JetBlue to ‘Aggressively’ Bid for LaGuardia, Reagan Slots
By Mary Schlangenstein - Oct 26, 2011 2:50 PM MT
JetBlue Airways Corp. will bid for takeoff and landing slots being auctioned at New York LaGuardia and Washington Reagan airports, possibly tapping its $1.24 billion cash balance in the effort.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is preparing to auction 16 pairs of slots at LaGuardia and eight at Reagan under a plan by Delta Air Lines Inc. and US Airways Group Inc. to swap assets at the airports. JetBlue wants to expand at both facilities.
“We have a plan to aggressively bid and win those slots,” Chief Executive Officer Dave Barger said today in an interview. “We’re interested in both airports.”
JetBlue is based in New York and has the most daily domestic departures from the city’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. It operates as many as 11 daily flights from LaGuardia and nine from Reagan. The airline likely would face competition for the slots from Southwest Airlines Co., the largest discount carrier, which has said it’s studying whether to bid for them.
“JetBlue is concerned about Southwest’s further incursions into what it views, in a geographical sense, as its turf,” said George Hamlin, president of Hamlin Transportation Consulting in Fairfax, Virginia. Even with additional slots, JetBlue would “end up with such a small market footprint that they’re not going to get much traction.”
Bidding Process
Barger declined to comment on how many slots it will seek at each airport. Because takeoffs and landings are limited at both airports, airlines must buy or trade slots in order to expand. In the pending auction, the slots are being sold in bundles instead of individually.
“With how the bidding is taking place and our balance sheet strength, we do not believe we’ll have an issue at all in terms of actively participating in the bidding process at both airports,” Barger said. The airline had $1.24 billion in cash and short-term investments at Sept. 30.
Barger commented as JetBlue reported that third-quarter net income tumbled 41 percent to $35 million as increased spending for fuel eclipsed higher fares and passenger traffic. Profit of 11 cents a share fell from 18 cents a year earlier.
Excluding the cost of retiring some debt early, the per- share profit was 12 cents, missing the 13-cent average of 15 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
Embraer Cancellations
JetBlue canceled the deliveries of 12 Embraer SA E190 aircraft that had been scheduled for delivery in 2014, 2017 and 2018 under a previously announced plan to limit its E190 fleet to no more than 75 planes, the airline said today on a conference call. JetBlue said in June it was working with Embraer to remarket 25 remaining E190s it had ordered.
The airline also deferred the delivery of seven E190s to 2018 instead of 2013 and 2014 as previously planned. JetBlue will take two E190s in 2013 and two in 2014. The changes will reduce JetBlue’s aircraft obligations by about $200 million, the company said.
JetBlue’s fuel expense climbed 55 percent to $454 million in the third quarter and was the company’s largest cost, the company said in statement. The average price JetBlue paid for each gallon of jet fuel rose 44 percent from a year earlier to $3.25.
The airline managed a sixth straight quarterly profit as it bucked the industry trend by adding capacity while other carriers trimmed seating and flights to help reduce operating costs.
Sales rose 16 percent to $1.2 billion on an 8.2 percent increase in traffic. Yield, or average fare per mile, gained 7.7 percent. JetBlue has focused its growth on Boston, where the company is trying to win more business travelers, and in the Caribbean.
JetBlue rose 1.4 percent to $4.42 at the close in New York. The shares have tumbled 33 percent this year.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mary Schlangenstein in Dallas at maryc.s@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Ed Dufner at edufner@bloomberg.net
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Return of Pan Am, for a Weekend
By SCOTT MCCARTNEY
Flight attendant Lola Torres used to pack seven pairs of white gloves on trips so she never wore one soiled. Carmen Reyes met airline-imposed weight limits with a "caviar diet"—four servings a day of the delicacy acquired cheaply on layovers in Tehran.
Scott McCartney on Lunch Break discusses a reunion of Pan Am employees last weekend in Miami, where they reminisced about the glam days of travel as a new TV show glorifies it "Mad Men" style and debated about why Pan Am died.
.At a reunion of 600 Pan American Airlines alumni last weekend in Miami, former employees got together to share stories of glamour and history, from the Beatles, kings and presidents to Vietnam orphan airlifts and hijackings. The memories flowed as freely as the Dom Pérignon they used to pour. And they can still do a perfect "clipper dip," where a flight attendant royally bends at the knees to pour beverages rather than leaning over passengers.
"We were shoehorned into history just by showing up to work," said Rebecca Sprecher, who became a stewardess in 1972 two weeks after graduating from college. "You never knew who you were going to meet or what was going to happen."
A stroll down the Pan Am memory runway highlights the dramatic changes in air travel since the airline was founded in 1927 by Juan Trippe to carry mail to South America. Within a year, he realized that putting wicker chairs and passengers on planes would improve the finances, paving the way for carriers around the world. Pan Am crossed oceans with flying boats and launched the jumbo-jet Boeing 747 in 1970.
Bonnie Hinck, a Pan Am flight engineer and pilot from 1987 to 1991, and Mario Baldatti, a Pan Am pilot from 1964 to 1991, posed for a friend at the Pan Am reunion in Miami Saturday. The two met at a dive shop in Key Largo, Fla., and were married in 2004.
In its heyday, the airline served seven-course meals cooked on board and sported perfectly coiffed flight attendants assisting passengers in suits and ties. The era is depicted on TV with ABC's "Pan Am," a Sunday night drama that had a promising start this fall but has slipped to about 5.7 million viewers in its most-recent episode, according to Nielsen ratings.
Pan Am, which ceased operations in bankruptcy in 1991, represents an era of sky-high fares that made flying available only to the well-to-do. A ticket from New York to Buenos Aires on Pan Am cost $1,000 in 1974, and today costs about $1,000, notes Zsolt Monostory, who met his wife, a flight attendant, on a Pan Am flight in 1978. "I'm not surprised things have gone downhill," he said. "First class now is not the same as first class then. Don't fool yourself."
The market does still exist for grace in the sky, but it's very small. Singapore Airlines, which still maintains strict grooming standards for flight attendants, offers private first-class cabins on its A380 jumbo jets. Lufthansa has a first-class terminal in Frankfurt with white-tablecloth dining, bathtubs with rubber duckies and luxury-car rides right out to airplane stairs.
The Pan Am Worldwide Family Reunion was organized by Pan Amigo News, a newsletter that has operated since the airline folded. The gathering was held in Pan Am's original seaplane terminal in Miami and included tours of city hall led by Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado. The event, one of several periodic Pan Am reunions, culminated in a gala held in a former Coast Guard hangar.
Carmen Ongay, who started working for Pan Am in 1962 and learned tricks like fluffing scrambled eggs with soda water for coach passengers, put off a scholarship offer to the London School of Economics after college in Puerto Rico to take an offer from Pan Am. She thought it might be fun to be a flight attendant for six months, but once she got a taste, she couldn't give it up. She's been a flight attendant for 50 years, now flying for Delta Air Lines.
"It was a way of life," she said. "There were flights where you would take your long gown because we were always getting invited to the passengers' parties—and even a coronation" for the shah of Iran.
But not all the memories were crowned with caviar. On one refugee charter flight out of Vietnam, a passenger unsuccessfully tried to give her baby away to Ms. Ongay or other crew members in hopes of giving the child a more stable upbringing. There were long stretches away from home when the airline sent employees on short notice around the world. And there were many uncomfortable flights where flight attendants deflected the sexual advances of passengers. "The nights got longer and longer," Ms. Ongay said.
Ken McAdams, Pan Am's chief pilot for many years, flew the last U.S. commercial flight out of Tehran in 1979 when the shah fled into exile, and the first U.S. commercial airline flight into China after President Nixon reopened relations in 1972.
He was on duty during two terrorism hijacking attempts. In 1970, pilots raced to land and evacuate a jet minutes before bombs rigged with timers exploded in Cairo. Another time, terrorists armed with machine guns attacked a Pan Am flight in Pakistan before it departed. Mr. McAdams, in contact with the crew by high-frequency radio, told the crew to escape out cockpit windows so the plane couldn't get airborne.
"No one realizes all that Pan Am did for this country."
Mr. Topping, who was Pan Am's station manager in Saigon, facilitated orphan airlifts from Vietnam with 747s fitted with 300 cardboard boxes on seats for diaperless babies. He also promised the airline's 61 Vietnamese workers that they and their immediate family members would be airlifted to the U.S. if Saigon fell. The 61 people turned in 700 names of "immediate" family members. On April 24, 1975, he put 463 people on a 747 that had 375 seats. People were put in bathrooms and galleys and on the floor for what would be the last U.S. flight out of Saigon.
Pan Am suffered a long, painful money drain and corporate death. It over-expanded with the Boeing 747, forcing it to discount prices just as oil prices skyrocketed with OPEC oil embargoes. It competed against subsidized foreign airlines and new low-cost start-ups and found itself ill-prepared for U.S. airline deregulation because it lacked a domestic network to feed passengers to its international flights. The 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, caused bookings to evaporate. In 1991, what little was left of the airline was liquidated at bankruptcy auction.
To Jackie Knackstedt, who started as a Pan Am stewardess on the Boeing 707 in 1973 and currently works as a Delta flight attendant, the end of Pan Am meant younger passengers and airline workers will never know what travel once was or could be.
Instead of five-day layovers in Fiji and three-day layovers in Sydney, most of her stops now amount to only nine hours before returning to duty, Ms. Knackstedt said. Instead of cooking and serving gourmet meals, she now sells snacks and sandwiches.
"The other day a passenger said to me, 'You don't look like you're enjoying this,' " Ms. Knackstedt said. "If I wanted to sell food, I'd work in a supermarket."
By SCOTT MCCARTNEY
Flight attendant Lola Torres used to pack seven pairs of white gloves on trips so she never wore one soiled. Carmen Reyes met airline-imposed weight limits with a "caviar diet"—four servings a day of the delicacy acquired cheaply on layovers in Tehran.
Scott McCartney on Lunch Break discusses a reunion of Pan Am employees last weekend in Miami, where they reminisced about the glam days of travel as a new TV show glorifies it "Mad Men" style and debated about why Pan Am died.
.At a reunion of 600 Pan American Airlines alumni last weekend in Miami, former employees got together to share stories of glamour and history, from the Beatles, kings and presidents to Vietnam orphan airlifts and hijackings. The memories flowed as freely as the Dom Pérignon they used to pour. And they can still do a perfect "clipper dip," where a flight attendant royally bends at the knees to pour beverages rather than leaning over passengers.
