 minutes late. Armed with this valuable information, you could tell your friends who are meeting you at LAS to just go along to the hotel without you, because you know you're going to be late as hell.
A lot of the other great features of this website are pretty geeky, but pretty fun to play around with.
- You can look at the altitude, speed, flight path, scheduled and actual flight duration and the filed flight plan for all commercial flights and for many private planes.
- You can search for all flights between any two cities (just be sure to type a 'K' before the airport code for U.S. airports--so searching for SFO on this website would be KSFO)
- In addition to looking at specific flights, you can also look at the activity at any given airport too see all the arrivals, departures, and scheduled arrivals and departures.
- And if you're a real airplane geek, there's a feature that allows you to search for all airplanes in U.S. airspace of a particular type. For example, if you want to know about every 777-300 that's in the air, you could search for it, and you'd get a result that looked like this:
And for international flights, try Aeroseek. It's also got some pretty cool tools.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
New Airline Connecting City Centers: Welcome Porter Airlines! (GEEK POST)
[Let me caution you in advance: Everything after the first paragraph of this post scores a 7 out of 10 on the Walkman GEEK-ometer]
Yesterday, a new entrant airline called Porter Airlines started operating in Toronto, Ontario.
What's so unique about Porter, however, is that instead of operating from Toronto's primary airport (Pearson Int'l, aka "YYZ"), which is way out in the Toronto 'burbs, they're operating from a small airport called the City Center Airport (YTZ). YTZ sits on an island in Lake Ontario, just a couple hundred yards from Toronto's financial district. The ferry ride out to the island takes just eight minutes. Due to this short ferry ride, and the minimal security lines at YTZ, passengers need not leave their offices or homes two hours before their flight is scheduled to depart.
Although Porter launched service yesterday with flights only to Ottawa, its plan is to start adding destinations to city-centers within a 500 nautical-mile range of its Toronto base. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, Porter has positioned itself to attract primarily business travelers who would benefit most from the convenience of the airline's operating from YTZ, and in the future, from other small-ish city-center airports.
Why haven't existing airlines filled this niche yet? Simple. Most existing air carriers in North America are lemmings. They have no original ideas. Instead, they follow whatever the rest of the industry is doing, even if it's dumb.
To wit: Unless you haven't set foot on an airplane in the last six or eight years, you've noticed that all the airlines have blindly followed each other in replacing their turboprop airplanes with regional jets. Many of the Majors (and their affiliates and partners) have abandoned turboprops altogether. While it's true that regional jets are faster, quieter, smoother, and preferred by customers, one problem with regional jets is that the shortest flights aren't very profitable to operate.
Consider a business traveler who's trying to decide whether to either drive to Ottawa from Toronto (about 250 miles) or fly on an existing regional jet-serviced route (to the extent that they even exist on such short trips). Driving would take about four hours. But flying on a Major carrier's regional jet flight (which means going to the bigger, international airports with longer runways, that's far from the city center and takes a long time to get checked in and through security), it would take about 3.5 hours (leave office two hours before the flight to arrive one-and-a-half hours before the flight, one hour flight, and thirty minutes from the airport to the destination in Ottawa). Given that the times are about the same, but the costs to fly would be far greater, most business travelers probably would prefer to drive given those choices.
So when the Majors followed each other and ditched their turboprops for regional jets, they left a bunch of short flights (and profitable business passengers) unserviced or under-serviced.
Enter Porter. They saw that there were these very profitable customers who'd prefer to see city-centers get linked. While everybody else was giving their turboprops to the Salvation Army and whatnot, Porter placed an order for a whole mess of Bombardier Q400 turboprops. These suckers are somewhat big (seating 70), relatively fast for turboprops (cruising at 414 mph), extremely efficient to operate, and can land on very short runways (ideal for small, city-center airports).
With these efficient turboprops, Porter can operate from YTZ in Toronto (where customers need not leave their offices until, perhaps, 45 minutes or an hour before their flights), and can get customers from Toronto to Ottawa (door-to-door) in about two hours and fifteen or two hours and thirty minutes. This is a significant time savings over flying from YYZ or from driving the whole way. Porter may make sense.
