Airline service and competition issues have sparked enormous interest from the public, the media, and from Congress. Lots of the data and information surrounding these issues are misunderstood, or just flat wrong. This page contains Insights from past Hot Flashes on the subject.

Staff of The Boyd Group have worked in virtually all areas of the airline industry. Our division, Airline Services Training, Inc., provides the most advanced service and skills programs in the industry. We have independent views of how the current "service crisis" is being fueled, and how many of the trendy "solutions" (on both sides) will do nothing to resolve the situation. We hope these insights can help inject a better understanding of the issues, because much of what is reported in the media, and just about all of the nonsense being proposed in Congress have no earthly relationship to reality.

Index

________________________________________

From Hot Flash: Monday Morning, July 23, 2001

The Airline CEO Challenge:
Experience What You Put Your Passengers Through

The US airline system carries over 540 million passengers, making 670 enplanements every year. And it works superbly well.

Fact: The vast majority of air passengers arrive at their destination on-time.  Fact: Losing your baggage or being oversold has odds not much better than the lottery. Fact: US airlines handle cancellations and delays far more efficiently than the media gives them credit for.

Here's another fact: the US consumer feels beaten, bullied, and abused by the airline industry. We meet with communities all around the nation, and the anger is real. No, they are not treated rudely. It's worse. They are taken for granted. And that's why irresponsible, poorly conceived, and sometimes dishonest Congressional airline legislation has a good chance of passing this year.

Getting Reality Into The Front Office. Before this gets too far, we might suggest that some airline CEOs emerge from their headquarters and take a gander at what the masses are experiencing. We'd suggest that the CEO may want disguise himself as a typical business flyer taking an out-and-back business trip during the same week.

Maybe when it's all over, he'll see why airlines are the current trendy whipping boy in the media. Let's take it step by step, just like a real customer would experience.

Step One: The CEO calls up reservations (or a travel agent) and buys a ticket for a next day RT coach business trip halfway across the nation.

He finds:

• It costs almost $2,000, nearly 50 cents per mile. (For a coach seat, by the way. Maybe a middle one.)

• The airline calls it a "special excursion" fare. ("Special" is indeed the correct term.)

• It's non-refundable. If the business meeting in Portland gets cancelled, the CEO finds he's just made a generous contribution to the airline's bottom line. Maybe, with some obscene cost penalty, the airline might let the ticket be used later.

• It will take a Papal Dispensation and an additional pile of cash if the customer's plans change and the itinerary must be revised.

Step Two: At the airport

The CEO discovers:

For the privilege of laying two grand on the airline, the he gets to:

• Stand in long lines at a ticket counter or gate.

• When it's his turn, he is summoned to the position with the word "next" - if he's lucky. Often it's just a wave of the agent's hand. Saying "may I help you" is something that the CEO's middle management apparently feels would be too stressful for front line staff.

• The CEO/consumer then finds he has to answer very stupid questions that do nothing to improve security, but which will confirm that he does not employ a butler to pack his bags, and he's not moonlighting as a mule for the PLO.

• And, he'll find that his position as airline CEO will not be revealed, because, it's likely that at no point in this time-consuming burlesque does the airline employee ever use his name, even though the agent demands to see picture ID to match against the name on the ticket.

• He'll maybe notice that those expensive gate and ticket counter facilities his airline has invested in are now part time employee snack bars, with agents slurping coffee and soda as they check in the airline's customers. In some cases, glomming down Fritos while working with passengers seems perfectly OK with the airline's local management. (Which, by the way, might not be anywhere to be found.)

• The transaction ends with the agent handing over a boarding pass, often with all the courtesy of an East German border guard condescendingly allowing a refugee to cross the frontier.

• The CEO will find that after giving the airline a couple thousand dollars in business, the chances are less than 50% that the airline employee will end the transaction by actually saying "thank you" or "we appreciate your business" (they don't, unfortunately) or "have a nice flight."

• When boarding is called, the CEO will hear a heads-up-and-listen laundry list announcement of the rules that must be followed. The carry-on allowance. Boarding by rows. Have your ID out for the useless intent of trying to look tough on security matters. The need for passengers to comply with all instructions in order to achieve an on-time departure. But rarely these days do gate agents ever finish these announcements with any thing vaguely implying that they or their airline appreciate the passengers' business. Or even to say "have a nice flight."

Step Three: The On Board Experience

Passing through the jetway door, the CEO will discover that the $2,000 "special excursion" fare buys him a "meal" consisting of a bag of stuff he has to dig out of a mini-dumpster, giving passengers the homeless person experience. Inside the sack, there's an assortment of allegedly-edible trinkets that are intended to keep passengers busy, mostly. A roll with some mystery meat, encased in Saran Wrap, accompanied by some designer cookie and maybe an apple that looks like it knew it was bound for the coach cabin.

In flight, one pass is made with the beverage cart after take off. Maybe another offer of coffee. But that's it. The CEO is alone with his sacked lunch. Often, he may be thrilled by the fact that his company is saving money by cleaning aircraft cabins only every other Leap Year. The tray table, the headliners, and the ceiling vents might have been untouched by any form of cleaning solutions for months or maybe years. All too often today, airline cabins have the cleanliness of a Third World hovel.

All this experience for a mere $2,000.

Step Four: The Connection Experience

Maybe the flight is a bit late due to Jane Garvey and her Merry Band of ATC Commandos. So the CEO will experience something his customers face every day, the dreaded will-I-make-my-connection anxiety attack. Deplaning, he anxiously asks the agent inside the terminal, "what gate for flight 54 to Portland?"

"Gate 19, terminal B," is the response. "If you run, you might make it."

Galloping just in time up to gate 19, in the process flirting with a coronary, he's stopped cold. "The overheads are all full," he's brusquely informed. "You'll havta check that carry-on. Oh, and you're late and we've gone to open seating. Take any seat that's empty."

The CEO will then experience the joy of trying to wedge his frame into 26E between two people from a culture that doesn't use any form of soap.

Step Five: Arrival At The Final Destination

The CEO arrives at the final destination. He finds the following

• He's arrived on time.

• His gate-checked luggage arrives in the baggage claim area quickly.

• His airline, on the surface, did what it promised. Except for two  things:

• He was processed, not served. He was tolerated, not valued.

• He'll find that the $2,000 fare he paid is a lousy value, at least in terms of how the airline views his business. The experience at a used car lot is a more pleasant use of the dough.

The CEO will likely feel that he's been processed through a meat grinder, like the rest of his passengers, most of which would rather not ever fly his airline again. And many of which are cheering on the blood thirsty clowns in Congress who, they hope, will punish the CEO and his entire airline.

We've Been There. We've Seen It. This is not an exaggeration. This experience, in whole or in part takes place every day, and many airlines' senior management is oblivious. There no excuse for not requiring that employees always thank the passenger for his or her business. The CEO would never tolerate one of his VPs casually gurgling down coffee while disinterestedly addressing the Board of Directors. But, apparently, it's okay for counter staff to treat passengers that way. Many CEOs would never allow their own car to become as filthy as some airplane cabins. But it's apparently okay for their customers to sit looking at dirt in one of their airplanes for several hours.

This is what customers perceive every day. And it's not necessary. Most major US carriers have the professional staff and procedures to make flying something that consumers might actually enjoy. But until senior management demands such standards, they can keep clearing their calendars to do command-performances in front of empty-suit Congressional "hearings" where almost nobody on the Congress side bothers to listen.

Most of us at The Boyd Group/ASRC have been on both sides of the ticket counter. We see the tough challenges airline employees face in trying to move over half a billion people through the FAA's mismanaged skies. We also see why passengers are really fed up.

Our division, Airline Services Training, Inc. provides airline service programs that are consistent with our core belief that a problem cannot be solved unless it is honesty and clearly identified. When it comes to why consumers dislike airlines, we'll be blunt: too many airlines have not bothered to try to identify what makes air passengers go bonkers. The industry has babbled about it for the past two years, yet the angry mobs are still forming like a re-run of Bastille Day.

The choice is clear. Airline front offices can either move now to really put the customer first. Or they can let Congress try it.

And, any consumers who believe that air travel can't get worse, wait until politicians get their ignorant paws on it. Only the airline industry can prevent such an anti-consumer disaster.

(c) Copyright 2001, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.

From: Monday, April 17, 2000:

"Airline Quality Report"

Fooling Most Of The People. Most of The Time

The "Airline Quality Report," put out jointly last week by professors at two universities, has been the subject of near-endless media stories over the past few days. It reports that airline service is declining and the consumer is increasingly angry. It reports that Congressional action may be needed.

The AQR is truly a brilliant document.

Brilliant not because of its contents or conclusions, but because of how it successfully transforms inaccurate data, snap conclusions, and ignorance of the subject matter into what is passed off to be academic excellence. Brilliant because it has whole sections of the public schnookered into taking this junk science seriously.