"We were shoehorned into history just by showing up to work," said Rebecca Sprecher, who became a stewardess in 1972 two weeks after graduating from college. "You never knew who you were going to meet or what was going to happen."
A stroll down the Pan Am memory runway highlights the dramatic changes in air travel since the airline was founded in 1927 by Juan Trippe to carry mail to South America. Within a year, he realized that putting wicker chairs and passengers on planes would improve the finances, paving the way for carriers around the world. Pan Am crossed oceans with flying boats and launched the jumbo-jet Boeing 747 in 1970.
Bonnie Hinck, a Pan Am flight engineer and pilot from 1987 to 1991, and Mario Baldatti, a Pan Am pilot from 1964 to 1991, posed for a friend at the Pan Am reunion in Miami Saturday. The two met at a dive shop in Key Largo, Fla., and were married in 2004.
In its heyday, the airline served seven-course meals cooked on board and sported perfectly coiffed flight attendants assisting passengers in suits and ties. The era is depicted on TV with ABC's "Pan Am," a Sunday night drama that had a promising start this fall but has slipped to about 5.7 million viewers in its most-recent episode, according to Nielsen ratings.
Pan Am, which ceased operations in bankruptcy in 1991, represents an era of sky-high fares that made flying available only to the well-to-do. A ticket from New York to Buenos Aires on Pan Am cost $1,000 in 1974, and today costs about $1,000, notes Zsolt Monostory, who met his wife, a flight attendant, on a Pan Am flight in 1978. "I'm not surprised things have gone downhill," he said. "First class now is not the same as first class then. Don't fool yourself."
The market does still exist for grace in the sky, but it's very small. Singapore Airlines, which still maintains strict grooming standards for flight attendants, offers private first-class cabins on its A380 jumbo jets. Lufthansa has a first-class terminal in Frankfurt with white-tablecloth dining, bathtubs with rubber duckies and luxury-car rides right out to airplane stairs.
The Pan Am Worldwide Family Reunion was organized by Pan Amigo News, a newsletter that has operated since the airline folded. The gathering was held in Pan Am's original seaplane terminal in Miami and included tours of city hall led by Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado. The event, one of several periodic Pan Am reunions, culminated in a gala held in a former Coast Guard hangar.
Carmen Ongay, who started working for Pan Am in 1962 and learned tricks like fluffing scrambled eggs with soda water for coach passengers, put off a scholarship offer to the London School of Economics after college in Puerto Rico to take an offer from Pan Am. She thought it might be fun to be a flight attendant for six months, but once she got a taste, she couldn't give it up. She's been a flight attendant for 50 years, now flying for Delta Air Lines.
"It was a way of life," she said. "There were flights where you would take your long gown because we were always getting invited to the passengers' parties—and even a coronation" for the shah of Iran.
But not all the memories were crowned with caviar. On one refugee charter flight out of Vietnam, a passenger unsuccessfully tried to give her baby away to Ms. Ongay or other crew members in hopes of giving the child a more stable upbringing. There were long stretches away from home when the airline sent employees on short notice around the world. And there were many uncomfortable flights where flight attendants deflected the sexual advances of passengers. "The nights got longer and longer," Ms. Ongay said.
Ken McAdams, Pan Am's chief pilot for many years, flew the last U.S. commercial flight out of Tehran in 1979 when the shah fled into exile, and the first U.S. commercial airline flight into China after President Nixon reopened relations in 1972.
He was on duty during two terrorism hijacking attempts. In 1970, pilots raced to land and evacuate a jet minutes before bombs rigged with timers exploded in Cairo. Another time, terrorists armed with machine guns attacked a Pan Am flight in Pakistan before it departed. Mr. McAdams, in contact with the crew by high-frequency radio, told the crew to escape out cockpit windows so the plane couldn't get airborne.
"No one realizes all that Pan Am did for this country."
Mr. Topping, who was Pan Am's station manager in Saigon, facilitated orphan airlifts from Vietnam with 747s fitted with 300 cardboard boxes on seats for diaperless babies. He also promised the airline's 61 Vietnamese workers that they and their immediate family members would be airlifted to the U.S. if Saigon fell. The 61 people turned in 700 names of "immediate" family members. On April 24, 1975, he put 463 people on a 747 that had 375 seats. People were put in bathrooms and galleys and on the floor for what would be the last U.S. flight out of Saigon.
Pan Am suffered a long, painful money drain and corporate death. It over-expanded with the Boeing 747, forcing it to discount prices just as oil prices skyrocketed with OPEC oil embargoes. It competed against subsidized foreign airlines and new low-cost start-ups and found itself ill-prepared for U.S. airline deregulation because it lacked a domestic network to feed passengers to its international flights. The 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, caused bookings to evaporate. In 1991, what little was left of the airline was liquidated at bankruptcy auction.
To Jackie Knackstedt, who started as a Pan Am stewardess on the Boeing 707 in 1973 and currently works as a Delta flight attendant, the end of Pan Am meant younger passengers and airline workers will never know what travel once was or could be.
Instead of five-day layovers in Fiji and three-day layovers in Sydney, most of her stops now amount to only nine hours before returning to duty, Ms. Knackstedt said. Instead of cooking and serving gourmet meals, she now sells snacks and sandwiches.
"The other day a passenger said to me, 'You don't look like you're enjoying this,' " Ms. Knackstedt said. "If I wanted to sell food, I'd work in a supermarket."
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Southwest to run AirTran separately if pilot vote fails
By Mary Schlangenstein and Mary Jane Credeur Bloomberg News STLtoday.com
Southwest Airlines Co. told pilots that it would keep operating newly acquired AirTran Holdings Inc. as a stand-alone carrier if union members don't agree to combine seniority lists.
Southwest briefed pilots on a "Plan B" for 'separate and unintegrated" operations after that union declined to hold a membership election on a seniority proposal, according to an AirTran union summary obtained by Bloomberg News. Pilots at both airlines are now voting until Nov. 7 on a new agreement.
Keeping AirTran flying on its own would run counter to the goal of folding the discount carrier into Southwest, the biggest low-fare airline. Dallas-based Southwest paid $1 billion in cash and stock in May to buy AirTran, winning access to fly into Atlanta, home of the world's busiest airport.
Winning pilots' approval of one seniority list would give Southwest a timeline to blend workforces and fleets, and set union members' rankings for pay, schedules and the types of aircraft they fly. For AirTran pilots, ratification will mean "certainty of integration," Southwest said in a Sept. 22 letter to union members.
Beth Harbin, an airline spokeswoman, declined to discuss the AirTran union summary or what options that Southwest would consider if pilots don't accept the new seniority agreement.
Jim Morris, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association at AirTran, declined to comment, as did Jacob North, a spokesman for the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association. AirTran has about 1,700 pilots, while Southwest has more than 6,000.
The seniority agreement now being voted on by pilots was crafted after AirTran's union decided against sending the original version to rank-and-file members. Under the new plan, current Southwest pilots' seniority rights would be protected, and AirTran pilots would get pay raises.
Pilots' failure to agree on an integration plan can scuttle mergers or keep airlines from operating as a single carrier after a tie-up.
Southwest's 2009 bid for Frontier Airlines Holdings Inc. faltered when the carriers' pilots couldn't agree on seniority.
Copyright 2011 STLtoday.com.
By Mary Schlangenstein and Mary Jane Credeur Bloomberg News STLtoday.com
Southwest Airlines Co. told pilots that it would keep operating newly acquired AirTran Holdings Inc. as a stand-alone carrier if union members don't agree to combine seniority lists.
Southwest briefed pilots on a "Plan B" for 'separate and unintegrated" operations after that union declined to hold a membership election on a seniority proposal, according to an AirTran union summary obtained by Bloomberg News. Pilots at both airlines are now voting until Nov. 7 on a new agreement.
Keeping AirTran flying on its own would run counter to the goal of folding the discount carrier into Southwest, the biggest low-fare airline. Dallas-based Southwest paid $1 billion in cash and stock in May to buy AirTran, winning access to fly into Atlanta, home of the world's busiest airport.
Winning pilots' approval of one seniority list would give Southwest a timeline to blend workforces and fleets, and set union members' rankings for pay, schedules and the types of aircraft they fly. For AirTran pilots, ratification will mean "certainty of integration," Southwest said in a Sept. 22 letter to union members.
Beth Harbin, an airline spokeswoman, declined to discuss the AirTran union summary or what options that Southwest would consider if pilots don't accept the new seniority agreement.
Jim Morris, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association at AirTran, declined to comment, as did Jacob North, a spokesman for the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association. AirTran has about 1,700 pilots, while Southwest has more than 6,000.
The seniority agreement now being voted on by pilots was crafted after AirTran's union decided against sending the original version to rank-and-file members. Under the new plan, current Southwest pilots' seniority rights would be protected, and AirTran pilots would get pay raises.
Pilots' failure to agree on an integration plan can scuttle mergers or keep airlines from operating as a single carrier after a tie-up.
Southwest's 2009 bid for Frontier Airlines Holdings Inc. faltered when the carriers' pilots couldn't agree on seniority.
Copyright 2011 STLtoday.com.
How does the "Pan Am" television series compare with real life travel?
Overhead Bin MSNBC
If you watched the Sunday night premiere of "Pan Am," you might be wondering if the idyllic version of 1960s air travel matches the reality of those who worked for the iconic airline.
Overhead Bin wondered, too. So we asked two former Pan Am flight attendants to watch the show and tell us if their experiences were anything like those portrayed on-screen.
Bronwen Roberts was hired at Pan Am in 1958 shortly after graduating England's University of Leeds with a degree in French. She flew until 1989 and kept in a scrapbook the advertisement listing the 15 qualifications required of flight attendant applicants. "You had to have a pleasant personality and speaking voice, excellent health and you had to be single," said Roberts. "Really single. Not widowed, divorced or separated."
A weight between 110 and 135 pounds was another qualification. Roberts said the pre-flight weigh-ins and grooming inspections depicted on the show were true-to-life.
"When you checked in for a flight you'd go into the office and there'd be a grooming supervisor on duty all the time," said Roberts. "She could say, `Your hair is too long' or `You are overweight' and send you home until you fixed it. Just like the TV show, you could get grounded for uniform violations."
Helen Davey also found the on-screen grooming checks familiar. Now a psychotherapist in Los Angeles, she was hired as a Pan Am flight attendant in 1965 at age 21 and flew until 1986.
"Yes, we had to wear girdles," said Davey. "And if you were one minute late for a trip, they'd send you home."