The threats to Porter's success (and anyone else who follows in their footsteps) are numerous, however. First, people in Toronto are fighting the commercial use of the City Center Airport, citing safety and environmental concerns. Oddly, even the mayor has jumped on this bandwagon. So the use of this airport, and other similar airports that are close to city centers, is by no means a done-deal.
Second, it would be relatively easy for existing carriers to come in and compete on the same routes (note, though, that Porter is the only airline allowed to operate from YTZ in Toronto right now).
Third, existing carriers have proven fairly adept at retaining high-yield business travelers with frequent-flier programs and other retention initiatives. And Air Canada has begun selling airline trips in pre-paid bundles, which allow business travelers to buy a certain number of flights for a set price, and they may be used at virtually any time. For budgeting purposes, corporate travelers may prefer the predictability of these pre-paid, bundled tickets.
Fourth, Porter will always struggle to ensure that their operations are more efficient than driving or flying on the Major airlines out of bigger airports. Are there that many city-center airports within range of Toronto?(Not really.) What happens when increased traffic through City Center Airport in Toronto means it's not so much faster? What happens if Toronto succeeds at booting Porter out of the City Center Airport?
All-in-all, this will be an interesting experiment, to see if Porter can grow this business to connect city-centers efficiently and attract high-yield business travelers. If it works, similar operations could be successful in other high-density areas with convenient, city-center airports. Only time will tell...
Yesterday, a new entrant airline called Porter Airlines started operating in Toronto, Ontario.
What's so unique about Porter, however, is that instead of operating from Toronto's primary airport (Pearson Int'l, aka "YYZ"), which is way out in the Toronto 'burbs, they're operating from a small airport called the City Center Airport (YTZ). YTZ sits on an island in Lake Ontario, just a couple hundred yards from Toronto's financial district. The ferry ride out to the island takes just eight minutes. Due to this short ferry ride, and the minimal security lines at YTZ, passengers need not leave their offices or homes two hours before their flight is scheduled to depart.Although Porter launched service yesterday with flights only to Ottawa, its plan is to start adding destinations to city-centers within a 500 nautical-mile range of its Toronto base. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, Porter has positioned itself to attract primarily business travelers who would benefit most from the convenience of the airline's operating from YTZ, and in the future, from other small-ish city-center airports.
Why haven't existing airlines filled this niche yet? Simple. Most existing air carriers in North America are lemmings. They have no original ideas. Instead, they follow whatever the rest of the industry is doing, even if it's dumb.
To wit: Unless you haven't set foot on an airplane in the last six or eight years, you've noticed that all the airlines have blindly followed each other in replacing their turboprop airplanes with regional jets. Many of the Majors (and their affiliates and partners) have abandoned turboprops altogether. While it's true that regional jets are faster, quieter, smoother, and preferred by customers, one problem with regional jets is that the shortest flights aren't very profitable to operate.
Consider a business traveler who's trying to decide whether to either drive to Ottawa from Toronto (about 250 miles) or fly on an existing regional jet-serviced route (to the extent that they even exist on such short trips). Driving would take about four hours. But flying on a Major carrier's regional jet flight (which means going to the bigger, international airports with longer runways, that's far from the city center and takes a long time to get checked in and through security), it would take about 3.5 hours (leave office two hours before the flight to arrive one-and-a-half hours before the flight, one hour flight, and thirty minutes from the airport to the destination in Ottawa). Given that the times are about the same, but the costs to fly would be far greater, most business travelers probably would prefer to drive given those choices.
So when the Majors followed each other and ditched their turboprops for regional jets, they left a bunch of short flights (and profitable business passengers) unserviced or under-serviced.
Enter Porter. They saw that there were these very profitable customers who'd prefer to see city-centers get linked. While everybody else was giving their turboprops to the Salvation Army and whatnot, Porter placed an order for a whole mess of Bombardier Q400 turboprops. These suckers are somewhat big (seating 70), relatively fast for turboprops (cruising at 414 mph), extremely efficient to operate, and can land on very short runways (ideal for small, city-center airports).
