Related Posts
Showing posts with label US Airways. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Airways. Show all posts
Friday, April 4, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Open Skies Era Arrives, Labor Fight Begins
From CNN:
The first plane has landed under the "Open Skies" agreement [pdf] between the United States and Europe, heralding what many hope will be a new era in air travel. The Continental Airways flight from Newark to Heathrow touched down under rainy London skies at dawn on Sunday morning. Jeff Smisek, president of Continental, was onboard the flight. He told CNN that Heathrow landing rights had cost the airline $200 million -- but that it had been "money well invested."
"The business traveler wants to come to Heathrow," Smisek told CNN's Richard Quest, who was also on the flight. "We have been locked out of Heathrow for decades and it is the most important business market in the world. We are delighted to be here." Quest said other airlines were already landing at Heathrow, including a US Airways flight from Philadelphia and Northwest Airlines from Minneapolis.
The new deal means that passengers on both sides of the Atlantic will now have more options when it comes to nonstop flights. ..."National boundaries will no longer determined where planes can fly," Quest said before today's flight.
In educational interest, article(s) quoted from extensively.
From AP:
As briefly mentioned in the close of the AP report, in January British Airways announced the creation of a spin-off airline -- called OpenSkies -- that would capitalize on the new aviation agreement. Via AFP:
British Airways on Wednesday unveiled plans for a new airline with daily flights from New York to Europe, taking advantage of last year's EU-US "open skies" deal to free up the key transatlantic market. The subsidiary airline, to be called OpenSkies, will be launched in June and initially use one Boeing 757 passenger aircraft that will operate from New York to either Brussels or Paris Charles de Gaulle airports, BA said in a statement.
The single-aisle plane will cater for up to 82 passengers shared between business, premium economy and economy cabins. The Boeing 757 is normally configured for some 200 seats. BA did not reveal likely ticket prices nor whether OpenSkies would be based on Maxjet, the low-fare business class airline which declared bankruptcy on Christmas Day.
"This is an exciting new venture for us and we're confident that it will be a great success as we build on the strength of British Airways' brand in the US and Europe," BA chief executive Willie Walsh said in a statement. "By naming the airline OpenSkies, we're celebrating the first major step in 60 years towards a liberalised US/EU aviation market which means we can fly between any US and EU destination," he added.
The problem with this exciting announcement, as far as it concerns the employees of British Airways, is that the growth would be outsourced (at a cheaper cost, of course). The issues, as explained by BA's pilot's union, BALPA:
British Airways is launching a new airline called OpenSkies. A very exciting new venture, one that will exploit the upside of ‘deregulation’ (routes being opened to non-national carriers) by flying out of European hubs across to the United States.
It should be a good news story, but it is not turning out that way. British Airways don’t want these British Airways planes to be flown by British Airways Pilots. They want to outsource these jobs.
We understand that ‘Openskies’ can only be successful if the employees initially have salaries and contracts commensurate with a ‘start up’ airline. That is not our issue.
Our issue is the fact that British Airways won’t allow the two pilot groups to be as one. This leads us to believe that the BA management has a different objective. That objective is to divide the pilot workforce and push any further new jobs generated by ‘deregulation’ through this ‘cheaper’ pilot cost base. This has happened in other airlines around the world.
This dispute is about job security. It is about protecting the jobs we train so hard for, the jobs that provide for our families.
BALPA has been working to resolve this issue for almost a year but it seems that British Airways is determined to proceed regardless. The only way in which we can secure the respect of BA’s management – a respect that is in very short supply, despite the job we perform, is to stand firm against such a direct attack. We sincerely hope that this does not lead to strike action, and we will exhaust every alternative means of influence before taking this course of action.
In February, British Airways pilots voted to strike over OpenSkies, and BA management quickly agreed to enter into mediation over the issue. Earlier this month 1,000 picketed at London Heathrow. Via Bloomberg:
About 1,000 pilots and their family members marched toward British Airways' offices near London Heathrow airport, in a protest that lasted two and a half hours, spokesman Keith Bill said today in a telephone interview. Police closed the A4 road to allow access to the pilots.