This will take a couple of minutes. So, please be patient and bear with us while we frame the true achievement that this "Airline Quality Report" represents.

The Authors Might Be From The Flower-Power Generation. When reviewing its sources, its conclusions, and in general the comments made by its authors, the "AQR" vividly brings back memories of one of the true college classics published back in the 1960s. It was titled, Honor Grades On 20 Hours A Week. It appears that the authors might be familiar with this work.

This book had nothing to do with "Honor Grades." It was basically a manual of guerrilla tactics that over-partied and under-studied students could use to get at least passing grades, mostly by bluff and bluster, without wasting a lot of time studying, or bothering to learn much. (The AQR, as we'll note later, fits this template perfectly.)

When You Don't Know, Bluster As If You Do. The book had a rather cynical approach, and one not particularly dedicated to academic excellence, either. It did, however, offer some neat techniques to use when you found yourself sitting clueless with a bluebook at midterm for an English Lit class you never bothered to attend.

In such a case, Honor Grades pointed out, you were desperate. So the best defense is a strong offense. Honor Grades was based on the (correct) assumption that most tests might be graded by shiny-faced graduate assistants who could be easily buffaloed. Therefore, the book recommended that test answers be given in arrogant, condescending and downright threatening phrases to convey the image that you were the unquestioned expert, and the poor graduate assistant (GA) who would grade the test was an absolute moron.

If the question was, "Describe in detail the specific qualities of Bertrand Russell's early treatises," the book said to take the offensive by being offensive. So start the answer with a nasty comment intended to intimidate the GA, like "What an overly simplistic and insulting question! As any gibbon could recognize, Russell's early works reeked of elitism stemming from an obvious bi-polar disorder with subtle Freudian undertones…" Sounds great. Sounds like somebody who's really is in to Bertie's works. Then using fast, sloppy, confident handwriting, scrawl as much as you could get away with. Then move to the next question.

Of course, the truth was that you couldn't recognize Bertrand Russell from Howdy Doody.

But that didn't matter. The desperate objective was to appear that you were an unquestioned expert. The book suggested that this approach just might intimidate the overworked GA into not wanting to be confronted by an angry student and have to match wits with the writer, especially after he graded this. So maybe he'd just grade it a "C" and move on to the next test paper.

The idea was to posture yourself as an expert when in fact you didn't know diddly about the subject matter. In other words, dazzle with smoke and mirrors when you don't have any facts.

Academia Buys In To The Concept. And that gets us back to the Airline Quality Report. It appears to be a perfect example of this approach. Whether the authors ever read "Honor Grades" or not is unknown. Whether the techniques in "Honor Grades" ever worked in the classroom is unknown. But the AQR is proof-positive of how they can be wildly successful in the real world.

The "Airline Quality Report" is a case study in how bluster can successfully take the place of substantive, hard data. Like the English Lit example above, it is nothing more than a ponderous snow-job clothed in academic sheep's clothing. But it is submitted to the public as a scholarly document, written by learned professors. Who, then, would dare attempt to question the intellectual underpinnings of this magnum opus?

We would. Somebody should get behind the Oz-like curtain of intimidating titles and take a hard look at the pompous, unsubstantiated claims in the AQR. And really ask if the authors have a clue about what's going on in the airline industry. If the problems in the airline industry are to be addressed, we must deal in facts. And that's where the AQR falls short. Big time short.

Garbage In, Ivory Tower Garbage Out. First, as in any academic study, we need to consider the sources of the AQR data. Here they get an "F-." All these guys have done is re-package DOT statistics, comparing this year's to last year's. They claim that this is "real" data. It's not, making the whole Report a joke that misleads the public. Let's consider the structure of this DOT data that the Airline Quality Report relies upon:

• They are not scientifically collected. They are randomly supplied by the public, and public perception is often skewed by a range of outside factors. Therefore the data they rely on are not from a sterile environment.
  
  
• They are not scientifically analyzed, or categorized. DOT just checks boxes when complaints are received.
  
  
• How some of the data is defined can vary from airline to airline.
  
  
• There is no verification of the accuracy of the data as supplied.
  
  
• There are potentially huge variances in reporting channels year over year.

We covered this in an earlier Hot Flash. DOT has no idea if the "complaints" are real or bogus. valid or justified.

So the foundational data on which the Airline Quality Report is based are, at best, anecdotal, not factual. Worse, these guys then simply re-jigger this questionable data into what they pass off as an academic, scientific study. Worse again, the media and the public are bamboozled into believing it on the basis of the titles of the authors and the fact it comes from institutions of higher learning.

Take Our Opinions As Facts. Or Else. Then we have some of the "conclusions" provided by the AQR. This would do the authors of "Honor Grades" proud. Don't deal with hard facts, just make pompous statements, and assume that credentials and stature will make up for the lack of accuracy. Assume that nobody will ever have the temerity to question statements made under a university title.

Like in the case of the English Lit test, the AQR's "conclusions" are presented to the reader as if he is an unknowing moron, and unworthy to question the findings, even though the authors are shooting them right out of the wrong end of their anatomy.

Just Make It Up, Professor. It'll Play Well With The Great Unwashed. Some of the comments made by these guys really display their ignorance of airline industry realities:

"…consumers are demanding point-to-point air service … that new, smaller regional jet aircraft will enable…"

Where's the data to support this "consumer demand?" There are none. This is the authors' parochial opinion only, yet it is postured as hard fact, with only the authors' credentials to back it up. (Not to mention the fact that this statement indicates a lack of knowledge of what "regional" jets were designed for.)

About "anti-consumer" actions on the part of airlines, the authors note,

"… These problems range from unfair business practices targeting new start-up airlines, … gate-lock practices, …(and) ability to tie up landing slots…"

Again, where's the data to support these claims? Where are the hard, factual data showing this prima face proof of anti-consumer behavior? Or that such situations exist for the benefit of engaging in "unfair business practices?" They have none. They are just shooting smoke. Conclusions such as these are pandering, trendy, and - to be blunt - intellectually dishonest.

Statements like this kill off any claim the authors have in regard to academic detachment. What's detached is these guys from reality.

Let's Create A Make-Believe Airline Industry. Then they talk about the airlines' "anti-consumer rules" imposed on passengers. This is where the authors truly outdo themselves in their attempt to make non-factual opinion appear to be gospel:

"Examples include limiting carry-on bags to unreasonable limits…"

More opinion, no back up. No comment to explain what these "unreasonable limits" are. But we are not to question academia. There's more "anti-consumer" stuff they uncover:

"…disallowing carry-on of food or beverages…limiting pre-boarding with children, and then requiring them to sit in the back of the aircraft …. Not allowing a consumer to take an earlier connection when it's available…"

Can you say "poppycock," boys and girls? Can you say "flat untrue," boys and girls? Can you tell us what planet these guys are on?

Again, they just make these comments without any substantiation, and truly express the authors' ignorance of what's going on in the airline industry today. They should ashamed of themselves. The universities that employ them should be ashamed to have their name on such a document.

All of the above points, postured as industry-universal "facts," are wrong. Such blatantly erroneous statements, coming from a document with the names of two universities on the cover, makes one wonder what the real intention of this silly study is in the first place. One thing is clear: they didn't spend much time finding out about the industry.

Fact: Most airlines don't generally "disallow" food to be brought on the aircraft.  How often do we see somebody glomming down a Big Mac right before departure, filling half the cabin with the smell of Mac Fries? It happens all the time. Heck, some airlines actually give you food to carry on, dispensed from a mini-dumpster at the door of the jetway. Heck, the FAA just ruled that passengers could keep their hot, steaming Starbucks de-caf in their laps on take off.

Children in the back of the aircraft? Where did they get this nonsense? It is flat not true at any carriers we've been on. And airlines often do allow passengers to take an earlier connection, depending on circumstances. Making these statements as fact, and then painting them as some sort of industry-wide conspiracy is again, intellectually dishonest. Since statements like this are not completely factual, the conclusion could be that the authors are making this stuff up. That, in turn, leads one to question once more what the real intention of the study is. Whatever, it now has a gullible public buying into it.

A New Degree Program In The Works? It is truly to their credit that the authors have successfully foisted this document off on the public as if it has academic and scientific value. It also has another achievement, however.

We'd certainly award it a BS Degree.

Monday April 2, 2001  The Airline Quality Rating Report:
April Fool, Everybody

They're baack!  Yes, friends, the craziness of spring is reportedly going to return today.

Colleges across the nation typically issue a humor-based publication. Harvard puts out the "Lampoon," and the University of Wichita has the "Airline Quality Report." 

With all the current buzz about airline service, this year's "Airline Quality Report" - a wonderful wallow in intellectual fantasy put out by a couple of otherwise serious Midwestern universities - may promise to out do last year's AQR, which was a magnum opus of academic fiction.