With these efficient turboprops, Porter can operate from YTZ in Toronto (where customers need not leave their offices until, perhaps, 45 minutes or an hour before their flights), and can get customers from Toronto to Ottawa (door-to-door) in about two hours and fifteen or two hours and thirty minutes. This is a significant time savings over flying from YYZ or from driving the whole way. Porter may make sense.
The threats to Porter's success (and anyone else who follows in their footsteps) are numerous, however. First, people in Toronto are fighting the commercial use of the City Center Airport, citing safety and environmental concerns. Oddly, even the mayor has jumped on this bandwagon. So the use of this airport, and other similar airports that are close to city centers, is by no means a done-deal.
Second, it would be relatively easy for existing carriers to come in and compete on the same routes (note, though, that Porter is the only airline allowed to operate from YTZ in Toronto right now).
Third, existing carriers have proven fairly adept at retaining high-yield business travelers with frequent-flier programs and other retention initiatives. And Air Canada has begun selling airline trips in pre-paid bundles, which allow business travelers to buy a certain number of flights for a set price, and they may be used at virtually any time. For budgeting purposes, corporate travelers may prefer the predictability of these pre-paid, bundled tickets.
Fourth, Porter will always struggle to ensure that their operations are more efficient than driving or flying on the Major airlines out of bigger airports. Are there that many city-center airports within range of Toronto?(Not really.) What happens when increased traffic through City Center Airport in Toronto means it's not so much faster? What happens if Toronto succeeds at booting Porter out of the City Center Airport?
All-in-all, this will be an interesting experiment, to see if Porter can grow this business to connect city-centers efficiently and attract high-yield business travelers. If it works, similar operations could be successful in other high-density areas with convenient, city-center airports. Only time will tell...
Monday, October 23, 2006
jetBlue Posts a Rare Loss Last Quarter
jetBlue, one of the few airlines that Wall Street actually seems to like, posted a rare (but small) loss of a half-million bucks last quarter.
So how did this very popular and successful airline manage to lose kwan last quarter?
Among the many reasons, three stand out. First of all, jetBlue has been growing faster than my waistline. They've been opening new cities and taking delivery of many, many new airplanes very quickly. Although this may be counter-intuitive, in almost any industry, ultra-fast growth can be a bad thing because the costs related to the growth outpace the cash flow.
Second, the current thinking in the industry is that domestic carriers (like jetBlue), who tend to fly shorter routes than international carriers, probably suffered the most from the London terrorist plot to bomb airplanes over the Atlantic. Because of the annoyance of not being able to carry on liquids, and the fact that the traveling public may (incorrectly) believe that this new limitation adds to travel time, perhaps some people may choose to drive rather than fly.
Finally, jetBlue broke with the tried-and-true practice of virtually every successful Low Cost Carrier (LCC) during the last year by introducing a second airline type into its fleet--the 100-seat Embraer 190. Nearly every successful LCC has stuck with one airplane type; Southwest Airlines, Ireland's Ryanair, Australia/New Zealand's Virgin Blue, Canada's WestJet, and India's SpiceJet all operate only Boeing 737 airplanes; and Frontier Airlines operates only Airbus A320-family airplanes. LCCs usually operate only one airplane type because it is far less expensive, for a variety of reasons.
jetBlue is doing something about this, however. The company has slowed their growth, and has begun a campaign to reduce costs system-wide. We'll see what happens!
Sunday, October 22, 2006
An Open Letter to Really Fat People: Buy Two Seats
October 32, 2006
Dear Really Fat People:
I write this letter not to be mean, not to unnecessarily single you out, and not to embarrass you. To be honest, I'd rather not have to write this at all. But unfortunately, circumstances have made this letter necessary. I have just one message for you: If you don't fit entirely within your own airplane seat, for the love of god, buy two damn seats.
Don't get me wrong--I'm a rather rotund individual myself. I have no axe to grind with fat people of any size. But the difference between you and me is that I manage to squeeze myself into my own coach seat, and you don't.