In the first episode, a child is escorted into the cockpit mid-flight to visit the pilots. Passengers are also offered ashtrays so they can smoke. Roberts and Davey both said that those in-flight activities were once very common.
"We definitely took children into the cockpit so they could sit in the pilot's seat," said Roberts. "And in terms of smoking, we'd have little packets of cigarettes and matches that we'd go around with."
"Even flight attendants could smoke," added Davey. "But when they did, they had to be sitting down."
In the episode (spoiler alert), two of the flight attendants are shown doing work for the CIA. If this seems like the least plausible story line, Roberts and Davey both said it was realistic.
(Ed...Many CIA operatives were Pan Am station managers)
"That is definitely a true story," said Roberts, who during her tenure heard rumors that at least one flight attendant was involved with the CIA. "At one point she just disappeared. No one knew what happened to her."
Nancy Hult Ganis, an executive producer for the show and a former Pan Am flight attendant, told wired.com that her research turned up stories about the airline's involvement with State Department operations on behind-the-scene missions in dangerous locations.
The TV program also shows flight attendants with plenty of time to chit-chat, and at least one crew member involved in an off-duty affair with a passenger.
"Some of those flights were quite long – 15 or 20 hours – and there were fewer people, so you could get to know them," said Roberts. "People weren't glued to their laptops like they are now. And some people did end up marrying passengers they met on flights."
Roberts and Davey had only a few quibbles with the first episode. Both said their uniforms were a warmer, more subdued shade of blue than those worn by the TV actresses and that flight attendants in their day would never be allowed to have hair touching their shoulders.
But there's one moment that Davey said was spot on. "I liked the scene when they were ready for take-off and one flight attendant says to the new hire, `Buckle up. Adventure calls.' That's how it was. We all thought we had lucked into the best job into the world."
Overhead Bin MSNBC
If you watched the Sunday night premiere of "Pan Am," you might be wondering if the idyllic version of 1960s air travel matches the reality of those who worked for the iconic airline.
Overhead Bin wondered, too. So we asked two former Pan Am flight attendants to watch the show and tell us if their experiences were anything like those portrayed on-screen.
Bronwen Roberts was hired at Pan Am in 1958 shortly after graduating England's University of Leeds with a degree in French. She flew until 1989 and kept in a scrapbook the advertisement listing the 15 qualifications required of flight attendant applicants. "You had to have a pleasant personality and speaking voice, excellent health and you had to be single," said Roberts. "Really single. Not widowed, divorced or separated."
A weight between 110 and 135 pounds was another qualification. Roberts said the pre-flight weigh-ins and grooming inspections depicted on the show were true-to-life.
"When you checked in for a flight you'd go into the office and there'd be a grooming supervisor on duty all the time," said Roberts. "She could say, `Your hair is too long' or `You are overweight' and send you home until you fixed it. Just like the TV show, you could get grounded for uniform violations."
Helen Davey also found the on-screen grooming checks familiar. Now a psychotherapist in Los Angeles, she was hired as a Pan Am flight attendant in 1965 at age 21 and flew until 1986.
"Yes, we had to wear girdles," said Davey. "And if you were one minute late for a trip, they'd send you home."
In the first episode, a child is escorted into the cockpit mid-flight to visit the pilots. Passengers are also offered ashtrays so they can smoke. Roberts and Davey both said that those in-flight activities were once very common.
"We definitely took children into the cockpit so they could sit in the pilot's seat," said Roberts. "And in terms of smoking, we'd have little packets of cigarettes and matches that we'd go around with."
"Even flight attendants could smoke," added Davey. "But when they did, they had to be sitting down."
In the episode (spoiler alert), two of the flight attendants are shown doing work for the CIA. If this seems like the least plausible story line, Roberts and Davey both said it was realistic.
(Ed...Many CIA operatives were Pan Am station managers)
"That is definitely a true story," said Roberts, who during her tenure heard rumors that at least one flight attendant was involved with the CIA. "At one point she just disappeared. No one knew what happened to her."
Nancy Hult Ganis, an executive producer for the show and a former Pan Am flight attendant, told wired.com that her research turned up stories about the airline's involvement with State Department operations on behind-the-scene missions in dangerous locations.
The TV program also shows flight attendants with plenty of time to chit-chat, and at least one crew member involved in an off-duty affair with a passenger.
"Some of those flights were quite long – 15 or 20 hours – and there were fewer people, so you could get to know them," said Roberts. "People weren't glued to their laptops like they are now. And some people did end up marrying passengers they met on flights."
Roberts and Davey had only a few quibbles with the first episode. Both said their uniforms were a warmer, more subdued shade of blue than those worn by the TV actresses and that flight attendants in their day would never be allowed to have hair touching their shoulders.
But there's one moment that Davey said was spot on. "I liked the scene when they were ready for take-off and one flight attendant says to the new hire, `Buckle up. Adventure calls.' That's how it was. We all thought we had lucked into the best job into the world."
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Delta LaGuardia Growth Bid Spurs Southwest to Demand More Slots for Rivals
By Mary Jane Credeur - Aug 30, 2011 1:11 PM MT
Southwest Airlines Co. (LUV) and other carriers objected to Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL)’s efforts to expand at New York’s LaGuardia airport through a proposed swap of takeoff and landing slots with US Airways Group Inc. (LCC)
The accord between Delta and US Airways calls for divesting 48 slots to smaller rivals, about 30 percent fewer than a previous plan that those two carriers walked away from last year. Dallas-based Southwest said in a filing that there is “no justification for such smaller divestitures.”
The Department of Transportation should “seriously consider even larger carve-outs in light of the severe -- and permanent -- negative impact that the proposed transaction will have on competition,” Southwest said in a regulatory filing posted today on the agency website.
JetBlue Airways Corp. (JBLU) and Virgin America Inc. also filed objections. The Airports Council International trade group based in Washington urged regulators to deny the proposal from Atlanta-based Delta and Tempe, Arizona-based US Airways, saying it would strip local airport authorities of control of their facilities.
Last month U.S. regulators tentatively approved the deal, which would give Delta 132 more slot pairs at LaGuardia and control of about half the flights there. In exchange, US Airways would get 42 pairs at Washington Reagan National Airport.
LaGuardia and National are so congested that they are under flight restrictions, meaning carriers must trade slots in order to grow.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mary Jane Credeur in Atlanta at mcredeur@bloomberg.net.
By Mary Jane Credeur - Aug 30, 2011 1:11 PM MT
Southwest Airlines Co. (LUV) and other carriers objected to Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL)’s efforts to expand at New York’s LaGuardia airport through a proposed swap of takeoff and landing slots with US Airways Group Inc. (LCC)
The accord between Delta and US Airways calls for divesting 48 slots to smaller rivals, about 30 percent fewer than a previous plan that those two carriers walked away from last year. Dallas-based Southwest said in a filing that there is “no justification for such smaller divestitures.”
The Department of Transportation should “seriously consider even larger carve-outs in light of the severe -- and permanent -- negative impact that the proposed transaction will have on competition,” Southwest said in a regulatory filing posted today on the agency website.
JetBlue Airways Corp. (JBLU) and Virgin America Inc. also filed objections. The Airports Council International trade group based in Washington urged regulators to deny the proposal from Atlanta-based Delta and Tempe, Arizona-based US Airways, saying it would strip local airport authorities of control of their facilities.
Last month U.S. regulators tentatively approved the deal, which would give Delta 132 more slot pairs at LaGuardia and control of about half the flights there. In exchange, US Airways would get 42 pairs at Washington Reagan National Airport.
LaGuardia and National are so congested that they are under flight restrictions, meaning carriers must trade slots in order to grow.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mary Jane Credeur in Atlanta at mcredeur@bloomberg.net.
American expects new 737 engines in 2018
Dallas Business Journal - by By Matt Joyce , Staff Writer
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2011, 11:38am CDT
Boeing sees ‘overwhelming demand’ for 737 model with new engines
American Airlines said Tuesday, that it expects to start flying Boeing 737s with a redesigned engine in 2018.
The announcement from American (NYSE: AMR) followed a vote by the Boeing Co. Boeing Co.
Boeing names new 737 model: 737 MAX
In July, American Airlines announced plans to acquire 460 new aircraft from Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Airbus. The Fort Worth-based airline said the plan would give it the youngest and most fuel-efficient fleet in the industry.
American said it plans to acquire a total of 200 aircraft from the 737 family, with options for another 100. That includes taking delivery of 100 aircraft from Boeing’s current 737 family starting in 2013.
Starting in 2018, American expects to be a launch customer for Boeing's re-engined 737. American said the new engine enhance its fuel-efficiency gains.
American’s commitment to the plan was contingent on the Boeing board’s approval of the 737 engine re-design.
American has not detailed the financial arrangements of the acquisition, but said it will benefit from about $13 billion of “committed financing from the manufacturers through lease transactions that will help maximize balance sheet flexibility and reduce risk.”
Dallas Business Journal - by By Matt Joyce , Staff Writer
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2011, 11:38am CDT
Boeing sees ‘overwhelming demand’ for 737 model with new engines
American Airlines said Tuesday, that it expects to start flying Boeing 737s with a redesigned engine in 2018.
The announcement from American (NYSE: AMR) followed a vote by the Boeing Co. Boeing Co.
Boeing names new 737 model: 737 MAX
In July, American Airlines announced plans to acquire 460 new aircraft from Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Airbus. The Fort Worth-based airline said the plan would give it the youngest and most fuel-efficient fleet in the industry.
American said it plans to acquire a total of 200 aircraft from the 737 family, with options for another 100. That includes taking delivery of 100 aircraft from Boeing’s current 737 family starting in 2013.
Starting in 2018, American expects to be a launch customer for Boeing's re-engined 737. American said the new engine enhance its fuel-efficiency gains.
American’s commitment to the plan was contingent on the Boeing board’s approval of the 737 engine re-design.
American has not detailed the financial arrangements of the acquisition, but said it will benefit from about $13 billion of “committed financing from the manufacturers through lease transactions that will help maximize balance sheet flexibility and reduce risk.”
Sunday, August 21, 2011
American: Large Order Ensures Job Security
By Darren Shannon
Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies
American Airlines’ senior management believes last month’s order for at least 460 Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies not only affirms the airline’s commitment to sustained profitability, but also the job security of its employees.
The narrowbody order (Aviation Daily, July 21) is part of a wider fleet revival plan that simplifies the domestic fleet from four types to two families of aircraft, adds Boeing 777-300ERs in 2012 and 2013, and introduces at least 42 (and as many as 100) 787s from 2014. American’s parent company is also divesting its interest in regional affiliate American Eagle Airlines to allow the mainline carrier greater flexibility in contracting feeder services across its network.