Quality Means Them, Not Us. The AQR will reportedly be released sometime today, and if it follows the pattern and style of last year's edition, we can look forward to some wonderfully light and breezy reading, most of which will have the intellectual value of a doorstop.

The reason is simple - the "Airline Quality Report" has a quality problem of it's own - like, the data it's based on - DOT statistics - are about as accurate as a Palm Beach vote count. But, we can hope this year will be better than the last AQR, which was essentially a creation of arrogant, incorrect nonsense.   Click Here for last year's review. (It'll take a couple of seconds for the story to load to the right position. It will be worth it.) 

We can also hope that the flying public won't be again misled like last year. It's unfortunate that the mainline media (and, again, much of the aviation media) was bamboozled by this stuff. It's unfortunate, too, that they didn't check out the sources used for these Ivory Tower conclusions. Maybe they will this year.

Playing To The Masses. At least the Harvard Lampoon is correctly labeled as a parody.  Past AQR reports have done the public a disservice by providing what have been essentially misleading conclusions regarding what the problems are - and what "quality" is - in the airline industry. This is not to say that airline service doesn't have bazillions of problems, only that the approach used in the AQR appears to be somewhat of an advocacy document rather than a detached review of the subject matter.

One hopes the authors have changed their approach this year. Past issues of the AQR were little more than pompous regurgitations of freely-available DOT statistics, repackaged and passed off as a scholarly work, accessorized by all of the trendy ambient calls for "solutions" that play to the current lynch mob mentality, and bringing nothing new to the forum of discussion. Nothing. Maybe this year will be different.

Kill The Airline Devil! Facts Notwithstanding. We would hope the authors have spent the last 12 months trying to learn more about the airline industry, but if this year's edition follows the shallow approach of last year, look for indignant calls for "peak hour pricing" and things like an end to "overscheduling" and demands to take gates away from big carriers at hubs, so all those new entrants can get in.  If it's like last year, the AQR can be expected to repeat the babbling cover-up recently published by the DOT IG regarding airline service. And, of course, we may find the warm and fuzzy calls for co-operation among all factions to bring an end to delays. In other words, all the safe, trendy non-solutions we've heard for months. All the non-solutions that play well to the bloodthirsty crowds assembled around the the guillotine. And most of it will not be new. 

Perfuming the Data Pig. We assume these learned professors would demand that their students use reliable sources when doing classwork. Yet in the past, the AQR authors themselves have not always held to that path. Instead, they've merely accepted DOT data as "real" without any investigation of the validity or accuracy of such data. Since it's from the guv'ment, it's gotta be right, right?

Wrong. Entirely wrong. And that's why the AQR in the past has failed its own quality standards . That's because it's based on DOT data.  To repeat what we said last year, the problems with DOT data are legion:

• They are not scientifically collected. They are randomly supplied by the public, and public perception is often skewed by a range of outside factors. Therefore, the data the AQR relies upon are not from a sterile environment.
  
  
• The data are not scientifically analyzed, or categorized. DOT just checks boxes when complaints are received. Anybody can complain about anything, and it gets recorded.
  
  
• Definitions of some airline-reported data are not clear, and can vary from airline to airline.
  
  
• There is no verification of the accuracy of the data as supplied, and there are potentially huge variances in reporting channels year over year.
  
  
• Partial reporting. Some of the reporting is so incomplete as to make one wonder why tax dollars are wasted on publishing the stuff.  Take airport delay statistics. As just one example of how sloppy the DOT system is, the information for Denver does not include the airport's second largest carrier.
  

We've been open with criticism of today's airline service. But because DOT data is so inaccurate, so sloppy, and so disconnected with the real structure of the airline industry, nobody but rank amateurs would rely on it to define the problems in the airline industry.

(We covered this in an earlier Hot Flash. It may take a few seconds to load to the right position, but it will result in some knowledge apparently ignored by the learned professors.)

Let's Hope This Year Will Be Different. So, while the media blindly repeats the "findings" of the AQR, folks in aviation who have achieved more than a Montessori diploma should be ready to respond if the latest AQR turns out to be just another shotgun attack-report like last year.

• First, if the conclusions are again based primarily on DOT complaints and other DOT data, the whole document is built on an intellectual waste dump. The Hot Flash from a couple of weeks ago illuminates another example of how reliance on DOT data is the refuge of amateurs.  Take a look.  For university professors to use such data as "factual sources" is laughable. To base a nationally-distributed report on it makes the issuing institutions look silly. At best.
  

• Second, if DOT data are the primary sources, big deal. It's cheap and cowardly to posture a report as some sort of new breakthrough in information when it's mostly public data easily accessed by anybody. So even if accurate (and they are not), repackaging such numbers into a "report" as if the authors have single-handedly discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls is silly. In any case, it does not add to the forum of ideas or discussion.
  

• Third, the "conclusions" of the authors should be carefully related to realities. Last year's AQR only confused the issue with several really dumb, concocted conclusions that were not based on hard facts.  (Click Here For Some Examples) It was not much more than an angry diatribe spitting out a laundry list of emotional nonsense, most of which had little relationship to the problems passengers actually face.
  

• Finally - if the AQR mirrors last year's "achievement" - airlines should respond properly and label it for what it represents - bad information that misleads consumers. Last year, the industry simply cowered in fear. This year, one airline (United) has already begun to kow-tow, with a press conference on Friday that essentially said "yes, but we have made progress, we really, really have..."  If the AQR isn't accurate, the airline industry should come out swinging. It should let the universities involved know, in no uncertain terms, that while the industry isn't perfect, that's no license for academics to publish inaccurate information about airline service.  Otherwise it only increases the artificial credibility of the document, and retards the forum of intelligent discussion on the subject.

Again, the airline industry does have service problems. Big ones. But we need to address realities, not fantasies. In the past, the AQR merely fanned the flames of enraged consumers by combining bad data with ignorance of the airline industry and posturing it as high quality work.   Regardless of the names on the cover, the last AQR was founded on data and conclusions that any high school kid could see was strictly F- in quality.

By the way, that kid may want to scratch a couple of universities off his college plans.

(c) Copyright 2001, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.

April 9, 2001: The 2001 "Airline Quality" Report
The Intellectual Vacuum Continues

Following up from last week, we can report that the folks who conjure up the annual "Airline Quality Rating Report" still have a perfect record.

Yet another year of intellectual garbage - sloppy data, and a number of trendy shallow conclusions based on none of their alleged research. All successfully pawned off on the public as fact. At least this year, it seems that more people in the media are coming to understand that this "AQR" is little more than sound and fury signifying a giant waste of time. It's hard to believe that a couple of Universities let their names go on a work of this "quality." 

Darn, Our Predictions Were Right. Almost on cue, the AQR fulfilled virtually all of the predictions we made last week. Like last year, it was based on unreliable DOT statistics, postured by the authors as if Moses had dropped them by on his way home from Mount Sinai. As we predicted, the authors parroted all this year's trendy "solutions" to airline delays. And again like last year, the authors thrilled readers by providing a range of unsupported and often non-factual "conclusions" regarding air service.

Read this AQR at your own mental peril. But please, don't let this document fall into the hands of minors. The intellectual quality may convince them to join the circus instead of wasting time going to a university. We won't waste time commenting on the blizzard of graphs inflicted on the reader. As we noted last week, these are worthless simply because they're based on the DOT Air Consumer Report, a repository of half-reported, poorly-categorized, and inaccurate data.

But the commentary conclusions in the AQR are a hoot. Some of the high points:

"... (there is) increasing frequency of consumer/employee confrontations that clearly stem from management policies and practices that encourage misinformation regarding flight status information and flight delays." (emphasis added)

There is nothing in this jive "AQR" to substantiate any of the above statement. Nothing. Zip. It's concocted opinion. No identification or research to identify these "management policies" - just the assumption that university titles can make up for hard facts. It's fine to have opinions - but they should be labeled as such. Failing to do so is intellectually dishonest. When it comes to "encouraging misinformation," this report could earn a doctorate.

"...seat allocation policies (that) often make non-frequent flyer club members an afterthought passenger..."

Again sounds great. But there's not a single shred of research or data in this incompetent document that supports that statement or substantiates the general implication that frequent flyer perks are anti-consumer policies that make other passengers an "afterthought. Indeed, any kind of "thought" (fore or after) appears to be missing from many of the statements in this report. It's nothing more than the authors' personal, unsubstantiated opinion. In the interests of accuracy, they should report it as such.

"...some airlines do not provide courtesy boarding to elderly, physically impaired, or those with children..."