The British Air Line Pilots Association, or Balpa, has voted to strike in protest of BA's OpenSkies unit, which will fly between Paris and New York starting in June. British Airways wants to recruit pilots for the new business from outside its current pool, and the union says BA will use the subsidiary to force changes to pay and working conditions for all of the airline's flight crews.
"We want the pilots flying to be BA pilots," Jim McAuslan, Balpa's general secretary, said today in a telephone interview as the protest came to an end. "It's about job security, careers and respect."
British Airways Chief Executive Officer Willie Walsh has said the new carrier needs a lower cost base if it's to compete with larger network airlines. OpenSkies is part of the airline's response to a European Union-U.S. agreement that will liberalize trans-Atlantic air travel starting March 31. The airline has given assurances that OpenSkies will not affect the salaries and terms of mainline pilots. OpenSkies will use a single Boeing Co. 757 plane to operate the first Paris-New York service, growing to six planes by the end of 2009.
"British Airways wants to preserve their flexibility -- it wants business passengers for OpenSkies, they're going to be hard won and they need to do it economically," said John Strickland, director of London-based aviation specialist JLS Consulting Ltd. "They seem to have done their best to calm the fears of Balpa, but the union has been influenced by what they've seen in the States."
Indeed, British Airways' OneWorld Alliance partner pilots at American Airlines had an ominous warning of the consequences that may flow from the loss of protective SCOPE clause provisions for BA's pilots if they lose this fight:
Again from Bloomberg:
British Airways is trying to use EU competition law to prevent a strike, according to Balpa. The law gives EU nationals the right to establish businesses in another of the bloc's countries.
Balpa represents about 3,000 of the airline's 3,200 pilots. The Air Line Pilots Association, said it will support Balpa's demonstration this weekend by picketing at U.S. airports including New York's John F. Kennedy International, Washington Dulles, Los Angeles International, San Francisco International and Seattle Tacoma International.
American Airlines Inc. pilots were picketing at the British Airways terminal at John F. Kennedy airport at the same time as the protest march in London took place, McAuslan said.
Dallas Morning News' Terry Maxon offered some insight into a related issue concerning American Airlines and British Airways, both of which have been trying for the past decade to tighten up their relationship through lobbying for antitrust immunity for their OneWorld Alliance codeshare agreement:
As long as American and British Airways lack antitrust immunity for their alliance, I don't think we'll see American offering Executive Club miles on its U.S.-London flights or British Airways offering AAdvantage miles on its U.S.-London flights.
Their application for antitrust immunity would have allowed the two carriers to pool revenues across the North Atlantic, so that they'd get a share of the airfares regardless of which airline carried the passenger. But without immunity, they are competitors on the U.S.-London flights and have no reason to give potential customers an incentive to fly the other carrier.
Having said that, let me point out that the alliance may have a better chance with Open Skies in effect. The big drawback to allowing American and British Airways to cooperate is that BA dominated Heathrow Airport, American was a big player and most other carriers were shut out of the U.S.-Heathrow market.
Antitrust regulators in a 2002 decision said BA and AA could have limited antitrust immunity only if they would agree to surrender enough slots to let competitors operate 16 roundtrip flights a day into Heathrow. Thanks, but no thanks, the two airlines said at the time.
Maxon concludes that BA and AA may eventually revisit an application for antitrust immunity in light of today's opening up of the market to additional competitors. But what will the Open Skies agreement itself mean to passengers? Will it improve service, reduce prices and increase choice for the average consumer? No, says AP:
[A]irlines already struggling with sky-high fuel prices and an economic slowdown see open skies' relaxed route restrictions primarily as a way to attract more of the high-end business and affluent leisure travelers they covet and see as necessary to their financial survival.