I also take no position one way or the other as to whether obesity is a disability that should be accommodated by the airlines. That's between you and the airlines (although the current state of the law does not require airlines to accommodate obese passengers with two seats). But I do know that it should not be my problem (as my dad says, "don't make your problem my problem!"). I paid for my seat. You paid for your seat. Nothing entitles you to take part of my paid-for seat without my permission and without compensating me.
To the giant man on my jetBlue flight from Oakland to Boston this past summer, what the hell's your problem? Even if you couldn't buy two seats, what on Earth made you decide to choose a middle seat! You made me (on the aisle), and the lady on the window miserable for the entire 5-hour flight. Your chest-level fat roll and first stomach-level roll were wedged into my arm. Your enormous arm was resting over my damn shoulder and side. Your butt's lower fat roll also encroached at least two inches under the armrest into my seat. As you were all over me and the lady in the window seat, we were sweating our asses off. The flight attendant saw this and brought us each icebags to put on our necks! In short, this was my worst flight experience ever. You should have bought two seats!
To the enormous (but short) woman on my American flight from Miami to San Francisco a year ago, even though you were very sweet, if you had any manners, you'd have gotten yourself two seats also. You encroached into my space, too.
But what's worse is that it seemed as though there were areas of your body that were beyond the reach of whatever cleaning apparatus you use in the shower. As a result, you smelled horrible. Like terrible cheese. Limburger cheese. Wrapped in a homeless man's undies. That's so unfair. Next time, darlin', get yourself a second seat.
So let's agree on this: If you don't fit in the area bordered by the inside edge of the armrest, ya gotta get yourself another seat.
Very truly yours,
Cletis Walkman
Dear Really Fat People:
I write this letter not to be mean, not to unnecessarily single you out, and not to embarrass you. To be honest, I'd rather not have to write this at all. But unfortunately, circumstances have made this letter necessary. I have just one message for you: If you don't fit entirely within your own airplane seat, for the love of god, buy two damn seats.
Don't get me wrong--I'm a rather rotund individual myself. I have no axe to grind with fat people of any size. But the difference between you and me is that I manage to squeeze myself into my own coach seat, and you don't.
I also take no position one way or the other as to whether obesity is a disability that should be accommodated by the airlines. That's between you and the airlines (although the current state of the law does not require airlines to accommodate obese passengers with two seats). But I do know that it should not be my problem (as my dad says, "don't make your problem my problem!"). I paid for my seat. You paid for your seat. Nothing entitles you to take part of my paid-for seat without my permission and without compensating me.
To the giant man on my jetBlue flight from Oakland to Boston this past summer, what the hell's your problem? Even if you couldn't buy two seats, what on Earth made you decide to choose a middle seat! You made me (on the aisle), and the lady on the window miserable for the entire 5-hour flight. Your chest-level fat roll and first stomach-level roll were wedged into my arm. Your enormous arm was resting over my damn shoulder and side. Your butt's lower fat roll also encroached at least two inches under the armrest into my seat. As you were all over me and the lady in the window seat, we were sweating our asses off. The flight attendant saw this and brought us each icebags to put on our necks! In short, this was my worst flight experience ever. You should have bought two seats!
To the enormous (but short) woman on my American flight from Miami to San Francisco a year ago, even though you were very sweet, if you had any manners, you'd have gotten yourself two seats also. You encroached into my space, too.
But what's worse is that it seemed as though there were areas of your body that were beyond the reach of whatever cleaning apparatus you use in the shower. As a result, you smelled horrible. Like terrible cheese. Limburger cheese. Wrapped in a homeless man's undies. That's so unfair. Next time, darlin', get yourself a second seat.So let's agree on this: If you don't fit in the area bordered by the inside edge of the armrest, ya gotta get yourself another seat.
Very truly yours,
Cletis Walkman
Five Basic Tips For Finding the Best Airfare
There are lots of tricks for finding the cheapest airfares out there. While my advice on this topic could be quite long, today I'm going to provide you with just a handful of techniques (five) for finding the lowest fares.