This is sleaze of the first order - pander to the reader by the thinly-veiled implication that some airlines routinely abuse the old and crippled. Gee, look as you may through this piece of academic Charmin, and you won't find any data that substantiates this claim. None. Again, it's an amateur opinion spit out on the unsuspecting public as fact. Specifically, which airlines routinely commit outrages on the "elderly and physically impaired?"   No answer, but we shouldn't question the Wizards of the Ivory Tower. Better, we should just ignore them.

"...(airlines) limit carry on to unreasonable limits..."

Again, no substantiation for this statement postured as an industry-wide fact. When the overheads are full, what do they want? Luggage dumped in the aisles?

"...(airlines) block access to window and aisle seats based on ticket price ... do not allow a consumer to take an earlier flight when a seat is available ..."

No proof. Just generalized, all-encompassing accusations. Posturing these statements as industry-universal facts without any research, proof or validation is beneath the dignity of a Third-World junior high, let alone a couple of US universities. Apparently, the authors assume that a couple dozen pages of jive graphs based on bad DOT data will suffice to bamboozle the public into awed silence.

"...Airlines are increasingly using small capacity airplanes that use valuable slots ...Airports are allowing over-scheduling that exceeds landing/takeoff capacity at peak times, guaranteeing delays..." (emphasis added)

Yep. Like we said last week, this report would hide behind all the trendy, amateur solutions we read about every day in the press. No new conclusions or recommendations. That would take real research. So here they jump on to the already-existing bandwagon of easy fixes and safe conclusions. Yes indeed, they claim, the problem is those buzz-bird RJs. So let's force airlines to use bigger airplanes.

These are incredibly ignorant statements, all personal opinions that again are not supported by anything in this report.  First, only at four airports in the entire nation are there "valuable slots," yet these guys mislead the public by making it appear that this slot-gobbling is being done all over the nation. Second, airports don't "allow" airlines to schedule one way or another.

Again, we were right last week when we predicted that this lightweight document would lip-sync all the latest trendy "solutions," including "over-scheduling."  Their statement is, by the way, stupid and wrong. Airlines schedule when demand exists, within the workings of the hub and spoke system. Schedules are adjusted to accommodate "peak" periods and air traffic control issues. But that stuff is well beyond these guys. And naturally, reviewing the real causes of the failing and mis-managed ATC system apparently would have caused mental overload for this report. Besides, it wouldn't be politically correct.

We can always depend on the AQR for some innovative conclusions. Last year, the AQR reported that airlines force children to sit in the back of the airplane. They left that bit of creativity out of this year's edition. Who knows what fun stuff they'll dream up for next year. 

But One Point Is Valid. There is no question that airlines are, (as the report states in a rare moment of lucid thought) their own worst enemies. That's proven by the fact they all haven't come out and let the world know that this report's ultimate value is to take up space in the nearest landfill.

But it's just as appalling for two universities to publish a "report" based on unreliable data, accessorized with inaccurate personal opinions postured as scholarly research. 

"...The AQR chronicles the air traveler's frustration with a system that is fractured and near a breaking point."

What it really chronicles is a system of higher education that may be well beyond that.

(c) Copyright 2001, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.

From November 13, 2000 Hot Flash...

NOTE: The Enron/Andersen scandal put virtually the entire consulting business under a microscope. And it should. Therefore we thought that we might re-print a Hot Flash regarding aviation consulting.  As pointed out below, consulting accomplished by professionals with the intent to expand the field of knowledge is an honorable endeavor that provides a benefit, regardless of what some lightweight cyber-wags-without-a-life may say. When consulting is accomplished in a manner to further knowledge and information, it is valuable and necessary   But. as was seen at Enron, when consultants stoop to being Trojan Horses, doctoring, twisting, or fabricating conclusions merely to hype things that don't make sense, it isn't consulting. It's intellectual prostitution.

This Hot Flash from November, 2000 might bring some clarity to this issue.

United's New Merger "Study" - Facts Not Required.
Neither is Full Disclosure.

First we had GAIN, a silly group supported by United Airlines, running around the nation trying to convince airports to support the UA/US merger on the basis of it somehow contributing to global aviation growth. It contributed mostly to global warming with all the hot air it produced.

Then there was that pathetic study done at the University of Illinois that conveniently tried to tell us that the merger would lower fares. They also didn't make clear the fact that United was behind that one too. That's questionable tactics.

Now United has done it again. Another "study"has just been issued by some flashy-sounding "Institute" to prove that mergers, gee, like the one United wants to do, will just do wonders for the flying public. But this time, they went over the line.

Let's start with this. There is nothing wrong with United paying somebody to do a "study" on their merger. There's nothing wrong with some "institute" or some consultant to do such a project. The project's conclusions should be determined on their own merits, not whether the consultant insists upon feeding his or her family by charging for their expertise.

But that's where we part company with the drivel just published by this "institute."

We believe that consultants have two absolute requirements. The first is to provide a product that is totally consistent with integrity. The second is to fully disclose that they are working for a client.

On the first count, we'll let the conclusions of this new "study" speak for themselves. On the second count, this "institute" appears to have a problem. Nowhere in the document does it clearly disclose that United Airlines is one of it's "donors," nor does it make clear that United (according to the Chicago Tribune) paid for the study. Actually, it's worse than that.

Simply put, it appears that United essentially paid its own consultant to do this "study" for the "institute" and then allowed it to be published as if it were an "independent" work. (If they were the ones paying for the consultant, that's a clear agency relationship between UA and the consultant.) That's misleading to the reader - at best. And it is fatal to any credibility this pathetically transparent advocacy study might have had.  They should have made their relationship clear from the start and very clear in the "study."  If they are so sure this merger is a good thing, the airline, one would think, would proudly admit to this, and again, let the veracity of the conclusions be the arbiter.

And maybe that's the fly in the ointment here. The conclusions in this "study" are offensive to anyone above a second-grade education.

• Fewer Airlines Mean More Competition. Yes, another breakthrough in the New Math. According to this study, if the airline industry would only merge into just three or so mega mergers, consumers would have more choices. That's right. Fewer, bigger airlines would be better for the consumer. Like, we'd be sooo much better off without having the bother of a choice of airlines. Like, small and mid-size communities wouldn't have to worry about recruiting more airlines. There won't be any. Like, without airline competition, fares might even drop. Like, this study is direct competition to Charmin.
  
• Don't Worry. Southwest Will Be Within Driving Distance. According to this learned document, Southwest Airlines will be the carrier that will counter-balance all these mergers. All those small and mid-size communities will just love having more of their local passengers go into the leakage column. Less worry about capital expenses for new gates and terminals and stuff like that.
  
• Mergers Will Increase Regional Competition. The study implies that competition will increase as regional carriers start to compete "head-on as parts of a national network." Huh? Earth to Ivory Tower: that's pretty much what they do today. Oh, and they forgot to make any mention of how these mega carriers might consolidate their regional feed networks, or, what hubsite airports might be pulled down. For example, United has made no commitment regarding keeping current levels of service at small airports where today both United Express and US Airways compete. That's a critical part of the outcome of this merger. One ignored in the panting conclusions of this "study."
  
• Mid-Size Communities Will Just Love Mergers. Again, a breakthrough. The study implies that if all these carriers merged into roughly three big airlines, they would be more competitive and give the consumer more benefits. Okay, let's take Charleston, South Carolina. Today, they have at least five airline choices to Los Angeles. The mergers hyped by this "study" would reduce that to just three. That's better? Please don't squeeze this study. Mr. Whipple will get mad.
  
• Fewer Airlines Means More Connectivity. They say that consolidation would link cities that are not currently connected on a single carrier system. Now, that's true. Ithaca might finally get on-line double connecting service for all those consumers going to Fresno. Okay. But the trade off - not mentioned in this snow-job "study" - is that consumers in lots and lots of places like Roanoke will also find as much as 80% of their air service suddenly dominated by one airline. If the folks running this "institute" really believe that's an increase in competition, they need to be admitted to another type of institute.
  
• Huzzah! Elmira - Osaka Service! The intellectual idiocy of this study is forever enshrined by the claim that "small and medium sized communities would benefit most since they would have more links to foreign cities after consolidation" Fact is that virtually every mid-size community that now has United or UAX service won't see diddly in anymore meaningful international connectivity. We've worked with lots of small and medium communities over they years, and we've apparently not taken notice of this pressing need for more access to Tokyo. The fact is that most of the communities involved in the United/US Airways merger already have good international access over ORD or IAD. What's again not addressed is how United might consolidate the combined route systems. Indeed, those airports that have access to both United and US Airways systems may even lose some European connectivity, depending on how United consolidates international operations between PIT, CLT, PHL and IAD, and how they consolidate UAX and US Airways Express systems.

How 'Bout Some Full Disclosure? If United hires someone to do a merger study, that's great. It contributes to the forum of discussion. But they should tell the reader up front, and let the study conclusions stand by themselves. Trying to Trojan Horse the study as being somehow "independent" is a questionable tactic. And it's also questionable when the consultant fails to make it clear that United - the beneficiary of these glowing conclusions - is getting the invoice. On that count, the credibility of this study fails.