British Airways, for instance, is launching a new trans-Atlantic airline to take advantage of the agreement -- aptly named OpenSkies -- but will offer only 30 economy-class seats on each 82-seat plane, with the rest evenly split between first and business class. "There is a move afoot ... to use smaller (airplanes) flown nonstop to push leisure customers by the wayside ... except for those willing to pay far higher prices," said Robert Mann, an independent airline consultant in Port Washington, New York.
As oil has pushed past $100 a barrel, propelling jet fuel prices to record levels, many carriers have cut domestic capacity and moved planes to international routes, where ticket prices -- and profits -- are higher. The open skies agreement appears likely to hasten the shift. While the number of overall flights may increase and some cities will get new service and routes, the vast majority of the new flights will be on the same well-trafficked routes. ...
Open skies may offer travelers more in the way of convenience than savings, but it is likely to help the airlines' bottom lines. Carriers say open skies' biggest benefit is giving them the freedom to quickly make changes to their flight schedules. Many airlines will also launch new code-sharing agreements -- which let them book passengers on one another's planes.
"Liberalization of the trans-Atlantic market allows us to pursue growth opportunities where and when they make commercial sense with less government interference," said John Tague, United's chief revenue officer.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Air Marshals Go MIA on U.S. Flights
On Tuesday, Anderson Cooper 360 covered the issue of the declining number of armed guards devoted to securing the U.S. skies. The investigation was conducted by Drew Griffin, who filed this report:
From CNN:
Of the 28,000 commercial airline flights that take to the skies on an average day in the United States, fewer than 1 percent are protected by on-board, armed federal air marshals, a nationwide CNN investigation has found.
That means a terrorist or other criminal bent on taking over an aircraft would be confronted by a trained air marshal on as few as 280 daily flights, according to more than a dozen federal air marshals and pilots interviewed by CNN.
The Transportation Security Administration flatly denied those reports. Greg Alter, assistant special agent in charge of the federal air marshal program, said the 280 number "grossly understates coverage by an order of magnitude" and that the number is "four digits," but he would not elaborate.
In a post on its Web site responding to the CNN story, the TSA said it would not disclose the number of air marshals flying each day so as not to "tip our hand to terrorists." However, it said, "The actual number of flights that air marshals cover is thousands per day."
In educational interest, article(s) quoted from extensively.
Pilots and federal law enforcement officers interviewed by CNN said they hadn't seen air marshals on board their flights in months -- some saying they had not crossed paths with one in the past six months:
Air marshals who spoke with CNN anonymously in order to protect their jobs are especially troubled by the lack of coverage on flights in and out of Washington and New York, the two cities targeted by the 9/11 hijackers. Marshals, pilots and other law enforcement officials told CNN these flights are protected by far fewer air marshals than in the past. ...
Air marshals told CNN that while the TSA tells the public it cannot divulge numbers because they are classified, the agency tells its own agents that at least 5 percent of all flights are covered. But marshals across the country -- all of whom spoke with CNN on the condition they not be identified for fear of losing their jobs -- said the 5 percent figure quoted to them by their TSA bosses is not possible.
One marshal said that while security is certainly one reason the numbers are kept secret, he believes the agency simply doesn't want taxpayers to know the truth. "I would be very embarrassed by [the numbers] if they were to get out," one air marshal said. "The American public would be shocked. ... I think the average person understands there's no physical way to protect every single flight everywhere," the air marshal said. "But it's such a small percentage. It's just very aggravating for us."
Sources inside the air marshal field offices told CNN the program has been unable to stem the losses of trained air marshals since the program's numbers peaked in 2003 -- and many of those who have left have not been replaced.
CNN was told that staffing in Dallas, Texas, for instance, is down 44 percent from its high, while Seattle, Washington, has 40 percent fewer agents. Las Vegas, Nevada, which had as many as 245 air marshals, this past February had only 47. The Transportation Security Administration is advertising for applicants to fill 50 air marshal positions.