- Travel on Tue, Wed, or Thu. Demand for tickets is lowest on these days, which means that travel on these days is cheaper. So if you can try to schedule your flights on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, you're likely to find some better deals.
- Avoid preferred airports. In markets where there are more than one airport, quite often travel through secondary (or tertiary) airports can be cheaper. Thus, if you're price sensitive, it frequently makes sense to look at these less-preferred airports. Examples: In San Francisco, try Oakland (OAK) or San Jose (SJC). In New York, try Islip (ISP). In Boston, try Providence (PVD) or Manchester (MHT). In Los Angeles, try Burbank (BUR), Long Beach (LGB), or Ontario (ONT). In Chicago try Milwaukee (MKE). In Dallas try Love Field (DAL) (where Southwest recently became able to sell tickets anywhere in the country). In Houston, try Hobby (HOU). In D.C. try Baltimore-Washington (BWI). In London, try Luton (LTN) or Stansted (STN). In Paris, try Orly (ORY). In Rome, try Ciampino (CIA). In Toronto and Buffalo, try Hamilton (YHM). And in Cleveland, try Canton-Akron (CAK).
- Be willing to change planes. Generally speaking, the airlines know that the people in the biggest hurry to get somewhere are willing to pay a premium for this privilege. For this reason, if you're looking to save some kwan, be willing to buy longer itineraries that involve stop(s).
- Check everywhere. Taking the time to research fares thoroughly is always in your best interest. I always start with a website that reaches into other websites and searches for the lowest fares. It's called Kayak. After that, I'll often check out a few other sites, like Cheaptickets, Orbitz, or Expedia (and in Europe, also try 1800CheapSeats). Keep in mind that Kayak doesn't search Southwest, and Cheaptickets, Orbitz, and Expedia don't check Southwest, jetBlue, and other Low Cost Carriers (LCCs). Finally, I'll check out the websites of the airlines themselves, because sometimes they have inventory and prices that don't show up anywhere else on the Internet.
- Look in advance. As a general rule, it makes sense to start looking for your airfare in advance of your trip, but not too far in advance. Usually you want to buy your airfare more than 21 days before you travel. But if you search too far in advance--say, more than three months before your trip--you may not find the best deals. This is because the complex computer systems that allocate prices often don't begin to generate the lowest airfares until closer in time to the flight (this process is called yield management, which I'll talk about another day).
There are quite a few exceptions to this rule that you must be aware of. First, it usually pays to buy as far in advance as possible if you're planning to fly on an LCC, which use much more simplified systems for allocating prices to seats. It's usually first-come, first-served for the cheapest tickets. It also makes sense to be looking for international tickets as far in advance as possible, primarily because there's so much less inventory available (though this appears to be changing, but only time will tell). Finally, if you're planning domestic travel inside the U.S. on or near a major holiday (Thanksgiving, X-Mas, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Easter), again, because of limited inventory, it frequently makes sense to begin looking as far in advance as possible.
Bay Area Fliers: Avoid SFO Between January and March
Anyone who lives here in the Bay Area knows that it rains like crazy here between January and March. For some odd reason, when it's raining here during that time, San Francisco International (SFO) always seems to get backed up like a rest-stop toilet, with arrival and departure delays exceeding two hours. But air traffic into and out of Oakland International (OAK), just a few miles across the Bay, continues to flow relatively smoothly (insert your own scatological simile here).
I'll explain why this is below. But the message to take away from this post is simple: If ya need to get somewhere by air from Jan-Mar, and ya can't afford the get stuck in the airport, fly from OAK instead of SFO. Even though the cab ride and BART trips from OAK to San Francisco are more expensive than from SFO, and even though Greyhound would be embarrassed as hell if any of its bus stations looked like OAK, it still makes sense to fly through OAK.
So, wtf? Why is that?
The explanation is simple.