On the count of the validity of the conclusions, it fails, too. But it's a free country, and even consultants and "institutes" have the right to make fools of themselves.

A right they just fully exercised, by the way.

Hot Flash  August 6, 2001
Enlightened Customer Service:
Everybody Is A Suspect

Picture this. You're just finishing the process of buying an expensive suit at Nordstrom's...

The sales person hands you back your credit card, along with the carefully-wrapped $800 designer clothing you just purchased.   But instead of expressing any appreciation for the sale, the clerk looks you sternly in the eye and orders,

"We have a shoplifting problem. It will not be tolerated in this store!
It's illegal and if you do it we'll have you arrested. Do you understand?"

A heck of a way to end a business transaction. Accusing every customer of being a potential shoplifter would be an egregious breach of good customer service. Such behavior on the part of a high-quality merchant would be unthinkable.

But think again. One such merchant, United Airlines, is doing this sort of thing right now, today, to passengers checking-in at its hubsite airports. If there were any doubts that management at some airlines are totally out of touch with their customers, they were eliminated this past week, when United decided to give out leaflets warning every one of its passengers not to get "unruly."  The intention - to reduce inflight incidents - may be laudable. But the execution is like using a depth charge to unclog the sink.

To frame this matter properly, let's talk about "unruly passengers." It's a trendy, hot issue. Now, this is not to say that violence against airline employees or incidents that truly interfere with inflight staff are to be tolerated, nor to say that it's not a serious matter. But it must be put into perspective.  Last year there were something like 200 unruly passenger incidents reported to the FAA. That's out of 670 million enplanements.

What we're saying is that while the subject is serious, it isn't one that calls for nationwide panic, nor is it necessary to accuse all passengers of being potential offenders, which, by passing out the flyer shown below, is exactly what United is doing. "Unruly" is not typical behavior of all of the passengers checking in at United's O'Hare ticket counters. Sure, Nordstrom's does probably have a shoplifting problem. But they don't address it by accusing every customer of being a potential petty thief.

Do The Math. Incidents of "unruly passengers" - which, by the way, is a term open to wide definition - are the function of the hard reality that when you stuff over half a billion humans a year into metal tubes and launch them across the skies, there is no way that you can avoid having some screwballs in the mix. Yes, they need to be controlled and dealt with, but the evening ticket counter shift at STL and the cabin of flight 605 to LA are not the equivalent of a midnight stroll through a minefield.

United's Solution: Assume They're All Potential Unrulies. But to make things worse, now comes United Airlines with a public-awareness-program-gone-amuck that just rubs the consumer's nose in it. In cooperation with the FAA (now, there's a fine partner) they are passing out these flyers to passengers when they check in. 

Now remember, unruly behavior is about as common as an Elvis sighting, yet United wants to warn all of its passengers that they'd better not get out of line.

The arrogance of this is mind-boggling. This is from an airline whose management doesn't even require its agents to say "thank you" to customers at the end of a check-in transaction. But they will take time to tell passengers not to get unruly.

You can lay a couple grand on the airline, you can be a Spent-Uranium Level Premier Executive, and, sometimes, (not always but way too often) the attitude is one of condescension that they even bothered with you. That's bad enough.

But United now the gall to make sure that every passenger at its hub stations will get this warning when they check-in. Not, "have a nice flight" or "we appreciate your business," but "if we, in our sole opinion, determine that you're 'unruly' we're gonna squash you flatter than a tortilla, pal."

Just what is the real message here? Look at the headline on this flyer. It's not "informational."  It's clearly addressed to the individual passenger, and it's a warning to each and every one.

Rational people know that threatening or interfering with a flight crew is a no-no. It's the people who can't think straight, and likely who can't even read this flyer, who are at risk.

This action by United, however, assumes that passengers are idiots, all of whom must be reminded how to act when on an airplane. They're assuming their passengers are all just like a bunch of school kids on a field trip. "Now, children, behave."

Perhaps with the best of intentions, this is still an open insult to United's passengers. It is beneath the dignity of such an otherwise high-quality international airline.

And they can't  try to hide and say it's just an informational program to enhance safety awareness. They're giving their passengers a direct and very rude order -  one that offends any level of professional customer service.

Open Season On Passengers? In the cabin or even in the terminal, this attitude can and may be misused against any passenger who decides that they've had enough and takes a stand to complain.

From time to time, airlines do screw up and passengers are faced with rude, nasty, and sometimes ignorant service. But this flyer campaign on the part of United signals that any passenger, cornered and abused, better not raise his voice or get demanding. The retribution could be swift, with the employee simply declaring the passenger as "unruly."

What's "interference," for example? What constitutes "intimidation?'  Let's run the possibilities: A gun?  A verbal assault? A raised voice? A loud complaint? Hitting the call button too many times?   Referring to the in-flight food as Alpo? Or simply expressing to the flight attendant that he or she is nasty and rude?

Where does "intimidation" stop and the free-speech right of a consumer to express himself begin? It may sound simple, but there are incidents of passengers - justifiably - raising their voices, only to be threatened.  

For example, while the vast majority of flight attendants are professional, doubtless there is a small percentage that may decide that a passenger who raises his or her voice to a rude, uncaring employee is being "intimidating" and should be arrested. The message is that the passenger is at the mercy of the opinion of the employee.

If passengers feel cornered and are increasingly looking to Congress to fix things, this type of customer service approach is one reason why. And passing out these intimidating, accusative flyers makes it more likely that the employee-passenger interface could get more contentious.

More Passengers Are Probably Angry Today. Speaking of on-board passenger anger, maybe United might want to deal with the slings an arrows that make passengers that way as they get processed into the allegedly-friendly skies.

The air travel experience for consumers is becoming more and more frustrating by the day. Like we covered two weeks ago, some airline CEOs might want to take a phantom trip on their own airline to see why customers are really ticked off. So, if more passengers are ticked off, that means that more are angry and may express what some employees may deem as a "bad attitude."  If customers are more testy than they used to be, well, some carriers need to take a hard look at their service system. (Take a look at the process we covered.)

Maybe Consumers Need A Flyer Of Their Own. But what some airlines ignore is that the air travel experience, what with poor ATC management, congested airports, and harried employees, is often a frustrating experience for customers. Anxiety leads to anger, and anger leads to passengers expressing themselves. Not violent, just angry, and that's to be expected in any customer contact position. Unfortunately, some airlines seem to have forgotten that passengers do have feelings.

Again, let's be clear. Unruly passenger incidents are serious. But it is a problem where a solution must be focused carefully. United, in giving insulting flyers to every passenger, is obviously assuming that every passenger is at risk to easily become a loose cannon in the cabin of an airplane.

This is a management problem, or more correctly, a management screw-up, not a failure of  United's front line staff, who are among the best in the industry. Anybody in airline management who really thinks that warning every passenger not to get "unruly" is good service needs to find another line of work.

It's Time The Public Responds To This Assault On Good Service. This flyer process can work both ways. We might suggest that consumers may want to remind some airlines of their obligations by giving out a flyer of their own when they check-in. Just ten simple, reasonable expectations that are sometimes forgotten when airlines do business with passengers.

No truly professional airline would disagree with any of the ten points on this consumer flyer. Unfortunately, some don't bother to see if their service systems are delivering them.

For a printable PDF copy of this flyer that passengers may want to give out to airline staff, click here.

Maybe if some airlines tried to improve how its customers are treated before and after they get on their flights, they'd find that the workday experience of their employees would improve, too.

Judging by United's misguided stunt, that may be too much to expect.

(c) Copyright 2001, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.

The AA/DOJ "Predatory" Lawsuit:
Key Points Made By The Court

(April 29, 2001)  As we predicted in May, 1999, (Go There) the DOJ accusations of "predatory behavior" by American Airlines have been tossed out by the Court. In a lengthy ruling that sited dozens of legal authorities, including the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Judge J. Thomas Martin essentially rejected virtually all of the DOJ's flimsy accusations against American.

The Summary Judgement took each of the DOJ's claims and, using extensive past case law, put the whole suit in the proper perspective: nothing more than high-level ambulance chasing.  With emphasis added, some of the key findings - of fact - noted by Judge Martin were:

Finding of Fact: American did not engage in "predatory" pricing:

" ... Summary judgment is appropriate because the un-controverted evidence establishes that American did not price its fares below an appropriate measure of costs in the four core flight routes (Dallas to Kansas City, Wichita, Colorado Springs, and Long Beach). To the contrary, the evidence establishes that, throughout the relevant time periods, American consistently priced its products above its average variable costs, the only appropriate, credible measure of costs in the present action.