American’s restructuring initiative, dubbed Flight 2020, also focuses the carrier’s efforts on five cornerstone markets—Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami and New York—while integrating its long-haul operations with partners such as Japan Airlines and Europe’s International Aviation Group.
“We are protecting jobs and salaries,” explains Senior VP of Human Relations Jeff Brundage during a series of interviews with American executives. “This plan makes us a competitive, profitable airline.”
A key facet of American’s narrowbody order is an innate flexibility that allows it to adapt to shifts in demand. Not only do the first 230 aircraft arrive between 2013 and 2017 on lease, they also give the airline various integration options, be it a one-for-one swap out with the MD-80s primarily targeted in the first wave of retirements, a one-for-two replacement ratio or even a simple addition to the fleet.
Those initial deliveries also are on 10-year leases, which give American the choice of culling aircraft or extending their revenue service depending on demand. And as each of the leased aircraft come straight from the manufacturing line, American is provided with a “maintenance honeymoon” for the first several years of operation with no commitment to retain them into old age.
As an added bonus, notes one executive, this lease deal could also rotate out a large number of aircraft from American’s fleet in the mid 2020s just as Airbus and Boeing unveil clean-sheet narrowbodies, giving it an even greater advantage over competitors than the re-engined component of its recent order.
Airbus’s A320NEOs (new engine option) and a re-engined 737 that should be formally unveiled in the coming months form the second part of American’s narrowbody order, again giving it fleet flexibility.
The airline is keen to note, though, that its narrowbody order is not an expansion plan, and that the core intent is to quickly revive its aging single aisle fleet into the most fuel efficient in the U.S. “Reducing unit costs is important to us,” says Managing Director of Corporate Planning Vasu Raja.
This goal requires a large number of annual deliveries, and American is preparing to take up to 55 aircraft in some years. But as Raja notes, American has experienced such rates before, notably in the 1980s and 90s when the MD-80s and 757s (along with the retired fleet of Airbus A300-600s) now scheduled for replacement were introduced to the airline’s fleet.
There are still some elements to American’s fleet upgrade that need to be finalized, including union backing. Under current terms, American’s pilots are not authorized to operate the Airbus narrowbodies (and some of the 737s) nor the 777-300ERs and 787s as their current contract does not stipulate pay rates for these aircraft.
Pilot pay rates is one of the reasons the 787 deal from 2008 (Aviation Daily, Oct. 16, 2008) remains a memorandum of understanding, as the aircraft has the weight characteristics of one type currently provided for in the pilots contract but the range of another. By contrast, the Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies contained in the recent order and the 777-300ERs are similar to aircraft already contained in the contract, which executives say allows the carrier to place firm orders for these fleets.
American’s pilot and maintenance unions are currently in negotiations with the carrier, and expectations that a solution will be reached are high. For one, says management, the fleet plan shows the company’s commitment to remain in the top tier of world carriers, and in turn a commitment to its employees that the airline has a vision for the future. “There is a journey ahead of us, but it is not a road that is so twisted that we can’t get there,” says Brundage.
Copyright © 2011 Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
By Darren Shannon
Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies
American Airlines’ senior management believes last month’s order for at least 460 Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies not only affirms the airline’s commitment to sustained profitability, but also the job security of its employees.
The narrowbody order (Aviation Daily, July 21) is part of a wider fleet revival plan that simplifies the domestic fleet from four types to two families of aircraft, adds Boeing 777-300ERs in 2012 and 2013, and introduces at least 42 (and as many as 100) 787s from 2014. American’s parent company is also divesting its interest in regional affiliate American Eagle Airlines to allow the mainline carrier greater flexibility in contracting feeder services across its network.
American’s restructuring initiative, dubbed Flight 2020, also focuses the carrier’s efforts on five cornerstone markets—Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami and New York—while integrating its long-haul operations with partners such as Japan Airlines and Europe’s International Aviation Group.
“We are protecting jobs and salaries,” explains Senior VP of Human Relations Jeff Brundage during a series of interviews with American executives. “This plan makes us a competitive, profitable airline.”
A key facet of American’s narrowbody order is an innate flexibility that allows it to adapt to shifts in demand. Not only do the first 230 aircraft arrive between 2013 and 2017 on lease, they also give the airline various integration options, be it a one-for-one swap out with the MD-80s primarily targeted in the first wave of retirements, a one-for-two replacement ratio or even a simple addition to the fleet.
Those initial deliveries also are on 10-year leases, which give American the choice of culling aircraft or extending their revenue service depending on demand. And as each of the leased aircraft come straight from the manufacturing line, American is provided with a “maintenance honeymoon” for the first several years of operation with no commitment to retain them into old age.
As an added bonus, notes one executive, this lease deal could also rotate out a large number of aircraft from American’s fleet in the mid 2020s just as Airbus and Boeing unveil clean-sheet narrowbodies, giving it an even greater advantage over competitors than the re-engined component of its recent order.
Airbus’s A320NEOs (new engine option) and a re-engined 737 that should be formally unveiled in the coming months form the second part of American’s narrowbody order, again giving it fleet flexibility.
The airline is keen to note, though, that its narrowbody order is not an expansion plan, and that the core intent is to quickly revive its aging single aisle fleet into the most fuel efficient in the U.S. “Reducing unit costs is important to us,” says Managing Director of Corporate Planning Vasu Raja.
This goal requires a large number of annual deliveries, and American is preparing to take up to 55 aircraft in some years. But as Raja notes, American has experienced such rates before, notably in the 1980s and 90s when the MD-80s and 757s (along with the retired fleet of Airbus A300-600s) now scheduled for replacement were introduced to the airline’s fleet.
There are still some elements to American’s fleet upgrade that need to be finalized, including union backing. Under current terms, American’s pilots are not authorized to operate the Airbus narrowbodies (and some of the 737s) nor the 777-300ERs and 787s as their current contract does not stipulate pay rates for these aircraft.
Pilot pay rates is one of the reasons the 787 deal from 2008 (Aviation Daily, Oct. 16, 2008) remains a memorandum of understanding, as the aircraft has the weight characteristics of one type currently provided for in the pilots contract but the range of another. By contrast, the Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies contained in the recent order and the 777-300ERs are similar to aircraft already contained in the contract, which executives say allows the carrier to place firm orders for these fleets.
American’s pilot and maintenance unions are currently in negotiations with the carrier, and expectations that a solution will be reached are high. For one, says management, the fleet plan shows the company’s commitment to remain in the top tier of world carriers, and in turn a commitment to its employees that the airline has a vision for the future. “There is a journey ahead of us, but it is not a road that is so twisted that we can’t get there,” says Brundage.
Copyright © 2011 Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Sept. 11 changed everything about air travel, now more of a grind for passengers and industry
Scott Mayerowitz, AP Airlines Writer, On Sunday August 14, 2011, 3:31 pm
Five-year-old Frank Allocco is 37,000 feet above America, face pressed against the window.
"Cool," he says to his 6-year-old sister. "Francesca, look."
It's their first flight. They ignore a Harry Potter DVD and video games. Instead, there are rivers, mountains and tiny cars below.
Francesca chimes in: "Wow, Frank, look at that cloud."
For Frank and Francesca, soaring high above the country is magical. The kids from Park Ridge, Ill., are treated like stars. A flight attendant gives them wing pins. Mom and dad snap photos.
For most of us, though, the romance of flight is long gone -- lost to Sept. 11, 2001, and hard-set memories of jets crashing into buildings.
We remember what it was like before. Keeping all our clothes on at security. Getting hot meals for free -- even if we complained about the taste. Leg room.
Today, we feel beaten down even before reaching our seats. Shoes must be removed and all but the tiniest amounts of liquids surrendered at security checkpoints. Loved ones can no longer kiss passengers goodbye at the gate. And airlines, which have struggled ever since the day terrorists used airplanes as missiles, are adding fees, squeezing in passengers and cutting amenities to survive.
In interviews conducted during a week flying around the country -- nine flights totaling 8,414 miles -- many passengers expressed anger with air travel, which they said left them feeling like second-class citizens. Generally, the terrorism fears that prompted most of the changes were a distant afterthought.
"Anytime I walk into an airport, I feel like a victim," said Lexa Shafer, of Norman, Okla. "I'm sorry that we have to live this way because of bad guys."
Despite the aggravations, America's skies are busier than ever. Airlines carried 720 million passengers last year, up from 666 million in the year before the attacks.
There was little concern about terrorism even on a flight that was almost identical -- same route, airline, plane type and departure time -- to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11 after passengers fought the terrorists for control.
Instead, passengers were jockeying for position at the gate as if they were waiting for the doors to open on a day-after-Thanksgiving sale. They glanced at each other's tickets and mumbled complaints when somebody boarded before they were supposed to.
"Passengers have lost civility," said Karen McNeilly, of Gold Hill, Ore.
And it's not just the boarding process that would make Emily Post cringe.
On a flight to Houston, an oversized man stole a window seat. Why? Because in his assigned seat he would have spilled into the aisle. The rightful occupant couldn't really object since the seat-stealer was already firmly planted, tray table down, Burger King cup out.
It's easier now for passengers to get annoyed with each other. We're simply getting packed in more tightly by airlines that are reining in costs more than they ever did before the terror attacks.
A decade ago, an average of 72 percent of seats per flight were occupied. Today, 82 percent are. Passengers once had a shot at an empty middle seat. Now that rarely happens. Airlines have added rows, meaning less leg room. Smaller, regional planes now carry a quarter of all passengers, twice that of a decade ago.
"It is a dismal experience that you simply put up with because you have to get from point A to point B. It used to be the part of the trip you looked forward to," said Virgin America CEO David Cush. "As an industry, we've found a way to beat that joy of flying out of people."
In another effort to balance their books, airlines have added fees for once-free services. Last year, $8.1 billion in fees were collected, more than three times the $2.5 billion collected before the attacks, adjusted for inflation.
Checked-luggage fees accounted for $3.4 billion of the 2010 total. Without them, major airlines would have lost money last year rather than reporting a combined $2.6 billion in profits.
It's no wonder that for shorter trips, Americans now avoid flying. New inter-city buses have popped up and Amtrak now carries 37 percent more riders than a decade ago. Buses and trains don't have the security checkpoints that make it necessary for air passengers to arrive at the airport about an hour before domestic flights and two hours in advance for trips out of the U.S.
