The AirSafe.com News

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Showing posts with label service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label service. Show all posts

20 October 2012

A talk on the future of the European airline industry

Lufthansa executive Sadiq Gillani spoke to an overflow crowd at MIT last week, at a presentation sponsored by the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, where he presented an overview of the present state and likely future of airlines in Europe. Much of what he said had a familiar ring to it, especially to passengers who have experienced firsthand the changes in the US airline industry over the last decade.

Airline Profitability
One of Sadiq's not so surprising observations was that businesses that support airlines, for example maintenance and catering companies, are more consistently profitable than the airlines. There are many reasons for this, among them a cost structure, especially when it comes to the cost of capital and labor, that can't adjust quickly to changing market conditions.

One example of this that is an ongoing area of interest to US passengers is the how much pilots are paid. Sadiq mentioned that some senior Lufthansa pilots are compensated about 300,000 euro per year, or about $400,000 per year. By comparison, pilots at many major US airlines have had to take severe pay and benefits cuts, and new pilots at smaller carriers may get paid considerably less than $20,000 per year, about as much as the lowest level enlisted person in the US military.

While many US airlines have addressed cost issues by layoffs or restructuring debt or labor contracts through bankruptcy, Lufthansa and other European airlines have addressed cost issues by other means, including creating low-cost carriers to handle less profitable routes, expanding into more profitable airline support businesses, and growing revenue through joint ventures with other airlines.

Service Changes in Europe
A considerable portion of passenger traffic through many of the smaller cities in Lufthansa's network is for transit passengers who are changing planes, and a minority of the routes generate significant profits for the airline. As has been the case in the US with its extensive network of hub-and-spoke airports, Lufthansa and other airlines with significant hub-and-spoke operations will over time reduce services to and from some smaller markets, or replace some current flights with lower cost airline subsidiaries.

Competition
The most significant competition mentioned by Sadiq was from airlines outside of Europe, particularly Emirates and other airlines from the Gulf region. In part because these airlines have lower cost structures due to lower labor costs, lower taxes and fees in their home countries, and lower financing costs. The latter are lower because some of these airlines, unlike Lufthansa, are able to borrow at rates closer to that seen by governments, as opposed to the higher rates that are charged even for profitable and financially stable airlines like Lufthansa.

Ancillary Revenues
This is a somewhat fancy term for the extra fees and charges that have become the norm in the US. From checked bag fees, to early check-in fees, to fees for meals in coach, the average US traveler has come to expect to pay for what used to be offered for free with every ticket. Sadiq sees this as an area of opportunity and increased profits for Lufthansa and other major airlines in Europe.

Effect on passengers
The picture painted by Sadiq makes the near future for passengers in Europe look very similar to the current situation for passengers in the US. The availability of flights will likely decrease for smaller cities within Europe as routes are dropped or flight frequencies are reduced. Larger airlines like Lufthansa may use some of their lower cost subsidiary airlines to take an increasing share of this traffic. At the same time, passenger fees will increase for services and amenities that are currently free, and will form a more significant portion of future profits for Lufthansa and for other airlines in Europe.

03 September 2010

UPS 747 Crash in Dubai Kills Crew

3 September 2010; United Parcel Service (UPS); 747-400F; N571UP; flight 6; Dubai, United Arab Emirates: The aircraft was on an international cargo flight from Dubai, UAE to Colonge, Germany, and crashed shortly after takeoff about 10 km (6.2 mi) north of the airport. The two crew members were killed.



About the Boeing 747
This was the second fatal plane crash involving 747-400 series. The only previous fatal crash of a 747-400 was a 2000 crash of a Singapore Airlines in Taipei, Taiwan. The various models of the 747 have been involved in 28 crashes that have resulted in the death of at least one passenger, and seven fatal crashes of cargo or military versions of the aircraft. The earliest fatal passenger plane crash was a 1974 Lufthansa accident in Nairobi, Kenya, and the most recent passenger crash was a 2005 Saudi Arabian Airlines crash in Sri Lanka. The most recent cargo crash was a 2008 accident in Colombia involving Kalitta Air that killed three people on the ground.

About United Parcel Service
United Parcel Service (UPS) has been offering air cargo services since the early 1980s. The current UPS fleet has well over 200 aircraft, including about a dozen 747s. This is the third UPS crash that destroyed an aircraft, and the first fatal crash for United Parcel Service.