As you can see from this picture, SFO's runways are laid out like an 'X', with two parallel runways going in each direction of the 'X'. Normally, two airplanes can land at the same time (one on each of the two parallel runways--this is called "simultaneous parallel operation"). The airlines rely on this in planning their schedules in and out of SFO. Without simultaneous parallel operations, SFO couldn't handle all of the traffic that the airlines schedule.
But compared to many other airports of its size (Los Angeles, Denver, Atlanta, Chicago, etc...), SFO's parallel runways are very, very close to each other. For this reason, the FAA doesn't allow parallel ops into SFO when the weather gets cruddy and the visibility drops. The problem is that the airlines still have just as many flights scheduled to land at SFO during those times. Because SFO's capacity is essentially half of what it normally is, what you end up with are too many flights arriving and not enough landing slots to fit them all in. Arrival delays quickly mount to two hours or more. Arrival delays lead to departure delays. And this leads to the entire airport becoming one ferkakte (i.e., lousy or screwed up) disaster zone. This is one of the reasons that Southwest and many of the other Low-Cost Carriers (LCCs) operate out of OAK instead of SFO (more on this another day).
OAK, on the other hand, only has one runway used by commercial carriers (it's the longest one on the left of the diagram). Thus, during even the best weather, the airlines can only schedule arrivals on the one runway. So when the weather turns bad, OAK doesn't have its capacity cut in half like SFO. Even though arrivals are a little bit more spread out, delays are rare.
Until the day comes that SFO can move its arrival runways farther apart (chances are that we'll develop teleporting before this happens), SFO will continue to be screwed in bad weather, while OAK is hardly impacted. For this reason, if you need to travel to or from the Bay Area from January to March and your time is tight, try OAK instead of SFO.
I'll explain why this is below. But the message to take away from this post is simple: If ya need to get somewhere by air from Jan-Mar, and ya can't afford the get stuck in the airport, fly from OAK instead of SFO. Even though the cab ride and BART trips from OAK to San Francisco are more expensive than from SFO, and even though Greyhound would be embarrassed as hell if any of its bus stations looked like OAK, it still makes sense to fly through OAK.
So, wtf? Why is that?
The explanation is simple.
As you can see from this picture, SFO's runways are laid out like an 'X', with two parallel runways going in each direction of the 'X'. Normally, two airplanes can land at the same time (one on each of the two parallel runways--this is called "simultaneous parallel operation"). The airlines rely on this in planning their schedules in and out of SFO. Without simultaneous parallel operations, SFO couldn't handle all of the traffic that the airlines schedule.But compared to many other airports of its size (Los Angeles, Denver, Atlanta, Chicago, etc...), SFO's parallel runways are very, very close to each other. For this reason, the FAA doesn't allow parallel ops into SFO when the weather gets cruddy and the visibility drops. The problem is that the airlines still have just as many flights scheduled to land at SFO during those times. Because SFO's capacity is essentially half of what it normally is, what you end up with are too many flights arriving and not enough landing slots to fit them all in. Arrival delays quickly mount to two hours or more. Arrival delays lead to departure delays. And this leads to the entire airport becoming one ferkakte (i.e., lousy or screwed up) disaster zone. This is one of the reasons that Southwest and many of the other Low-Cost Carriers (LCCs) operate out of OAK instead of SFO (more on this another day).
OAK, on the other hand, only has one runway used by commercial carriers (it's the longest one on the left of the diagram). Thus, during even the best weather, the airlines can only schedule arrivals on the one runway. So when the weather turns bad, OAK doesn't have its capacity cut in half like SFO. Even though arrivals are a little bit more spread out, delays are rare.Until the day comes that SFO can move its arrival runways farther apart (chances are that we'll develop teleporting before this happens), SFO will continue to be screwed in bad weather, while OAK is hardly impacted. For this reason, if you need to travel to or from the Bay Area from January to March and your time is tight, try OAK instead of SFO.
Airbus's New A380: Long Way Off From Breaking Even
When Airbus (the European airplane builder) launched its program to build a super-jumbo double-decker airplane called the A380 in December 2000, it said that it would need to sell about 250 of these morbidly obese sons-a-bitches in order to break even (at a list price of about $300 million, each).