The days of arriving minutes before a flight are a distant memory, and lines are inconsistent. While one Transportation Security Administration checkpoint took four minutes to clear, another involved a 27-minute wait.
Frequent fliers know the ever-changing set of security rules. Most others don't.
Some people worry about radiation-emitting, modesty-eroding full-body scanners, although their use is still sporadic.
At Newark Liberty International Airport, the machines were shut down during the Monday morning rush. In Fort Lauderdale, Fla., two lanes were open. One had a full-body scanner. One didn't. Passengers could pick.
"I'm not really convinced that any of this security is doing anything other than making people feel safe," said Matthew Von Kluge, of Chicago. He was wearing a shirt created by his former boss, fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, saying: "I am not a terrorist. Please don't arrest me."
Diane Dragg, of Norman, Okla., said: "I'd rather do it than be blown up."
Not everything has been bad for fliers. Many planes now have individual TVs and Wi-Fi. Kiosks and websites make checking in easier. And with travelers arriving earlier and earlier at the airport, there are better shops and restaurants.
It's been harder for airlines to find a silver lining. They're out $54.5 billion in the U.S. over the last decade, having lost money in seven of the past 10 years.
At least 33 airlines have filed for bankruptcy protection, including Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways. Some, including ATA and Aloha, stopped flying.
It's not just Sept. 11 that hurt airlines, which were hit hard by spikes in oil prices and a drop in travel during the recession. But after the terror attacks, just getting passengers to fly again was a challenge.
In the first year, traffic fell nearly 8 percent. It took three years to return.
"People were just scared to fly," said F. Robert van der Linden, a curator at the National Air and Space Museum.
To keep planes in the sky, airlines burned through their cash reserves and borrowed heavily, said Jim Corridore, an airline analyst with Standard & Poor's. Fares were dropped to unprofitable levels to lure back passengers.
It worked, but vacationers now expect rock-bottom prices. Airfares today are 20 percent lower than they were on 9/11, when adjusted for inflation.
Airlines now operate on razor-thin margins, with fewer employees.
More than a quarter of the industry's 620,000 full-time jobs pre-9/11 were eliminated. Those that remain are less lucrative: The average pay for a pilot with 10 years of experience is now $145,000, down 13 percent when adjusted for inflation.
For passengers, the real legacy of the attacks might not just be more invasive security checks, new fees or other things we never had to worry about before -- like whether the name on our ticket precisely matches the name on our driver's license. It might just be losing our ability to relax in the skies.
Though children like Frank and Francesca can still feel the joy of flying, Ethan Estes of Louisville, Ky., could well speak for most adults.
"If the airline does everything perfect," he said, "the trip is just bearable."
Scott Mayerowitz can be reached at http://twitter.com/GlobeTrotScott
Saturday, July 23, 2011
American Airlines charts its future
July 22, 2011 10:35 pm
by Jeremy Lemer
Jet fuel in his blood: Gerard Arpey, American Airlines chief executive, joined the company in the 1980s
When Gerard Arpey joined American Airlines in the 1980s as a financial analyst, his arrival coincided with an aircraft-buying spree that would turn the carrier into one of the world’s largest.
Thirty years on and Mr Arpey, now chief executive, has just penned a deal that will in one fell swoop retire many of those same aircraft and chart a course for the US airline for decades to come. On Wednesday, the 52-year-old executive ordered more than 900 jets – counting options – in a deal worth nearly $40bn, badgered a supplier into developing a more fuel-efficient aircraft and stole a march on its main rivals.
Appearing at a news conference surrounded by local dignitaries and top Boeing and Airbus executives was a rare turn in the limelight for someone peers describe as a modest family man, quiet, thoughtful, and even a little cerebral.
Since taking the top job in 2003 – his predecessor was ousted for negotiating a lucrative bonus plan even as he extracted heavy concessions from workers – Mr Arpey has worked tirelessly to save money, cut debt and repair relations with employees, though to little avail.
He sold the company’s executive art collection and replaced it with photos of American aircraft, but net debt remains above $11bn. He set up joint leadership councils with unions, but the monthly meetings are sparsely attended.
Still, the symmetry of the aircraft order is fitting for Mr Arpey, who has spent his entire career at the airline, progressing from lowly analyst through the financial planning department before becoming chief operating officer in 2002.
He has jet fuel in his blood. His father was an airline executive and, as a student, Mr Arpey loaded bags for Delta Air Lines. In his spare time he flies a small Piper aircraft, although steering an airline through fuel spikes and recessions leaves little enough of that.
American in 2011 is a far cry from the carrier it was in the 1980s. Avoiding insolvency in the early 2000s has left it trapped: unable to reduce its debts or fix its labour problems until it makes money – and unable to make money without less debt and lower labour costs.
Then, the airline was spending to grow; now it is spending to survive. Mr Arpey and its team are gambling that, by replacing the old fuel-guzzling fleet and charting a path to growth, they can cut costs and win over disgruntled workers.
“This is something they had to do. With a 300lb jockey, even Sea Biscuit couldn’t win a race,” says Gordon Bethune, who led a turnround at Continental Airlines in the 1990s. Still, Mr Bethune worries that solving entrenched labour problems will be hard.
A chorus of analysts also remain sceptical.
“We understand that American’s fleet (and brand) are tired, but this announcement represents a ton of new capital being put into a failing business model,” one analyst wrote, demanding instant dividends.
Mr Arpey is well aware of the urgency. His office window looks out on the runways at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport and he winces when he sees American aircraft stuck in holding patterns because of bad weather, and burning expensive fuel.
But his preference, and strategy, is for the long term and the big picture. He has focused traffic on “cornerpost” cities, signed joint ventures, and ordered jets that will reduce costs as they enter the fleet. But it will take time to see results.
Whether American gets that time is a moot point. In the second quarter, the company again lost money, increased its debt load and generated less revenue growth than its peers.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011.
July 22, 2011 10:35 pm
by Jeremy Lemer
Jet fuel in his blood: Gerard Arpey, American Airlines chief executive, joined the company in the 1980s
When Gerard Arpey joined American Airlines in the 1980s as a financial analyst, his arrival coincided with an aircraft-buying spree that would turn the carrier into one of the world’s largest.
Thirty years on and Mr Arpey, now chief executive, has just penned a deal that will in one fell swoop retire many of those same aircraft and chart a course for the US airline for decades to come. On Wednesday, the 52-year-old executive ordered more than 900 jets – counting options – in a deal worth nearly $40bn, badgered a supplier into developing a more fuel-efficient aircraft and stole a march on its main rivals.
Appearing at a news conference surrounded by local dignitaries and top Boeing and Airbus executives was a rare turn in the limelight for someone peers describe as a modest family man, quiet, thoughtful, and even a little cerebral.
Since taking the top job in 2003 – his predecessor was ousted for negotiating a lucrative bonus plan even as he extracted heavy concessions from workers – Mr Arpey has worked tirelessly to save money, cut debt and repair relations with employees, though to little avail.
He sold the company’s executive art collection and replaced it with photos of American aircraft, but net debt remains above $11bn. He set up joint leadership councils with unions, but the monthly meetings are sparsely attended.
Still, the symmetry of the aircraft order is fitting for Mr Arpey, who has spent his entire career at the airline, progressing from lowly analyst through the financial planning department before becoming chief operating officer in 2002.
He has jet fuel in his blood. His father was an airline executive and, as a student, Mr Arpey loaded bags for Delta Air Lines. In his spare time he flies a small Piper aircraft, although steering an airline through fuel spikes and recessions leaves little enough of that.
American in 2011 is a far cry from the carrier it was in the 1980s. Avoiding insolvency in the early 2000s has left it trapped: unable to reduce its debts or fix its labour problems until it makes money – and unable to make money without less debt and lower labour costs.
Then, the airline was spending to grow; now it is spending to survive. Mr Arpey and its team are gambling that, by replacing the old fuel-guzzling fleet and charting a path to growth, they can cut costs and win over disgruntled workers.
“This is something they had to do. With a 300lb jockey, even Sea Biscuit couldn’t win a race,” says Gordon Bethune, who led a turnround at Continental Airlines in the 1990s. Still, Mr Bethune worries that solving entrenched labour problems will be hard.
A chorus of analysts also remain sceptical.
“We understand that American’s fleet (and brand) are tired, but this announcement represents a ton of new capital being put into a failing business model,” one analyst wrote, demanding instant dividends.
Mr Arpey is well aware of the urgency. His office window looks out on the runways at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport and he winces when he sees American aircraft stuck in holding patterns because of bad weather, and burning expensive fuel.
But his preference, and strategy, is for the long term and the big picture. He has focused traffic on “cornerpost” cities, signed joint ventures, and ordered jets that will reduce costs as they enter the fleet. But it will take time to see results.
Whether American gets that time is a moot point. In the second quarter, the company again lost money, increased its debt load and generated less revenue growth than its peers.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011.
US Airways Captain Escorted From Airport
By Ted Reed 07/23/11 - 08:00 AM EDT
CHARLOTTE, N.C. TheStreet) -- The battle between US Airways(LLC) and its pilots over the airline's safety culture is continuing, this time focused on an incident in which a captain declined to fly a transatlantic flight.
LCC On June 16, captain Valerie Wells, a 30-year-pilot, was scheduled to fly an Airbus A330, which can carry nearly 300 passengers, on a flight from Philadelphia to Rome. But she declined to fly because of failures of both the auxiliary power unit, a backup source of electrical power, and the "hot battery bus," a primary source of electrical power.
After the crew and passengers had returned to the gate Wells, in a particularly unusual event, was escorted out of the airport by security officials. Subsequently, a second crew of three pilots also declined to fly; the aircraft was repaired and underwent a rigorous inspection, and a third crew took off about six to seven hours late.
In seeking to publicize the incident, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association took out a full-page advertisement in Friday's edition of USA Today. The ad proclaimed that US Airways put "revenues first, safety second.
"The intimidation of flight crews is becoming commonplace at US Airways, [which] works to maximize their revenues by pushing their employees to move their airplanes regardless of the potential human cost," said the text. The ad referred readers to a website, www.USAirlinePilots.org/SafetyFirst.
In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.
"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."
Union spokesman James Ray said that initially, Wells could not possibly fly the airplane because it lacked cockpit electrical power, but a chief pilot nonetheless encouraged her to fly. He said the incident symbolized US Airways' desire to enhance on-time performance and revenues. "This is not just an isolated incident," he said. "It has been going on on a daily basis, and is the kind of practice we've been fighting for a number of years now."
