AMTonline Blogs

Is it just me, or is the whole airline situation just plain crazy? For years, we have been hearing of airline losses in the millions (and sometimes billions) of dollars each time a financial report comes out. Southwest and JetBlue were the only airlines that had seemed to have the right solution, but even JetBlue is now in the red with an expected loss for the year.

American Airlines reported Wednesday that it had a loss of $92 million in the first quarter. The positive spin the company put forth was that it was less than the $162 million loss posted a year ago. As part of cost-cutting efforts, it announced it would mothball 27 planes by July 1.

Ironically in a P.R. move the same day, American announced that it was giving away 20,000 tickets to attendees of a Dallas Mavericks basketball game. If each ticket were valued at $200.00, that would equate to a $4 million P.R. move!

What makes this move even more crazy in my mind is that these tickets are valid for any flight from Dallas Love Field, the airfield American has been operating at a loss (with self-admittedly little hope for profit) in order to compete with Southwest Airlines’ new routes. In a February 21 USA Today story, American’s General Sales Manager C. David Cush said that the airline would have a difficult time making a profit at Love Field and that the airline was not necessarily there to make a profit.

What is wrong with this picture? How did that decision come about? “We aren’t making any money at Love. Heck, I know — let’s give away 20,000 round trip tickets. That’ll sure show Southwest!”

Whatever the reason, it has to be difficult for American Airlines employees to see this kind of financial irresponsibility when they are being asked to sacrifice so much.

How difficult would it be to recuperate that kind of loss? Well, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), American flew 6.071 million passengers in the month of January alone. If it would have charged each one of those customers an additional $15.00, that would have just about made up for the loss for the whole quarter.

Sounds simple, huh? Maybe I should be an airline executive? Not a chance! You see, consumers today are much more sensitive to price than they were just a few years ago. They make purchasing decisions based on a few dollars savings. Gone are the days of brand loyalty. Instead of a known customer base, the airlines are trying to attract a general pool of travelers who are hyper-sensitive to price. Because of this, the airlines are hesitant to make any large incremental fare increases because of feared market share loss. And so the insanity continues.

By the way, the BTS reported on Tuesday April 18 that the U.S. scheduled passenger airlines employed 5.8 percent fewer workers in February 2006 than in February 2005, the 14th consecutive month that full-time equivalent employee (FTE) levels for the scheduled passenger carriers declined compared to the same month of the previous year.

I guess we see where the airlines are targeting cost savings.

Thanks for reading. As always, your feedback is appreciated.

Joe Escobar

It’s a fact of life. Anyone who flies is subject to security screenings by our friendly TSA. Local policies and procedures can be confusing even for those that fly frequently. The most frustrating thing for me is the TSA’s policy on shoes.

Apparently, the general public agrees. A recent L.A. Times article by James Gilden states, “The agency’s shoe policy is the most common complaint on mytravelrights.com, the website of the Consumer Travel Rights Center.”

The lack of standardization is easily evident. Some airports require everyone to take off their shoes. Some require shoes that aren’t athletic shoes or sandals to be removed. Some will let you keep your dress shoes on if they don’t have any metal in them. Some airports even have foot pedestals you can test your shoes for metal before having to remove them.

Gilden also shares that although the removal of shoes is supposed to be voluntary, passengers who fail to do so can find themselves subjected to secondary screening, which can include a full body pat-down.

I have had such an experience. Several months ago, I was returning from a business trip to Orlando. It was a weekend travel day, and I was traveling casual with my jeans and athletic shoes. As I approached the metal detector, the screener told me to remove my shoes and put them on the conveyor. I asked him, “Am I required to remove them? They are tennis shoes.” He flexed up like a bouncer from the movie Roadhouse and said, “I would strongly suggest you remove them!” Because of my journalistic inquisitiveness (or maybe because of my stupidity) I asked him again, “Do I really need to take them off?” He grinned and said, “No sir” and proceeded to wave me through. After I passed through the metal-detecting arch of no-return (without setting it off I might add), he shouted “secondary screener please.”

Wow, what a coincidence! I had just been picked for an additional screening! I’m sure it had nothing to do with the TSA screener having a power trip.

I had to remove my tennis shoes. They were sent back through the X-ray scanner. Meanwhile, I received a body scan from a handheld metal detector and also a body pat. My bags were set aside and hand searched. They were also scanned for explosives. Five minutes later, I was on my way to the gate. I decided then and there to never again question a TSA screener, no matter how stupid what he’s saying may seem.

Have we developed the same attitude with the FAA? We all know the FAA has standardization problems. Not only do different FSDOs interpret the regulations differently, but different inspectors within the same FSDO may disagree in interpreting a regulation. Have we gotten to the point to where we don’t want to speak up for fear of retribution from some overly zealous inspector? In many cases, the answer is yes.

What are your thoughts?

Joe Escobar

Have the days having a successful aircraft maintenance career in the airlines come and gone? Will airline maintenance jobs ever recover from the pummeling they have received over the last several years, or are the good times gone forever?

Think about it — not too long ago getting a job with the airlines meant career success for an aircraft mechanic. Airline jobs were high-paying and there was a reasonable amount of job security. Heck, there was even the opportunity for career advancement. I remember when I first started working as a mechanic I would read all the job postings wondering how I could get my foot in the door for an interview with an airline. Even as recently as five years ago, aircraft mechanics were doing fairly well. Northwest mechanics took home an industry-leading wage package, and United mechanics were able to negotiate a fairly good contract after years of stalemates.

Then came 9/11. And SARS. And escalating fuel prices. And the excuses go on and on.

Now, aircraft maintenance jobs have been decimated. Northwest mechanics went on strike last year, and are technically still on strike. United’s Indianapolis Maintenance Center was shut down. Hundreds, no, thousands of jobs have been lost as airlines outsource more and more of their work. Everywhere you turn, you read news about bankruptcies, wage concessions, and lost jobs.

I believe the most dangerous part of this trend to outsource more and more work is the brain drain that is occurring. Think about it. There has always been a line of progression in an A&P’s career. He or she would usually start out working scheduled maintenance. Then came unscheduled maintenance and line maintenance. Mechanics learned not only from the maintenance manuals, but from important lessons on the job. Those little quirks about each aircraft that the maintenance manuals wouldn’t tell you about. That little trick that helped reduce troubleshooting time, etc. The grey hairs would pass on their knowledge to the green horns. But now, that learning opportunity has all but vanished.

Where does this bean-counting cost-cutting mentality lead to? Is there a point where cost-cutting leads to safety issues? If that is true, will airlines realize it in time, or will it take a major accident and customer backlash to open their eyes?

What do you think about the whole situation? Where do we go from here?

Thanks for reading, and as always I appreciate your feedback.

Joe Escobar