Ruling Based on Facts: American did not undercut fares of new entrants:

".... The government has not identified any instances in which American undercut the published DFW-ICT fare of Vanguard with a published American fare during the relevant time periods….American's average fares throughout the period of Vanguard's nonstop DFW-ICT service were equal to or higher than Vanguard's average fares..."

Ruling Based on Facts: American did not engage in non-fare related predatory actions:

"...The government's position, which would permit American to compete in price but require it to turn away new customers, would place the defendant in a competitive straight jacket...

"...lowering prices is the same mechanism by which a firm stimulates competition. . . . It would be ironic indeed if the standards for predatory pricing liability were so low that antitrust suits themselves became a tool for keeping prices high.

Ruling Based on Facts: Just being bigger and better is not "predatory:

"...Finally, the United States argues that American "effectively undercut" its competitors because it not only reduced prices, it also offered a better product at a matching price. Clearly the alternative -- requiring American to charge a premium for its allegedly superior quality -- would require courts to engage in a series of subjective price comparisons based on intangible values...

"...It is clear that a reputation for aggressive, but wholly legal competition may also intimidate would-be competitors. (There is evidence in the present case, for example, that some low cost carriers try to avoid routes served by Southwest, not because it is a "predator," but simply because it competes vigorously for its market share.) The government's broad-based claims of predation by (subjectively-felt) reputation offer no principled basis for distinguishing between a reputation for predation, and a reputation for lawfully vigorous competition..."

So, the DOJ's amateur act lawsuit was in the first place based on concocted and bogus examples of "predatory" behavior. But worse, its cheap attack on AA failed to recognize that by any reasonable standard, the bigger carrier did not step over any legal lines. The judge put it succinctly:

"The low-fare carriers in question entered the core markets seeking to play a new sort of ballgame. The government's theory that an established competitor should not, and indeed, cannot deviate from its existing market strategy in the face of aggressive price cutting by a new entrant represents a whole new midgame spin on time- honored rules...(American) did not price its fares below cost; it did not undercut the other carriers' fares."

Simply stated, the court recognized that airlines like American have the right to respond to competition, and if the new entrants don't have the bucks and the quality of service to survive, that's the reality of the consumer-driven marketplace. Again, in point of fact, the court found that American did not engage in predatory practices. They simply responded to competition.

This silly, pandering lawsuit has cost American Airlines millions of dollars in its legitimate efforts to defend itself. It is a shame that slimy politicians cannot be sent a bill for their irresponsibility in using the courts for cheap political ends. 

American has done the consumer a favor by not caving into the DOJ. Now, there is clear case law outlining what constitutes "predatory" behavior. If the DOJ and blind-anger politicians had won, the result would not have changed the raw economics that cause poorly-managed new entrants to go out of business, nor the economics that deter investment in new airlines.

From: Hot Flash For Monday Morning, May 17, 1999

The AA Lawsuit: Janet Reno Wags The Domestic Dog.

This whole AA/DOJ lawsuit thing is a raging hoot.

Honesty does not matter. Facts are secondary. Politics are everything. And when the White House gets in trouble, anybody might get thrown under the bus. A prime example of when you choose to dance with a political porcupine, you're going to get stuck, as the Chairman of American Airlines found out this week, when he and other industry leaders were going along on an "economic development" trip with Bill Clinton. Picture what the scene may have looked like:

...On board Air Force One, descending into Washington. Bill Clinton is returning from a triumphant photo-op journey to hype investment into economically-blighted areas of the country, accompanied by several high profile industry executives, including the chairman of American Airlines ...

"Y'all know, this trip was real important," the Pres drawls to the execs lounging comfortably and having cocktails in the cabin of the plush jet. "We just gotta put more money in those areas that are falling behind."

"You bet," chimes in Al Gore. "My campaign can sure use it. That Bush kid is way ahead in the polls."

"Tune in, Al," the President snaps. "That's not the blighted area I'm talking about. I mean these fine executives need to create jobs where there is no earthly reason to do so. This trip has made me look like I really care."

Don Carty, Chairman of American Airlines, takes a sip of his VO-and-water. "We're behind you, Mr. President."

"Please don't say 'behind'," Gore injects.

Clinton stiffens. "Al, why don't you go ask the pilots to let you see the cockpit again?" Turning back to Carty, "Don, that's a great gesture. I sure appreciate your time and your stature in coming along on this important mission." Motioning to a humidor on the table, "Say, how 'bout a cigar, Don?"

"Only if it's still in the original wrapper."

"By the way, Don, I sure enjoyed helping you stop your pilots from striking. A whole lot of their PAC money goes Republican, you know, and that by itself surely is a safety issue. You know that we're always here to serve businesses like American Airlines. Matter of fact, when you get off the plane, the lovely and gracious Janet Reno will be serving you again. With an anti-trust lawsuit."

Flashing a slick smile, Clinton explained himself to the dumbfounded AA chairman. "Heck, Don, I'm sure you understand. Making AA look like a big bully will get me some really great press. It'll take the pressure off of other stories, like that Johnny Chung fella who just admitted he illegally gave me $300 grand for my campaign. Or that war I bungled into. This'll jump start my flagging approval ratings. Heck, I might be able to start dating again. Been pretty quiet lately in the chippie department, if you know what I mean."

Air Force One is now parked at the gate and the group is deplaning. "But Mr. President, we've supported you," Carty protests. "I've spent the last week going to disgusting places to hype your silly plan. Is this how I get rewarded?"

Clinton puts a knowing arm around Carty. "Well, Don, it's kinda like that line in the movie Animal House: 'You screwed up. You trusted me." Pointing the executive down the stairs, he finished with another slick smile. "You have a nice day, now. Buh-bye."

Essentially that's sort of what happened. The Chairman of American Airlines was jetting around the country with Clinton for some high-press-profile boondoggle, while all along the Administration was planning to zap AA with a big-time (and very stupid - more on that later) lawsuit. Why Don Carty would lend his name and prestige to a moral slug like Bill Clinton is an open question.

Facts Don't Count. Press Coverage Does. But, despite the din from the all-knowing mainline media, the DOJ lawsuit is, as American claims, essentially without merit. It is cheap, pandering politics. Yes, we know all about how the public feels about big airlines. But in this case, they are flat wrong. We aren't going to get too far into it here, because AA is a big boy and can take care of itself. (And some of us have not forgotten some of the underhanded, cheap, dishonest dirty tricks that Bob Crandall got away with in the early 80s against Braniff International. So AA can dig itself out of this one on their own. And, they will.)

Crooked Lawyer Attorney General: Forget Ambulances. Chase Airlines Instead. But lest the angry mobs calling for AA's blood get out of control, one should consider the source of this suit. In former lives, there's no doubt that Janet Reno sold used cars and peddled Florida swampland. Certainly, any moral or legal failings of American Airlines do not even register when compared to the shenanigans of this Administration, and those of this Attorney General. For months she has defended a President who is a proven liar, who has been found to even lie under oath, who takes campaign dollars from foreign governments, and for toppers is a credibly-accused rapist. None of that seems to bother this Attorney General.

This suit is indeed cheap, wag-the-dog politics. It is intended to hit America's heart strings and divert attention from the increasingly obvious muck coming out of this administration. When a foreign nation makes huge illegal contributions to the Democrats, Janet Reno, who is supposed to support the law, ignores it. When that same nation - China - is allowed by the administration to walk off with our military secrets, Janet Reno tries to block any investigation of it. Indeed, the same week when an agent for the Chinese military testifies to Congress that he laid heavy green on Clinton/Gore - in the White House, no less - Janet Reno diverts attention by suing American Airlines. Janet Reno is one big reason why we have lawyer jokes.

As far as this suit is concerned, we understand that we're inconsistent with much of the ambient thinking among the "aviation cognoscenti." But other consultants chase ambient thinking. We don't follow the masses. Our findings on issues such as regional jets and Free Flight flew in the face of conventional thought, too. And we turned out to be right. In this case, while it is not politically correct, we believe the facts do not support the suit.

Sure, consumers are livid about airline service. And they're right - some big airlines are really arrogant and abusive to customers. But that's not germane to the issues raised here. We could knock Reno's dimbulb accusations out of the park one by one. This suit won't fix anything, nor will it help the consumer. But let AA prove it for themselves - and again, they will.

Final point for those airports who may wish to gleefully jump into this AA/DOJ issue: Think twice. American provides air service to a lot of airports. Janet Reno can provide only hot air. No lawsuit, including this one, will change the economic realities that cause start-up airlines to fail. No lawsuit will bring air service or low fares where they cannot be supported. Try to avoid the mob mentality on this one.

From: Hot Flash For Monday Morning, February 8, 1999

"Airline Passenger Fairness Act" - Nothing "Fair" About It. But It Makes Great Press.