Airline spokesman John McDonald said the incident is under investigation. He said "the fact that [Wells] was escorted off the property had nothing to do with safety," but declined to elaborate. Ray speculated the airline did not want Wells to tell the replacement crew of the problems she had with the aircraft.
By Ted Reed 07/23/11 - 08:00 AM EDT
CHARLOTTE, N.C. TheStreet) -- The battle between US Airways(LLC) and its pilots over the airline's safety culture is continuing, this time focused on an incident in which a captain declined to fly a transatlantic flight.
LCC On June 16, captain Valerie Wells, a 30-year-pilot, was scheduled to fly an Airbus A330, which can carry nearly 300 passengers, on a flight from Philadelphia to Rome. But she declined to fly because of failures of both the auxiliary power unit, a backup source of electrical power, and the "hot battery bus," a primary source of electrical power.
After the crew and passengers had returned to the gate Wells, in a particularly unusual event, was escorted out of the airport by security officials. Subsequently, a second crew of three pilots also declined to fly; the aircraft was repaired and underwent a rigorous inspection, and a third crew took off about six to seven hours late.
In seeking to publicize the incident, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association took out a full-page advertisement in Friday's edition of USA Today. The ad proclaimed that US Airways put "revenues first, safety second.
"The intimidation of flight crews is becoming commonplace at US Airways, [which] works to maximize their revenues by pushing their employees to move their airplanes regardless of the potential human cost," said the text. The ad referred readers to a website, www.USAirlinePilots.org/SafetyFirst.
In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.
"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."
Union spokesman James Ray said that initially, Wells could not possibly fly the airplane because it lacked cockpit electrical power, but a chief pilot nonetheless encouraged her to fly. He said the incident symbolized US Airways' desire to enhance on-time performance and revenues. "This is not just an isolated incident," he said. "It has been going on on a daily basis, and is the kind of practice we've been fighting for a number of years now."
Airline spokesman John McDonald said the incident is under investigation. He said "the fact that [Wells] was escorted off the property had nothing to do with safety," but declined to elaborate. Ray speculated the airline did not want Wells to tell the replacement crew of the problems she had with the aircraft.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
By Kristin Stoller, USA TODAY
"Passengers are cramped, tired and petty," says Goltsch, an electrical engineer in West Caldwell, N.J. "It has gotten to the point now that the people who travel for business just don't enjoy it anymore."
Increasingly, business travelers and airline attendants complain about the lack of respect passengers have for fellow travelers. Among them: Passengers who talk too loudly on cell phones, bring smelly food on board or recline their seats too much in a cramped cabin.
In close quarters, it's almost impossible for savvy, frequent business travelers or infrequent leisure passengers to keep their cool and not become annoyed.
Goltsch, who is 6-foot-4, recalls one Continental Airlines flight from Newark to Puerto Rico.
Having bought a last-minute ticket, he was stuck in a middle seat, and his long legs were pressed against the back of the seat in front of him.
"The passenger in front of me kept trying to push his seat back, but there was nowhere for it to go," Goltsch says. "He got out of his seat, came back to our row and asked me to stop blocking his seat movement."
Goltsch says he explained that he was wedged into his seat with no spare room and wasn't purposely trying to cause discomfort. The passenger suggested Goltsch move his legs to the side. But a passenger sitting next to him protested that he'd be uncomfortable if Goltsch did that.
The passenger who wanted to recline his seat then called a flight attendant and asked her to make Goltsch move his legs. "One look at me wedged into the seat, and she knew there was little we could do," Goltsch says. "She tried to explain that I simply had nowhere to put my legs. He asked for another flight attendant or the pilot to come back, because this was unacceptable to him."
Eventually, Goltsch was moved to another seat: a window seat in first class. That worked out, but not all problems do.
"My expectations for travel have gotten so low that the highest praise I can bestow upon a trip is that it was 'uneventful,'" Goltsch says.
Self-centered fliers
According to flight attendant Kelly Skyles, the No. 1 thing passengers should understand is that they are not the only people on an airplane.
"Passengers come on board, and it's all about them," says Skyles, who is a national safety and security coordinator for the Association of Professional Flight Attendants union. "I realize in our society it has come to be like that, but space is very limited, it's confined and it's shared."
Many passengers, Skyles says, overestimate a flight attendant's power.
"We have limited abilities to fix things immediately," Skyles says. "If your reading light isn't working, it is very unfortunate, but we do not have the ability to fix the reading light. We will definitely write it up, but it's not our fault that we can't fix it immediately."
Skyles advises passengers to treat everyone with respect. They'll get it in return, she says.
Though many business travelers say rookie, infrequent travelers are most likely to annoy them during a flight, others say it's veteran travelers with entitlement issues.
Thom Coughlin of Cincinnati says the rookies are usually the quiet, meek or mild passengers on a flight.
"Business travelers are the most annoying," says Coughlin, a sales manager in the industrial supplies industry. "They feel they have earned the right to be first in line, first for attention, first for overhead space and first to complain."
Elizabeth Toedt, who lives in Olympia, Wash., and works in the aviation industry, says it's amateurs who create the most disturbances, especially when going through security.
"After 10 years of dealing with the Transportation Security Administration screenings, I have to shake my head at the numbskulls who don't have ID ready, still carry liquids, don't know they must remove their shoes, jackets and computers, and treat security like a school lunchroom social hour."
Skyles advises respect for another reason: In addition to being transportation, a plane is also someone's work environment.
"It really makes every flight attendant happy when people walk off the plane and say, 'Oh, man, this was a really pleasant flight,'" Skyles says.
Top 10 pet peeves of frequent business travelers
USA TODAY's Road Warriors, frequent travelers who fly many miles each year, have their gripes. Ten of them:
•Loud cellphone conversations.
•People who disobey the rules and try to carry on too many bags or carry too much liquid through security.
•People who play music so loudly, even with earplugs or headphones, that others can hear it.
•Disrespect that passengers show to flight attendants and gate personnel.
•Parents who don't try to control their children.
•People who think the "turn-off-all-electronics" message is not for them.
•Passengers who carry on and eat messy or smelly food.
•People who board with multiple or oversize bags and fill the bins in the front of the cabin when they're seated in the rear.
•Reclining a seat in a tight coach cabin.
•Leaving a window shade open when everyone else has closed theirs and is trying to sleep.
Flight attendants’ Top 10 pet peeves
Travelers can irk flight crews, too. Here — from members of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants union, which represents nearly 18,000 American Airlines flight attendants — are 10 ways:
•Walking around the aircraft without shoes, especially in the lavatory.
•Changing a diaper in the seat or on the tray table.
•Clipping fingernails and toenails on the aircraft.
•Keeping headphones on when you start talking to attendants.
•Speaking in a condescending and angry tone when it's not appropriate.
•Hanging arms or legs out in the aisle when the food and beverage cart is coming.
•Standing in the galley and restroom areas to stretch and do exercises.
•Keeping electronic devices on after the announcement has been made to turn them off.
•Bringing stinky food on the plane.
•Carrying on a bag you can't lift into the overhead bin.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Jet Makers Crank Up Sales Pitches
By DANIEL MICHAELS, SUSAN CAREY and PETER SANDERS
A potential American Airlines order for more than 250 jetliners holds even higher stakes for the carrier, Airbus and Boeing Co. than the deal's giant size suggests.
Europe's Airbus is pushing hard for American Airlines to buy the A320neo.
Airbus wants to break Boeing's monopoly at American and has assembled a team of lenders and leasing firms to help the European company dangle almost $6 billion in preferential financing, people familiar with the proposal said.
Airbus's offer has a catalog value of almost $23 billion, but that is being heavily discounted, the people said. The unit of European Aeronautics Defence & Space Co., is offering American 130 of the current-generation A320s and 130 of the more fuel-efficient A320neo, the new engine option slated to enter service in 2015.
Boeing wants to keep Airbus out of American hangars but is treading a razor's edge in its offer that won't hurt its bargaining position at other airlines, a person familiar with the talks said. Jim Albaugh, chief executive of Boeing's commercial airplane unit, is expected to meet with American officials on Monday. Boeing is offering 737-800s and 737-900 Extended Range planes, people familiar with the matter said, but the price and financing terms were unclear.
Boeing, meanwhile, also is racing to develop a product strategy for its best-selling 737 model to compete with redesigns of the A320. Boeing faces intense pressure from American and other airlines to decide whether it will update or replace the single-aisle 737, a workhorse of American's short-distance fleet. The carrier already has more than 50 of the 737 on order.
"Right now, Boeing is in a tough situation," said Adam Pilarski, senior vice president at aviation consulting firm Avitas. "They need to try to convince the airline to give them a few more months to announce their intentions for the 737."
The board of American's parent, AMR Corp., might decide the duel as soon as next Wednesday, the people familiar with the matter said.
American must balance its need to replace hundreds of aging planes quickly and inexpensively against the risk of damaging close ties to Boeing, the carrier's sole jet supplier for 15 years. American has "most favored nation" status with Boeing under an exclusivity deal from 1996 that gives American preferential terms in buying planes from the Chicago aerospace company. If American buys Airbus planes, the carrier could lose that status at Boeing.
Adding Airbus A320s, and later A320neos, to American's all-Boeing fleet also would increase the complexity of training and scheduling pilots, handling maintenance tasks and stocking spare parts. But that could be offset by significantly reduced fuel consumption, eventual fleet simplification as American retires older models, and enhanced bargaining power by having two aircraft suppliers vying for orders.
Airbus is willing to offer American sweeter financing than the European company usually offers partly because of a thorny transition at its factories. As Airbus makes the switch to the A320neo, it wants to limit discounting of the final models of the A320, people familiar with the company's thinking said.
Updating jetliner models is dicier than rolling out a new car model or a fancier cellphone because planes are used for decades. Order negotiations for an airliner normally include calculations of its resale value, since aircraft often change hands during their life or are used as collateral for borrowing. But the final units of any model have lower resale value than usual because they will have to compete in the second-hand market with their successors.
Just as retailers mark down discontinued merchandise when a new product line arrives, Airbus is offering American a sweetheart deal to take the A320s, people familiar with the bid said. The package also includes excellent terms on the A320neo, the people said.
That situation presents a dilemma for Boeing because American isn't the only big carrier shopping for single-aisle planes. If American doesn't buy the end-of-line A320s, Airbus could offer them to United Continental Holdings Inc. or Delta Air Lines Inc., both of which already fly A320s and are big Boeing customers. Boeing therefore runs the risk that it could give American—the third-biggest U.S. airline by traffic, behind United Continental and Delta—billions of dollars in financing and discounts and then face the same competitive situation at other large customers.