A few stats from the TSA:
On September 11, 2001, the Air Marshal Program consisted of less than fifty armed marshals who, by statute, flew only on international flights flown by U.S. air carriers. The tragic events which unfolded that day demonstrated the need for an expanded law enforcement presence on board American carriers on both foreign and domestic flights.
As a result of the attacks, President George W. Bush ordered the rapid expansion of the Federal Air Marshal Service. Over 200,000 applications were initially received, from which several thousand qualified Federal Air Marshals were selected. Those who were hired came from a diverse background of experience including other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and the military.
Today, Federal Air Marshals serve as the primary law enforcement entity within the Transportation Security Administration and are deployed on flights around the world and in the United States. While their primary mission of protecting air passengers and crew has not changed much over the years, Federal Air Marshals have an ever expanding role in homeland security and work closely with other law enforcement agencies to accomplish their mission.
Currently, air marshals staff several positions at different organizations such as the National Counterterrorism Center, the National Targeting Center, and on the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces. In addition, they are also distributed among other law enforcement and homeland security liaison assignments during times of heightened alert or special national events.
The men and women who make up the Federal Air Marshal Service are dedicated, well trained law enforcement professionals, each equipped with the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary keep our aviation system safe and secure.
On average, a Federal Air Marshal:
* Flies 181 days per year
* Flies 15 days per month
* Spends 900 hours in an aircraft per year
* Spends five hours in an aircraft per day
A few more details via the CNN report:
David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance and a pilot himself, said that, based on conversations with other pilots and marshals, he believes the TSA is overstating the number of flights that are protected by a federal marshal.
In his e-mail to CNN, Alter wrote, "In 2007, the Federal Air Marshal Service attrition rate was approximately 6.5 percent, the same approximate average it has been for almost the entire period since the agency's expansion after September 11, 2001." ...
As it turns out, the words "coverage" or "covered" have special meaning when applied to the air marshal service. In his e-mail to CNN, TSA's Alter said, "The Federal Air Marshal Service employs an intelligence driven and risk based approach to covering flights." ...Alter said he uses the term "covered" to mean that a federal marshal is on board.
But air marshals and pilots CNN spoke with say that's not exactly the case. These sources say the marshal service considers a flight "covered" even if a marshal is not on board -- as long as a law enforcement officer or pilot in possession of a firearm is on board, even if that person is flying for personal reasons. The "covered" designation includes pilots armed in the cockpit. ...
The firearms training program for pilots is budgeted at $25 million. And while it is popular among airline pilots, many complain that they have to spend as much as $3,000 of their own money for lodging and meals when they take the course. By comparison, the federal air marshal budget this year is $720 million. But air marshals who spoke with CNN question where the money is going when their numbers are dwindling and fewer than 1 percent of flights are covered on any given day.
"I'm afraid in the past, the only things that have really worked has been to call out the media and say we need people to call their congressman, call their senators and tell them they want better protection, and hopefully the changes will trickle down to us," one marshal said.
If you feel strongly about this issue, please contact your representatives and demand attention to this important matter. Ironically, only days before the CNN report, a US Airways pilot's gun discharged in the cockpit on descent in preparation for landing.
Jefferson George's report in the Charlotte Observer:
The US Airways captain whose gun discharged in the cockpit of a Charlotte-bound flight Saturday is a former Air Force pilot who lives in Pittsburgh. The pilot, James Langenhahn, declined to discuss the shooting Thursday night. "As much as I'd like to talk about it," he told the Observer, "I can't right now."
His name was released, apparently inadvertently, after the Observer questioned the government's concealment of facts on a police report [pdf] of the incident. The in-flight shooting was the first such incident since pilots began carrying guns after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Langenhahn, 55, is part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program run by the Transportation Security Administration. He was stowing the 13-shot, .40-caliber pistol when it discharged -- piercing the cockpit wall and fuselage -- while the plane was preparing to land in Charlotte late Saturday morning, according to the report. Other details released Thursday also indicate that the gun's holster is being investigated in the shooting. Some pilots have criticized the locking holster system for the Heckler & Koch USP pistol as inappropriate for the program that arms pilots. ...