In private industry, businesses run afoul of consumer laws when they make false claims about a product or service. It is unfortunate that politicians are held to a much lower standard. They can write up bills, deceptively name them, and then claim they'll accomplish all sorts of outlandish things.

Senators McCain and Wyden have done just that. With much fanfare and hyperbole, they've unveiled their "Airline Passenger Fairness Act," which will make it a "deceptive trade practice" if airlines fail to do certain things - most of which they do already. What are actually "deceptive" is this bill itself and the silly claims its authors are making about it. The Senators are trying to mislead the public into believing that this Act cuts new territory, and that it will increase competition. Neither is the case.

Now, let's frame this issue. The ground is fertile for this type of political chest-beating. Overall, some major airlines have indeed forgotten the customer. Some airlines - not all - are starting to treat passengers like boot-camp recruits. Follow their rules, or else.

One latest example is Delta which wanted to charge more for a ticket if the consumer had the temerity to arrange travel by actually speaking to a one of their reservationists. Just buy the damn ticket, but don't bother us, is the message. Yes, there is, without doubt, real outrage and anger toward the airline system. Consumers feel trapped. Today, 29 airports generate over half of all US air travel, and all but about a half dozen of these are "dominated" by one carrier, giving the impression of monopoly. Smaller communities are losing air service - mostly for sound economic reasons - yet airlines are being blamed. And some major airlines are doing their level best to act like pompous bullies toward their passengers. We documented this earlier this year.

Then we have bad, misleading data put out by the DOT which makes the situation more confused. We covered the "DOT Fare Report" a couple of weeks ago.

Enter The Clowns. So the situation is ripe for politicians to make a soapbox out of airline issues, and right on cue come Republican McCain and Democrat Wyden, proving that when it comes to cheap theatrics, bad legislation, and misleading claims, bi-partisanship still works.

Having McCain try to "fix" the airline industry is like calling Roto-Rooter to cure acne.

Not only does this bill again illuminate his ignorance about how airlines work, it is also amateurish, transparent pandering. Most of this stuff he proposes is already in place in one form or another, and none of it will "increase" competition, nor improve airline service. Hence, the title of the bill and claims made about it are bogus. Deceptive, if you will. Apparently honesty is not in high esteem in Washington these days.

The Act covers a wide territory, and if an airline fails to meet these "standards" they are engaged "unfair and deceptive" acts. Let's look at each point:

"Fair Warning if you might get bumped. Airlines must be willing to tell passengers when a flight is oversold." Big deal - most do it now. This part of the Act won't change anything.

Refund within 48 hours of non-refundable tickets. Okay, that sounds nice, and it's true that airlines have played the abuse-the-passenger-with-the-fare-rules game to the hilt. But the non-refundable factor is one that arguably can result in offering lower fares. This Act could tend to make them higher.

"Use your ticket as you see fit." In other words, make it okay to do back-to-back itineraries. Most of us do now, and regardless threats from a couple of airlines, if you pay for four seats (two back to back round-trip discount tickets), and only use two (one leg on each ticket), there's no court in the world that will support some pompous airline that says they've been defrauded. So, even if this is passed into law, nothing will change in favor of the consumer.

Information on all available fares. There may be three dozen fares being charged on a single flight, based on when the ticket was bought, where it was bought, what the total itinerary was, etc. This requirement again displays McCain's near-total ignorance of how airlines work. What the consumer might get is a list of fares and rule that he or she cannot understand (Lord knows McCain and Wyden couldn't), not of which could help the consumer "make an informed decision."

Right to know when something's wrong. Airlines must provide passengers with all reasons why flights are delayed, diverted, or canceled. This again frames the pandering dishonorable nature of this Act - it assumes that airlines routinely lie about these things. Anyone who's worked at a departure gate knows that there are such things as creeping delays. And flights can be canceled for a range of reasons. There is no question that often the people-processors at the gate don't make announcements in a timely manner, but that's fixable. In any case, McCain and Wyden would do well to conduct their own activities under such a requirement. When it comes to providing clear, accurate and candid answers, airlines have politicians like these beat hands-down.

Useful Info about frequent flyer miles. Airlines would be required to tell how many seats are available on each flight for use by frequent flyer tickets. Again the McCain is holding up the big neon "I'm Out To Lunch" sign. If he knew anything about how airlines work, he'd be embarrassed. This figure is not one hard number - airlines adjust fare inventories on a constant, even hour-to-hour basis. Wanna bet that either McCain or Wyden are ticked because they couldn't get the flights they wanted with their miles?

Your Luggage Checked to Your Destination. When airlines make agreements (we assume this means Ticketing and Baggage Agreements) to issue "unified" tickets from passengers changing airlines on an itinerary, airlines should be required to switch the passengers baggage as well. More sloppy ignorance. On an interline itinerary, this is done now. When off-schedule operations occur, airlines do their best, but if there are times - like when a flight cancels and another airline has a flight leaving in 5 minutes - it is not always possible to get both bag and body on the same plane. If this deceptive Act is passed, the result will be that airlines simply won't re-book passengers on a last minute basis, and they'll say it's because of McCain's stupid law.

Passengers must receive checked luggage within 24 hours of flight arrival. We assume he's talking about lost luggage. Well, Senators, when baggage is lost, it's lost. Anyone who has worked baggage service at an airline knows that when it's found, it's found. This silly 24-hour rule assumes that greedy airlines want to hold Samsonites full of dirty underwear just to harass passengers. Wanna bet that one of these Senators had a bad experience with lost luggage, and now it's get-even-time?

DOT Reporting. The DOT will be required to report on "which airlines are denying passengers fair treatment, and on how many occasions." We silly provincials used to think that there were two sides to a story. But not here. All we need is a ticked-off passenger to write a letter, and the airline is guilty. Now that's real "fair" Senator.

Summary:

Airlines can be their own worst enemy. There has been a definite decline in customer awareness in the past year, as some big carriers are more interested in impressing Wall Street with penny-ante nonsense than in trying to make passengers happy. The result is that they've opened the door to full-throttle stupidity such as the "Airline Passenger Fairness Act." There is no question that the Act is cheap political tripe, deceptive in name, and dishonorable in its real intent (which is to get high profile ink, mainly), the fact remains that the US airline industry needs to refocus on the customer. Otherwise, this type of law will become reality - to everyone's detriment.

From: Monday Morning, November 20, 2000

Airline Industry R&R Program
Rationing & Reductions - It's Started

The bill just arrived at the table for air travelers. And it's been padded big-time.

Even so, it's time to pay, and the consumer is going to pay big time. Particularly consumers at small and mid-size airports.

A few weeks ago, we made the call that air service was about to be rationed on the basis that the "system" just can't handle the increasing demand. Instead of building an ATC system that can meet the needs of the future, the US air transportation system would be downsized and constricted to conform to the FAA's on-going incompetence. That's going to cost the consumer hundreds of millions in higher fares, less service, and economic loss to small and mid-size communities. All compliments of an FAA that has squandered close to $30 billion in the last 20 years non-fixing the ATC system.

And, Rationing is now Happening. Instead of demanding the FAA get some accountability, the airline industry is instead simply reducing service levels to meet the failing capacity of the ATC system. (Yes, failing - remember that ATC equipment snafus that caused delays were up a whopping 34% in 1999. Probably up again this year, too. No, their "modernization" program is not improving things.)

American is re-structuring its ORD operations to isolate ORD aircraft from the rest of its system. That way, when the FAA's bailing-wire ATC equipment goes glub and gums up Chicago, the rest of the AA system will be less affected.  Simply put: Airlines must now adjust schedules to meet the needs of the collapsing and unsafe ATC system, not the customer.

Small Airports: Forget That Chicago Service. Those communities that still think Air21 will get them ORD service can just keep dreaming. The FAA's boob-tube ATC is causing airlines to cut small airport service to ORD, not add it. That is a fact. Indeed, American has yanked ORD service from at least four small and medium cities so far this year, and it's likely there will be more. With the imposed inefficiencies of the ATC system, ORD will strictly be highest and best use - and that means rationing service into that gateway airport. That's not an "if" - it's a reality.

United Express - Less Service To Smaller Airports. United has announced that it's adding 30 to 40 minutes more ground time to United Express flights at its hubs. Get this: on flights that probably average not much more than 60 minutes, they're adding another 30-40 minutes of ground time. Great! Most will say. More time to assure that connections are made. But, what won't be reported is that means huge inefficiencies for UAX carriers, and - read carefully small airports - less service because the airplanes will be able to make fewer trips each day. United is being forced to dumb-down its system because of the FAA's bumbling management of the ATC system.

Wait! We'll Solve It! Peak Hour Pricing. Good. Don't fix it. Charge'em more. One of the most stupid ideas to come down the pike is "peak hour pricing" - charge consumers more for flying at "peak" hours, and encourage them to fly at other times. It is this type of trendy, don't-bother-to-address-the-problem nonsense that is guaranteed to screw things up more. It's the stuff that the media and politicians just jump on.