Losing American's business, or even splitting an order with Airbus, "is not the end of the world for Boeing," said Mr. Pilarski, the Avitas consultant. As financially the weakest of the big U.S. carriers looking to replace their single-aisle fleets in the coming years, American is the least attractive customer, he said. Beyond that, the flip side of losing to Airbus could free Boeing from its exclusivity deal with American, allowing the aircraft maker to charge higher prices and set better terms on American purchases.
Gordon Bethune, a former Boeing executive and retired chief executive of Continental Airlines, said splitting the order "doesn't make sense" because it wouldn't help simplify American's fleet. But he sees American "switching sides for the right deal," said Mr. Bethune, who has no direct knowledge of AMR's bargaining and who once steered Continental into a similar exclusive arrangement with Boeing,
American, based in Fort Worth, Texas, wants to resolve the aircraft order this summer, people familiar with the matter said, and is negotiating intensely with both manufacturers, hoping to get an expedited delivery plan that would allow it to update its single-aisle fleet in about five years. Its directors are expected to meet later this month. It was unclear whether the directors would merely be updated on the aircraft talks or receive an order to approve.
In 1996 American, said it would buy passenger jets exclusively from Boeing until 2018 and began the relationship with an order for 103 jets, a mix of small, narrow-body 737s and 757s and large 767 and 777 long-range wide-body jets. The carrier also secured purchase rights for more than 500 additional jets with as little as 15 months' notice for the narrow-body deliveries and 18 months for the larger planes, a huge concession, as delivery dates typically are assigned to customers years after the order is placed.
By DANIEL MICHAELS, SUSAN CAREY and PETER SANDERS
A potential American Airlines order for more than 250 jetliners holds even higher stakes for the carrier, Airbus and Boeing Co. than the deal's giant size suggests.
Europe's Airbus is pushing hard for American Airlines to buy the A320neo.
Airbus wants to break Boeing's monopoly at American and has assembled a team of lenders and leasing firms to help the European company dangle almost $6 billion in preferential financing, people familiar with the proposal said.
Airbus's offer has a catalog value of almost $23 billion, but that is being heavily discounted, the people said. The unit of European Aeronautics Defence & Space Co., is offering American 130 of the current-generation A320s and 130 of the more fuel-efficient A320neo, the new engine option slated to enter service in 2015.
Boeing wants to keep Airbus out of American hangars but is treading a razor's edge in its offer that won't hurt its bargaining position at other airlines, a person familiar with the talks said. Jim Albaugh, chief executive of Boeing's commercial airplane unit, is expected to meet with American officials on Monday. Boeing is offering 737-800s and 737-900 Extended Range planes, people familiar with the matter said, but the price and financing terms were unclear.
Boeing, meanwhile, also is racing to develop a product strategy for its best-selling 737 model to compete with redesigns of the A320. Boeing faces intense pressure from American and other airlines to decide whether it will update or replace the single-aisle 737, a workhorse of American's short-distance fleet. The carrier already has more than 50 of the 737 on order.
"Right now, Boeing is in a tough situation," said Adam Pilarski, senior vice president at aviation consulting firm Avitas. "They need to try to convince the airline to give them a few more months to announce their intentions for the 737."
The board of American's parent, AMR Corp., might decide the duel as soon as next Wednesday, the people familiar with the matter said.
American must balance its need to replace hundreds of aging planes quickly and inexpensively against the risk of damaging close ties to Boeing, the carrier's sole jet supplier for 15 years. American has "most favored nation" status with Boeing under an exclusivity deal from 1996 that gives American preferential terms in buying planes from the Chicago aerospace company. If American buys Airbus planes, the carrier could lose that status at Boeing.
Adding Airbus A320s, and later A320neos, to American's all-Boeing fleet also would increase the complexity of training and scheduling pilots, handling maintenance tasks and stocking spare parts. But that could be offset by significantly reduced fuel consumption, eventual fleet simplification as American retires older models, and enhanced bargaining power by having two aircraft suppliers vying for orders.
Airbus is willing to offer American sweeter financing than the European company usually offers partly because of a thorny transition at its factories. As Airbus makes the switch to the A320neo, it wants to limit discounting of the final models of the A320, people familiar with the company's thinking said.
Updating jetliner models is dicier than rolling out a new car model or a fancier cellphone because planes are used for decades. Order negotiations for an airliner normally include calculations of its resale value, since aircraft often change hands during their life or are used as collateral for borrowing. But the final units of any model have lower resale value than usual because they will have to compete in the second-hand market with their successors.
Just as retailers mark down discontinued merchandise when a new product line arrives, Airbus is offering American a sweetheart deal to take the A320s, people familiar with the bid said. The package also includes excellent terms on the A320neo, the people said.
That situation presents a dilemma for Boeing because American isn't the only big carrier shopping for single-aisle planes. If American doesn't buy the end-of-line A320s, Airbus could offer them to United Continental Holdings Inc. or Delta Air Lines Inc., both of which already fly A320s and are big Boeing customers. Boeing therefore runs the risk that it could give American—the third-biggest U.S. airline by traffic, behind United Continental and Delta—billions of dollars in financing and discounts and then face the same competitive situation at other large customers.
Losing American's business, or even splitting an order with Airbus, "is not the end of the world for Boeing," said Mr. Pilarski, the Avitas consultant. As financially the weakest of the big U.S. carriers looking to replace their single-aisle fleets in the coming years, American is the least attractive customer, he said. Beyond that, the flip side of losing to Airbus could free Boeing from its exclusivity deal with American, allowing the aircraft maker to charge higher prices and set better terms on American purchases.
Gordon Bethune, a former Boeing executive and retired chief executive of Continental Airlines, said splitting the order "doesn't make sense" because it wouldn't help simplify American's fleet. But he sees American "switching sides for the right deal," said Mr. Bethune, who has no direct knowledge of AMR's bargaining and who once steered Continental into a similar exclusive arrangement with Boeing,
American, based in Fort Worth, Texas, wants to resolve the aircraft order this summer, people familiar with the matter said, and is negotiating intensely with both manufacturers, hoping to get an expedited delivery plan that would allow it to update its single-aisle fleet in about five years. Its directors are expected to meet later this month. It was unclear whether the directors would merely be updated on the aircraft talks or receive an order to approve.
In 1996 American, said it would buy passenger jets exclusively from Boeing until 2018 and began the relationship with an order for 103 jets, a mix of small, narrow-body 737s and 757s and large 767 and 777 long-range wide-body jets. The carrier also secured purchase rights for more than 500 additional jets with as little as 15 months' notice for the narrow-body deliveries and 18 months for the larger planes, a huge concession, as delivery dates typically are assigned to customers years after the order is placed.
Saturday, July 09, 2011
By Shubh Datta
July 8, 2011
Top aircraft carriers in the US are looking to overhaul their fleets. In the face of high gas prices, these carriers are planning to replace their old fuel-guzzling planes with newer more fuel-efficient aircraft.
Not to be left behind, American Airlines parent AMR (NYSE: AMR ) is planning to shell out close to $15 billion to reinvigorate its fleet with narrow-bodied craft.
Re-fleeting the hangars
The nation’s four largest carriers are all looking to add more aircraft to their hangars. Media reports quoting sources said American is planning to buy close to 250 narrow-bodied planes, splitting the $15 billion that it plans to spend between aircraft makers Boeing (NYSE: BA ) and Airbus.
Even the world’s largest aircraft carrier Delta (NYSE: DAL ) is planning to add close to 200 new aircraft by the end of the year. To complete the list, Southwest (NYSE: LUV ) and United Continental Holdings (NYSE: UAL ) are also mulling over adding new planes to their fleet.
The airline industry in the US is currently coming out of a long year in which it has had to face the pressures of high gas prices, capacity cuts, and consolidation in the industry. These factors led to a drop in American's revenues and bottom line and weighed on its financial position.
A look at the numbers
Unfortunately, AMR’s numbers don’t make for pretty reading. Though LTM revenues have increased by 12% to $22.63 billion, costs have shown a simultaneous jump, rising 7% to $17.44 billion. No wonder then that American reported losses of $402 million in the last twelve months.
From a balance sheet perspective, American’s free cash flow stands at a negative $622.3 million. American’s current ratio stands at 0.9 times, which means that it is not in a comfortable position to pay off its short term liabilities. Its interest coverage ratio stands at 1.9 times, hence the company is reasonably placed to pay off its obligations but is not in a comfortable position to assume further debt. The burden clearly can be understood, when we see that American’s total debt has risen to $12.1 billion in the last twelve months.
A string of losses have taken their toll on the balance sheet and the company needs help to finance this huge, $15 billion endeavor. Hence, the deal would require substantial financing from the manufacturers or leasing companies. Just where will the money come from? Given the industry’s volatile nature, I’m not going to be the first one to jump in line to finance this massive project.
Bidding war!
The major question here is whether or not American Airlines will choose Boeing or Airbus aircraft? According to reports, American first approached Airbus without informing Boeing (who currently supplies planes to American) and was happy with the offer it had made. Later, it approached Boeing, possibly throwing down the gauntlet by asking it to better Airbus’ offer.
Airbus has struggled to penetrate the US markets, with US Airways Group (NYSE: LCC ) currently being its biggest customer. Winning the deal would be a huge boost for Airbus. This would be an important step forward as the global passenger airplane market is expected to be worth $4 trillion in the next 20 years.
The future
Despite the deals’ massive price tag, it’s a necessary one. The purchase should eventually translate into lower costs. It should mean lower maintenance costs and considerably lower fuel costs. Plus, planes just need to be replaced.
The Foolish bottom line
If American Airlines can work out the finances and the deal goes through, it will help position the company for the next decade of transcontinental business. As an investment, however, this is not the type of news that gets me excited. Show me a few quarters of strong financial performance and then maybe we can talk.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Is It Really Safe to Use a Cellphone on a Plane?
ABC NEWS
By BRIAN ROSS (@brianross) and AVNI PATEL
June 9, 2011
Like most airline passengers, you probably have serious doubts about those pre-flight announcements asking you to turn off your cellphones, blackberries, iPods and anything else electronic.
The announcements are flat-out ignored by many frequent fliers, who are skeptical that so-called "personal electronic devices" pose any safety threat to airplane. Some passengers openly rebel, like New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who cursed out one flight attendant who demanded he turn off his cellphone.
But a confidential industry study obtained by ABC News indicates there really could be serious safety issues related to cellphones and other PEDs.