The bullet -- fired at about 11:20 a.m. Saturday -- struck the left side of the cockpit wall and exited the fuselage below a window. The plane, an Airbus A319 en route from Denver, was at an altitude of 8,000 feet and about eight minutes from Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, according to the police report. Along with the captain and first officer, the jet carried three flight attendants and 124 passengers -- none of whom reported hearing the gunshot. ...
In December, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper reported that US Airways pilot Jim Langenhahn organized a barbershop-singing tribute to a World War II veteran. The event was partly in memory of his own father, a parachute rigger in the South Pacific. The article identified Langenhahn as a former Air Force pilot.
In 1999, Langenhahn wrote a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette after a deadly American Airlines crash in Arkansas. He urged the FAA to overhaul its rules governing work and rest period for pilots, which he said would make flying safer.
Local WCNC-Charlotte, N.C., broadcast on the incident:
Monday, March 17, 2008
Record Fuel Prices Inching Ticket Prices Skyward
For an industry with razor-thin margins, rising fuel costs can and do further pressurize current airline-labor negotiations.
Labor took large wage and benefit cuts during the state-of-emergency days following 9/11; many labor groups undoubtedly feel they deserve richer contracts this time around to make up for those difficult, but necessary, "pull together for the team" losses.
But air travelers are feeling their own pump pinch.
While airline employees can expect to see a more forceful pushback from management as the cost of fuel soars, customers will have to make peace with more expensive ticket prices and fewer air service options.
Ellen Creager says it best over at the Detroit Free Press:
More pain.
Northwest Airlines hiked its fares as much as $50 on Sunday, matching last week's hikes at five other U.S. carriers, Bloomberg News reports.
The cause, of course, is high jet fuel prices.
United Airlines hiked its fares Friday, followed by American, Delta, US Airways and Continental. Now, Northwest joins the crowd.
Sadly, the hike is just more pressure on Americans to vacation near home this summer. With high-season airfares between the U.S. and Europe running about $1,200 to $1,500 round trip this year, the dollar in free-fall against world currencies and gasoline headed for $4 a gallon, the backyard is looking better all the time.
And I'm the travel writer.
Bleak news. Witty messenger.
Priceless...
[UPDATE Mar 21, 2008]: More bad news on the upcoming travel season from Adrian Schofield at Aviation Week:
The latest FAA Aerospace Forecast proves once again how quickly fortunes can change in the U.S. airline industry. A year ago, the FAA's prognosticators foresaw healthy growth in airline demand in Fiscal 2008. Now they believe domestic traffic growth will sputter almost to a standstill as weakening market conditions hit home.
"We're seeing a definite pause in growth," FAA Acting Administrator Robert Sturgell says. "We didn't see [the pause] in last year's forecast, . . . but this year it's pretty clear - we're talking flat growth in operations and slow growth in passengers." Sturgell does stress, however, that while the near term looks bleaker, the longer-term outlook remains "vibrant."
The headline numbers from the FAA's annual forecast - which extends to 2025 - support Sturgell's comments. Overall traffic on U.S. carriers is expected to rise by 2.9% in Fiscal 2008, down markedly from earlier projections of a 4.2% increase. Domestic traffic will be hurt particularly badly: Last year's forecast predicted growth of 3.4% for 2008, but the new forecast sees growth slowing to just 0.6%.
Sturgell points to a "series of cascading events" as the cause of the forecast downgrade. Chief among these are oil prices continuing their climb past $100 a barrel, coupled with the U.S. economy's apparent slide into recession.
The FAA is hardly alone in revising its projections. The International Air Transport Assn. in December slashed its global airline profit forecast due to the expected economic slowdown, and another downward revision is anticipated in the next few months. U.S. airlines - even traditional growth engines like Southwest Airlines - have also begun scaling back their capacity plans for this year.
Ah, the days of breezy $200 fares to Europe. AA ad from '87:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