Now, because of a laundry list of production problems resulting in significant delivery delays (more on that another day), this week Airbus said that it would need to sell 420 A380s to break even. And to date, Airbus only has orders for about 159.
Ouch.
Just to break even, Airbus needs to collect orders for 261 more planes, at a list price of more than $78 billion.
An early A380 painted in the Emirates livery. (Photo by Jonathan Bender)
Now, because of a laundry list of production problems resulting in significant delivery delays (more on that another day), this week Airbus said that it would need to sell 420 A380s to break even. And to date, Airbus only has orders for about 159.Ouch.
Just to break even, Airbus needs to collect orders for 261 more planes, at a list price of more than $78 billion.
An early A380 painted in the Emirates livery. (Photo by Jonathan Bender)
Friday, October 20, 2006
Airports to AVOID this Holiday Season
Every holiday season we endure the same damn annoyances during our air travels: Delays. Cancellations. Missed connections. 36th in line for take-off. Circling for two hours. Lost baggage. Sweaty obese people stuffed into the seat next to you.
What to do? Other than tearing somebody's arm off and stuffing it down their throat, one way to avoid a lot of this BS is by structuring your trip to avoid problematic airports.
What to do? Other than tearing somebody's arm off and stuffing it down their throat, one way to avoid a lot of this BS is by structuring your trip to avoid problematic airports.
- Fly non-stop. This avoids many of the problems of missed connections, poor weather, and lost luggage. Even if the price is greater, it's probably worth it at this time of year to avoid aggravation.
- Avoid riskiest airports. Chicago O'Hare (ORD) is a high-risk and must be avoided at all costs. Bad weather is the major problem at ORD, which invariably leads to most of the other crap. Also, ORD is one of the few capacity-constrained airports in the U.S., and it gets completely inundated around Thanksgiving and X-Mas. Because both American and United have hubs there, it's pretty tough to avoid ORD, but definitely worth it at this time of year.
The following airports are somewhat risky at this time of year, and should be avoided, if possible: Minneapolis (MSP) and Detroit (DTW), both Northwest hubs, and Cleveland (CLE) and Newark (EWR), both Continental hubs. - Best airport bets. If you must change planes, try Houston Intercontinental (IAH), a Continental hub, Dallas-Ft Worth International (DFW) and Miami (MIA), both American hubs, Phoenix (PHX), Las Vegas (LAS), and Charlotte (CLT), all US Airways/America West hubs, or even try Denver (DEN), a United hub, which is frequently pretty dependable before January.
- Plan longer layovers. The shorter your layover, the more likely you are to miss the connection, or have your bags miss the connection, in case of delay. So if you've got to connect through a hub, try to pick a layover of 90 minutes or longer.
Best of luck with your holiday travels. If it goes to shit though, try alcohol or painkillers.
Welcome aboard!
Deep thought recently led me to one rather prophetic conclusion: Although I'm generally full of shit, I do know a fair amount of (useful and useless) information about the airline industry. I figured I might as well share all this stuff in the hope that somebody may find it interesting or helpful.
We all fly. We are all exasperated by the current state of air travel because, quite frankly, it generally stinks. But there's tons of information out there that can make the air travel experience a tiny bit better. The object of this blog is to get that information out there to as many people as possible.
This blog also has a second purpose; to satisfy the airline geek in all of us. There’s something about air travel that seems to pique the curiosity of even the most wearied, hardened business travelers. So I plan to include all kinds of useless but interesting info about air travel.
Thanks for reading The Airline Bottom Line. Welcome aboard.
We all fly. We are all exasperated by the current state of air travel because, quite frankly, it generally stinks. But there's tons of information out there that can make the air travel experience a tiny bit better. The object of this blog is to get that information out there to as many people as possible.
This blog also has a second purpose; to satisfy the airline geek in all of us. There’s something about air travel that seems to pique the curiosity of even the most wearied, hardened business travelers. So I plan to include all kinds of useless but interesting info about air travel.
Thanks for reading The Airline Bottom Line. Welcome aboard.