A report by the International Air Transport Association, a trade group representing more 230 passenger and cargo airlines worldwide, documents 75 separate incidents of possible electronic interference that airline pilots and other crew members believed were linked to mobile phones and other electronic devices. The report covers the years 2003 to 2009 and is based on survey responses from 125 airlines that account for a quarter of the world's air traffic.
A confidential airline industry report obtained by ABC News documents 75 separate incidents that aircraft pilots and engineers think are linked to cellphones or other electronic devices. Danger of Cell Phones During Takeoff and Landing Watch Video
Twenty-six of the incidents in the report affected the flight controls, including the autopilot, autothrust and landing gear. Seventeen affected navigation systems, while 15 affected communication systems. Thirteen of the incidents produced electronic warnings, including "engine indications." The type of personal device most often suspected in the incidents were cell phones, linked to four out of ten.
The report, which stresses that it is not verifying that the incidents were caused by PEDs, includes a sampling of the narratives provided by pilots and crewmembers who believed they were experiencing electronic interference.
"Auto pilot was engaged," reads one. "At about 4500 ft, the autopilot disengaged by itself and the associated warnings/indications came on. [Flight attendants] were immediately advised to look out for PAX [passengers] operating electronic devices. ... [Attendants] reported that there were 4 PAX operated electronic devices (1 handphone and 3 iPods)." The crew used the public address system to advise the passengers to shut off electronic devices "for their safety and the safety of the flight," after which the aircraft proceeded "without any further incident."
In other events described in the report, a clock spun backwards and a GPS in cabin read incorrectly while two laptops were being used nearby. During another flight, the altitude control readings changed rapidly until a crew member asked passengers to turn off their electronic devices. The readings returned to normal. "After an hour, changes were noticed again . . . Purser made a second announcement and the phenomena stopped."
Dave Carson of Boeing, the co-chair of a federal advisory committee that investigated the problem of electronic interference from portable devices, says that PEDs radiate signals that can hit and disrupt highly sensitive electronic sensors hidden in the plane's passenger area, including those for an instrument landing system used in bad weather.
"It could be you that you were to the right of the runway when in fact, you were to the left of the runway," said Carson, "or just completely wipe out the signal so that you didn't get any indication of where you are coming in."
Asked if a cellphone's signal could really be that powerful, Carson said, "It is when it goes in the right place at the right time."
To prove his point, Carson took ABC News inside Boeing's electronic test chamber in Seattle, where engineers demonstrated the hidden signals from several electronic devices that were well over what Boeing considers the acceptable limit for aircraft equipment. A Blackberry and an iPhone were both over the limit, but the worst offender was an iPad. There are still doubters, including ABC News's own aviation expert, John Nance.
"There is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but it's not evidence at all," said Nance, a former Air Force and commercial pilot. "It's pilots, like myself, who thought they saw something but they couldn't pin it to anything in particular. And those stories are not rampant enough, considering 32,000 flights a day over the U.S., to be convincing."
Nance thinks there are alternate explanations for the events. "If an airplane is properly hardened, in terms of the sheathing of the electronics, there's no way interference can occur."
But Boeing engineers told us that signals from PEDs could disrupt the navigation and communication frequencies on older planes, which are not as well shielded as the newer models. And anything that distracts the pilots in the cockpit is considered a true threat to safety.
ABC NEWS
By BRIAN ROSS (@brianross) and AVNI PATEL
June 9, 2011
Like most airline passengers, you probably have serious doubts about those pre-flight announcements asking you to turn off your cellphones, blackberries, iPods and anything else electronic.
The announcements are flat-out ignored by many frequent fliers, who are skeptical that so-called "personal electronic devices" pose any safety threat to airplane. Some passengers openly rebel, like New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who cursed out one flight attendant who demanded he turn off his cellphone.
But a confidential industry study obtained by ABC News indicates there really could be serious safety issues related to cellphones and other PEDs.
A report by the International Air Transport Association, a trade group representing more 230 passenger and cargo airlines worldwide, documents 75 separate incidents of possible electronic interference that airline pilots and other crew members believed were linked to mobile phones and other electronic devices. The report covers the years 2003 to 2009 and is based on survey responses from 125 airlines that account for a quarter of the world's air traffic.
A confidential airline industry report obtained by ABC News documents 75 separate incidents that aircraft pilots and engineers think are linked to cellphones or other electronic devices. Danger of Cell Phones During Takeoff and Landing Watch Video
Twenty-six of the incidents in the report affected the flight controls, including the autopilot, autothrust and landing gear. Seventeen affected navigation systems, while 15 affected communication systems. Thirteen of the incidents produced electronic warnings, including "engine indications." The type of personal device most often suspected in the incidents were cell phones, linked to four out of ten.
The report, which stresses that it is not verifying that the incidents were caused by PEDs, includes a sampling of the narratives provided by pilots and crewmembers who believed they were experiencing electronic interference.
"Auto pilot was engaged," reads one. "At about 4500 ft, the autopilot disengaged by itself and the associated warnings/indications came on. [Flight attendants] were immediately advised to look out for PAX [passengers] operating electronic devices. ... [Attendants] reported that there were 4 PAX operated electronic devices (1 handphone and 3 iPods)." The crew used the public address system to advise the passengers to shut off electronic devices "for their safety and the safety of the flight," after which the aircraft proceeded "without any further incident."
In other events described in the report, a clock spun backwards and a GPS in cabin read incorrectly while two laptops were being used nearby. During another flight, the altitude control readings changed rapidly until a crew member asked passengers to turn off their electronic devices. The readings returned to normal. "After an hour, changes were noticed again . . . Purser made a second announcement and the phenomena stopped."
Dave Carson of Boeing, the co-chair of a federal advisory committee that investigated the problem of electronic interference from portable devices, says that PEDs radiate signals that can hit and disrupt highly sensitive electronic sensors hidden in the plane's passenger area, including those for an instrument landing system used in bad weather.
"It could be you that you were to the right of the runway when in fact, you were to the left of the runway," said Carson, "or just completely wipe out the signal so that you didn't get any indication of where you are coming in."
Asked if a cellphone's signal could really be that powerful, Carson said, "It is when it goes in the right place at the right time."
To prove his point, Carson took ABC News inside Boeing's electronic test chamber in Seattle, where engineers demonstrated the hidden signals from several electronic devices that were well over what Boeing considers the acceptable limit for aircraft equipment. A Blackberry and an iPhone were both over the limit, but the worst offender was an iPad. There are still doubters, including ABC News's own aviation expert, John Nance.
"There is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but it's not evidence at all," said Nance, a former Air Force and commercial pilot. "It's pilots, like myself, who thought they saw something but they couldn't pin it to anything in particular. And those stories are not rampant enough, considering 32,000 flights a day over the U.S., to be convincing."
Nance thinks there are alternate explanations for the events. "If an airplane is properly hardened, in terms of the sheathing of the electronics, there's no way interference can occur."
But Boeing engineers told us that signals from PEDs could disrupt the navigation and communication frequencies on older planes, which are not as well shielded as the newer models. And anything that distracts the pilots in the cockpit is considered a true threat to safety.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
June 19, 2011 9:26 a.m. EDT
Jophan Porter, 38, is suspected of using a fake ID to get a job with American Eagle Airlines.
"We don't really know who he is," assistant state attorney says
Federal official downplays the severity of the alleged breach
Employee is currently being held on a $1 million bond
Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it will deport him
Miami (CNN) -- Federal and local authorities are investigating an apparent airline security breach after an American Eagle Airlines employee allegedly used another man's identity to get a job as a flight attendant.
Jophan Porter, 38, has been charged with six counts of identity theft and three counts of forgery, among a lengthy list of other charges, according to the Miami-Dade corrections website.
American Eagle says the incident did not involve a customer and that they are involved in an investigation that includes the FBI, according to a statement from the airline.
When arrested at Miami International Airport on Friday, Porter -- a native of Guyana -- was carrying multiple forms of phony identity, including driver's licenses, a passport and a Department of Transportation identification card, CNN affiliate WSVN reported, citing the arrest report.
The presiding judge raised bail to $1 million after prosecutors described Porter as a flight risk, noting that authorities "don't know who he's connected to."
"We don't really know who he is," the assistant state attorney said. "When you are refusing to identify yourself to the FBI and you're working in an airline, that's a concern."
A spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the agency plans to deport Porter, though he would not comment on Porter's residency status or where he will be sent.
"ICE lodged a detainer against him," said Ivan Ortiz-Delgado. "We will begin removal procedures once his criminal proceedings are complete."
Police: Fake ID used to get airline job Having an airline identification card or being an airline employee does not allow a person to circumvent security, according to the Transportation Security Administration.
Flight attendants' names are checked against the terror watch list, but it is the responsibility of airlines to verify potential employees' identities, including their legal status, the TSA said.
Meanwhile, airport traveler Camilla Diaz said she didn't understand how the apparent breach occurred.
"A big company like that -- they have to check that before," she told WSVN.
Others appeared stunned. "Wow that's incredible," Alejandro Hernandez told the network.
Porter is currently being held in Miami-Dade County jail and is represented by a public defender, who could not be immediately reached for comment.
CNN's Ross Levitt and Cristy Lenz contributed to this report.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Phoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks, Phoenix Business Journal
Date: Friday, June 10, 2011, 6:13pm MST - Last Modified: Friday, June 10, 2011, 6:16pm MST
US Airways officials reported Friday evening that some of the airline's computer and online systems were down and that was causing some flight delays. The Tempe-based airline (NYSE: LCC) said in a statement the system outage occurred in its hometown market and efforts were underway to restore the down systems.
"Early reports indicate that the systems outage is the result of a power outage near one of the airline's data centers in Phoenix. Some airport computer systems are coming back online now and we are working to restore operational order," the airline said in a statement.
A US Airways official said the Phoenix outage was impacting the airline's systems nationwide and was causing some flight delays. The official confirmed some systems were coming back up but did not have a timetable for when US Airways' operations would return to normal.
US Airways officials reported Friday evening that some of the airline's computer and online systems were down and that was causing some flight delays. The Tempe-based airline (NYSE: LCC) said in a statement the system outage occurred in its hometown market and efforts were underway to restore the down systems.
"Early reports indicate that the systems outage is the result of a power outage near one of the airline's data centers in Phoenix. Some airport computer systems are coming back online now and we are working to restore operational order," the airline said in a statement.
A US Airways official said the Phoenix outage was impacting the airline's systems nationwide and was causing some flight delays. The official confirmed some systems were coming back up but did not have a timetable for when US Airways' operations would return to normal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)