Anybody notice that this is a hub and spoke system? So the guy leaving Buffalo to LAX gets zapped more because his connecting flight at ORD is in a supposed "peak" period. And at some airports like ORD or like ATL, "peak periods" can be from 6AM to 9PM - right on through the day. All this would do is raise consumer costs, and worse re-direct solutions away from the amateur act going on at the top of the FAA.

There's More People Flying, Punish Them. Some have suggested that airlines must stop scheduling so many flights. Wonderful. When flights are 75% - 80% full, let's reduce capacity. We all know that's sure to reduce fares.

What the nation is up against is a severe shortage of leadership. The FAA has failed year after year to improve things. The airline industry has mainly tried to be docile puppies around the FAA. Congress would rather toss money at the FAA than demand it have any accountability. And substantial parts of the aviation media - which should know better - merely report DOT/FAA garbage press releases as if they are gospel. There is no leadership.

Just Re-Regulate, That's The Answer.   And into this vacuum is flooding a host of congressional charlatans that are going to use this increasing crisis for political gain. The easy target will be to blame the airlines for this situation, and - naturally - propose legislation to punish them. This is coming. And it will make matters worse - just like the Air21 stuff at LGA. Bank on it. The only hope is that the airline industry gets some hard leadership and takes the offensive with the FAA. But there's nothing on the horizon.

United and American in the best of times both take about a $600 million annual hit because of ATC inefficiencies, and these latest actions will make things worse.

ATC expert United Airlines Captain Michael Baiada (the real father of free flight) has noted for years that if ATC were a line item on an airline's P&L statement, we'd never be in this mess. (Of course, United ignores such a suggestion, and instead calls for more "task forces" to study the problem. We're lucky these people aren't running the local fire department.) So now airlines are now pulling down service to match a declining ATC system. We are reducing air service because Congress and the airline industry refuse to demand results and accountability from the FAA. Until they do, no amount of vapid industry "task forces" "task teams" or other ice-cream socials between airlines and the FAA will do anything more than waste time.

Small and mid-size airports: take heed: if you're dependent on ORD as a gateway, you may be out of luck, and soon. Other small airports, take heed too. ORD is just the start.

From: Hot Flash For Monday Morning, October 25, 1999

The Airport Witch Hunt

The DOT primitives are at it again. Like the drooling savages of ancient times, when they don't understand something, they call for a good healthy Witch Hunt, and burn somebody at the stake.

Today, the cause is airline competition, and the latest witch hunt is aimed at airports as a group. According to the High Priests at the DOT, airports have been colluding to keep facilities away from new entrant airlines. Sure, the airports will deny everything, but we all know that witches cannot be trusted.

Like all witch hunts, the program is the same. The High Priests (who are NOT to be questioned) make a statement about the accused (in this case airports) as if it were fact, even if it isn't. When the witch denies it, bingo! we know she's guilty, because by definition, witches tend to do two things. The first is that they lie. (The second is that they move to New York to run for Senator. But that's not germane here.)

Unlike ancient times, the witch hunt forum has moved into new, expanded facilities in Washington. Now they often take the form of Congressional hearings, but the intent is the same - to put on a good show, ignore the facts, and at the end of the day make some poor chump the star of a latter-day Saigon barbecue.

This time, the DOT high priests followed the classic Salem approach: They started with the unquestioned belief that "airports are controlled by Big Airlines," then assume that the mush-brained mobs (in this case the media) will buy into it. And that's just what's happened this past week.

The DOT shamans intoned "...airport managers must not allow dominant airlines to become de facto airport managers," with the intent of getting the mush-brains to believe that airports are actually allowing big airlines to dictate whether new airlines can enter the market. Now, that is flat not true, but who cares. The airport witches responded that it is a fact that the big airlines that created hubbing operations at airports like PIT, CLT, CVG control the majority of gates at those airports. But they pleaded that it's because those airlines actually need them, and in most cases the airlines financed them. Furthermore there are gates at these airports - right now - that new entrants can use. The management of these accused airports, they can point out, would gladly welcome such carriers. But the High Priests are not deterred by trivial facts that run counter to the intent of the Witch Hunt. We cannot let facts spoil the fun. The witches comments are to be ignored.

The DOT and other high priests accuse the airport witches of often allowing Big Airlines lower rates than new entrants. Here, the mob gets more blood thirsty. Yes! The Airport witches even admit it! They do let "signatory" carriers at big airports have rates lower than new entrants that are non-signatories. Proof positive of evil! The high priests know they are on to something. Stack the wood under that stake. Get the matches ready. And maybe get some marshmallows while you're at it.

The airport witches respond that, yes, these "signatories" have lower rates. But, they beg, that's because, as the term implies, Big Airlines signed on to long-term leases, and as such have made sizable commitments to the airport. The witches say that when Air Fred, that new-entrant with shoe-box financing comes along, it is charged higher rates. (The mob starts to get unruly.) There's a reason, the witches claim. Air Fred has made no long-term commitment to the airport, and - something that Congress, the high priests, the media, and a some jive alphabet organizations want us to ignore - these new entrants have typically been bad credit risks. The High Priests are not swayed.

The airport witches try again to explain their innocence. As an example, they can tell the High Priests about Air South, a new entrant that went bankrupt due to really bad service and incompetent management, not competition. (The High Priests jeer and boo at this heresy.) But the airport witches tell the priests that the airports who leased Air South space have now received a post-Chapter 11 hickey in the mail. Despite the fact that the airline was too sloppy to pay its bills in full, and left a lot of airports with big debts, the Bankruptcy trustee is now demanding that airports return all funds paid by Air South in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy. And, legally, they can get it. So if airports are tough on new entrants, the witches note, there is a valid reason. (The High Priests shout down this bit of apostasy. It will not be included in the record. Facts could spoil things.)

Strategy: Make Accusations As Facts. The strategy used by the DOT High Priests is devious but successful in getting the mobs stirred up. They make a statement like, "...airports have the legal obligation to have running water in the rest rooms." A no-brainer that describes the obvious, but when it is made by the DOT in a Congressional hearing, it is meant to intentionally imply that airports across the nation have only little sheds out back with half moons carved in the door. It's not true, but the form of the statement leads one to believe that it is.

This is just what DOT did in the Witch Hunt hearings. As further proof of the airport industry's duplicity in barring new competition, a DOT priest stated in the form of an accusation "...airports have a legal obligation to provide reasonable access in support of competition," a comment made without any hard facts to show that this has not been done. None is needed. Airports are guilty, according to the DOT, regardless of the facts. And the mush-brained media mobs cheered, not having the integrity - or courage - to ask if these High Priests had a clue about the subject matter.

But indeed, the High Priests don't have a clue. Their knowledge about the economics and operations of airports is near zip. This past week, we received a phone call from the transportation staffer of a Congressman, who may been one of the High Priests. Her boss was involved at that moment in these hearings on airport access, and she wanted to know more about why low fare airlines can't get gates at big airports. When asked specifically what airports she was referring to, she said "all the big airports." but couldn't name one that was so affected. "The big airlines control all the slots at all the big airports, ya know," was her story. When told that only four airports had slots, she injected hotly. "Yeah, what about Dallas? Low fare airlines can't get in there, ya know." More consternation took place when she was asked which airport she was referring to. "The Dallas Airport, of course." she stated.

The point is that this was the staff of a Congressman who was involved in these Kangaroo Court hearings, yet he apparently didn't know the Wright Amendment from the Wright Brothers. But, again, we are looking to burn witches at the stake, not for facts.

For those lightweights inside the beltway, and especially those working under the Big Top, the fact is that the lack of facilities or the alleged (and untrue) "control" of them at large airports have not in any major way impeded new airline competition.

But the Primitives want a sacrifice, not the truth. It's unfortunate that the mainline media doesn't bother to question the assumptions used by the High Priests. Even worse, neither does the aviation media.

Light the fire.

From: Hot Flash For Monday Morning, September 20, 1999

Airline Industry's "12 Step Program"
Tossing The Well Known Substance At The Electrical Convenience.

In earlier Hot Flashes, we covered the dishonestly-named "Passenger Fairness Act" proposed in congress and the initial responses to it by the airline industry.

In an effort to derail this bad legislation, The Air Transport Association has announced a 12-step program to "improve" customer service. In lock step, virtually every airline has now come out with press releases of their variation on the program. But these are aimed at satisfying congress, not the consumer, who has been largely ignored in this mud fight.

We have the greatest respect for the ATA and its leadership. But this has to be one of the most inept PR stunts since Al Gore invented the Internet.

None of the points will fix the core causes of consumer dissatisfaction with airline service, but the program will give congress more ammunition. Anybody