Related resources
UPS plane crashes
747 plane crashes
UPS fleet

Graphic: Gulf News

10 November 2009

AirSafe.com Lauches Airline Complaint Blog FlightsGoneBad.com

Have you ever felt like complaining about your airline service or security screening experience, but weren't sure it was worth it? Or maybe you thought your experience was the worst thing possible? The new site FlightsGoneBad.com that features complaints from the AirSafe.com Complaint System and other news and information about passenger service and airport security issues.

The AirSafe.com Complaint System has been up and running for several years, and is a constant source of insights and surprises. This site will serve as an ongoing educational resource for passengers, security personnel, and other air travel professionals by including advice for further action and links to appropriate resources for resolving customer service issues and other kinds of complaints.

Have a Complaint? - Share it with Us
If you have an airline complaint that you would like to share with the world, please visit AirSafe.com's Online Complaint Form where your complaint (edited for content and without personal identifying information) will be reviewed and either published here or forwarded to the appropriate organization.

06 February 2008

Interview with Kate Hanni of the Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights

Kate Hanni is one of the founders of the Coalition for Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights. On December 29, 2006, she was a passenger on one of the more than 120 American Airlines flights that were diverted to alternate airports due to weather. Passengers on dozens of those flights were forced to wait on board their aircraft for more than three hours. On Kate Hanni’s flight, the wait was over eight hours, an ordeal that included overstressed toilets, a lack of fresh water and fresh air, and an even greater lack of compassion from the airline.

Kate did far more than just complain about her flight, she and other stranded passengers formed their nonprofit group with the goal of having legislation passed to ensure that this kind of event would not happen again. Her work and the work of her group have been frequently profiled by major news organizations. She’s also testified to the U.S. Congress and to state legislatures around the country.

This interview from February 5, 2008 covers several of the areas of interest of the group, including changing the airline industry's rules on how delayed passengers should be treated. Also discussed was the role that the AirSafe.com audience can play in bringing about these changes.

Resources
Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights
http://flyersrights.org/

Passenger Complaint Resources
http://airlinecomplaints.airsafe.org

For more information about the show, or about how to subscribe using iTunes, visit the podcast page at AirSafe.com.
You can also download the episode directly at http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show38_paxrights.mp3.

16 January 2008

Senator Barack Obama Involved in Aircraft Mishap on 12 January 2008

United States Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama was a passenger in a Gulfstream 2 aircraft that collided with another aircraft on the ground at Midway Airport in Chicago. Senator Obama, members of his campaign staff, and Secret Service agents had just flown in from Nevada, where he had been campaigning. The left wingtip of the Gulfstream hit the right wingtip of a parked and unoccupied Cessna 208 aircraft.The impact was so minor that no one on the plane noticed any damage until later.

While the incident caused no injuries and only minor aircraft damage, it does bring up a potential public policy issue. Specifically, the issue of what should be considered an acceptable air transportation risk for presidential candidates. A comparison can be made with the policy on Secret Service protection for presidential candidates. Prior to the assassination of the presidential candidate Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, there were no clear standards or legal requirements for physical security of presidential candidates. Security decisions were largely left up to local law enforcement and to the candidates' campaign staffs. After the assassination, the US Congress authorized protection of major presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees.

The nature of the US presidential electoral process demands that candidates have to travel a great deal during the months leading up to the election. The candidates typically use a variety of air travel options, from scheduled commercial airliners to privately chartered aircraft. While there are risks with any type of air travel, the risks are higher for some kinds of flights. Senator Obama's aircraft was operating as a nonscheduled air carrier flight under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, which are less strict than the Part 121 regulations for larger air carrier aircraft, and more strict than the Part 91 regulations for general aviation. Historically, the accident risk has been highest for Part 91 flight operations, significantly lower for Part 135 operations, and lower still for Part 121 operations. For example, in 2006 the NTSB estimated that the accident rate for general aviation flights was about four times greater than the Part 135 accident rate, and about 50 times greater than the rate for Part 121 air carrier flights.

The potential policy issue is whether exposure to air travel risks faced by presidential candidates should be limited by requiring that flights taken by candidates meet some minimum standard. A realistic limitation could take many forms, such as use of only approved aircraft operators or airlines, or perhaps requiring that candidates use government or military air transportation. The reasons for even considering such a a policy are the potentially negative political and social impacts of having a candidate seriously injured or killed during a campaign, especially from managable risks such as those associated with air travel.

Fortunately, Senator Obama was not injured in his aircraft mishap. However, given the risks that he and the other candidates will continue to face, it seems reasonable to consider some kind of risk reduction policy now, and by doing so perhaps preventing a catastrophic disruption to the political process.

Related Resources
Selected Fatal Events Involving US Political Figures
NTSB Accident Rate Estimates for 2006