Christopher Lovelock Jochen Wirtz SEVENTH EDITION
http://www.bschool.nus.edu.sg/Departments/Marketing/Jochen%20papers/sm7_cover_table%20of%20contents_samplechaptersandcase_2010_lgt.pdf
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bschool.nus.edu.sg%2FDepartments%2FMarketing%2FJochen%2520papers%2Fsm7_cover_table%2520of%2520contents_samplechaptersandcase_2010_lgt.pdf&embedded=true" width="600" height="780" style="border: none;"></iframe>
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
At the heart of the American Airlines/distribution system battles that are raging in the travel industry today is the bottom line of saving money. AA wants to basically distribute for free and cut out all of the middle men. The other central issue is what American (AA) and other legacy airlines feel is the unjust relegation of their precious seats to the status of a commodity. Unfortunately, no matter what AA does, a legacy airline seat, is an airline seat, is an airline seat. For some reason, AA and other legacy airlines feel that by getting control of their own airline seats again and only selling them through their proprietary data pipelines they will stem the tide of having their airline seats sold as, well, an airline seat between Point A and Point B. I am obviously not a trained MBA or airline executive. For me a legacy carrier non-stop flight in coach from JFK to LAX is just that. The differences might be their frequent flier program and my level of membership. However, the seats are all threadbare, a percentage of the reading lamps don’t work, many seat pockets are filthy, some seats don’t recline, entertainment is limited, there is no food to speak of, tray tables wobble, blankets and pillows cost extra and the flight times are more or less the same. It makes no difference whether I buy the ticket from AA.com, Delta.com, United.com, Expedia.com (except for AA), Travelocity.com, etc. The transcontinental seat is a seat, is a seat. It is a commodity — a perishable commodity. Somehow, AA is making the argument that their direct-connect system that eliminates easy price comparisons between airline seats will allow them to “package” their seats. By “packaging” they plan to offer passengers various combinations of extra services that each cost a fee. They already do this. American now allows passengers to pay a fee to avoid possible future fees. Isn’t that nice. For a relatively reasonable price (they don’t tell you until the time of booking) passengers will be allowed to board early, fly standby on the same day of travel and save $75 off the $150 change fee should they want to change flights. Such a deal AA has for you. From aa.com FAQs: Q: How much does the Boarding and Flexibility package cost? A: Pricing for the Boarding and Flexibility Package varies and will be provided at the time of booking. Through bundles like this, marketing geniuses at AA think they can sell more tickets. Of course, included in this marketing matrix is the elimination of as much competition and price comparisons as possible. Where is the benefit to the consumer? AA’s new system eliminates the ability to create tickets that include connections between different airlines. AA makes it more difficult to compare prices when purchasing tickets. AA still hides their fees “until booking” on their website, making it more difficult to learn the total airline transportation prices. Weeks ago I sent emails to AA requesting three benefits to passengers that their new direct-connect program will provide. I still have not received an answer from this airline. I also hear repeatedly that Southwest Airlines does not work through the GDSs. AA envies the Southwest control of their seats and claims that Southwest seats are not a commodity because they are sold outside of the GDS channel. But, AA is learning the wrong lesson from Southwest who carries far more passengers domestically than AA. Southwest is not the top dog because they don’t work through a GDS. In fact back when Southwest started, AA (who used to own the biggest GDS) probably wouldn’t have allowed them into the GDSs for fear of competition (they tried to stop them every other way). Southwest is a winner and makes money, year after year, because they differentiate their product by providing what consumers want — fair prices, on-time schedules, simplicity in fare structure, honesty and great service. AA and the legacy carriers are in trouble because they have lost sight of the consumer in an MBA frenzy to squeeze profits here and there. The GDSs provide one of the most cost-effective distribution methods of selling a complex, multi-part product that exists in America. CocaCola, General Motors or any publisher would love to have the distribution costs of the airline industry. AA’s actions are misguided. Rather than focusing on customers and truly differentiating their product with quality, AA continues with hidden fees, marketing gimmicks and frequent-flier loyalty. At the same time they provide consumers a lower level of customer service and a dingy, second-class, back-of-the-plane product. Customer service is the way to change the perception of AA’s product. Look at service at Southwest. Look at inflight entertainment at JetBlue and Virgin America. Examine the clean and functional cabins at each of those airlines. Those are some examples of how to differentiate your products. I think every passenger who has experienced a transcontinental flight on JetBlue or Virgin America will choose one of those airlines every time they need to fly across the country. I can’t imagine any coach traveler who has experienced excellence in customer service going back willingly (or without the bribery of frequent flier programs) to any of our legacy carriers.
At the heart of the American Airlines/distribution system battles
that are raging in the travel industry today is the bottom line of
saving money. AA wants to basically distribute for free and cut out all
of the middle men. The other central issue is what American (AA) and
other legacy airlines feel is the unjust relegation of their precious
seats to the status of a commodity.
Unfortunately, no matter what AA does, a legacy airline seat, is an airline seat, is an airline seat.
For some reason, AA and other legacy airlines feel that by getting control of their own airline seats again and only selling them through their proprietary data pipelines they will stem the tide of having their airline seats sold as, well, an airline seat between Point A and Point B.
I am obviously not a trained MBA or airline executive. For me a legacy carrier non-stop flight in coach from JFK to LAX is just that. The differences might be their frequent flier program and my level of membership. However, the seats are all threadbare, a percentage of the reading lamps don’t work, many seat pockets are filthy, some seats don’t recline, entertainment is limited, there is no food to speak of, tray tables wobble, blankets and pillows cost extra and the flight times are more or less the same.
It makes no difference whether I buy the ticket from AA.com, Delta.com, United.com, Expedia.com (except for AA), Travelocity.com, etc. The transcontinental seat is a seat, is a seat. It is a commodity — a perishable commodity.
Somehow, AA is making the argument that their direct-connect system that eliminates easy price comparisons between airline seats will allow them to “package” their seats. By “packaging” they plan to offer passengers various combinations of extra services that each cost a fee.
They already do this. American now allows passengers to pay a fee to avoid possible future fees. Isn’t that nice.
For a relatively reasonable price (they don’t tell you until the time of booking) passengers will be allowed to board early, fly standby on the same day of travel and save $75 off the $150 change fee should they want to change flights. Such a deal AA has for you.
Where is the benefit to the consumer?
AA’s new system eliminates the ability to create tickets that include connections between different airlines. AA makes it more difficult to compare prices when purchasing tickets. AA still hides their fees “until booking” on their website, making it more difficult to learn the total airline transportation prices.
Weeks ago I sent emails to AA requesting three benefits to passengers that their new direct-connect program will provide. I still have not received an answer from this airline.
I also hear repeatedly that Southwest Airlines does not work through the GDSs. AA envies the Southwest control of their seats and claims that Southwest seats are not a commodity because they are sold outside of the GDS channel. But, AA is learning the wrong lesson from Southwest who carries far more passengers domestically than AA.
Southwest is not the top dog because they don’t work through a GDS. In fact back when Southwest started, AA (who used to own the biggest GDS) probably wouldn’t have allowed them into the GDSs for fear of competition (they tried to stop them every other way). Southwest is a winner and makes money, year after year, because they differentiate their product by providing what consumers want — fair prices, on-time schedules, simplicity in fare structure, honesty and great service.
AA and the legacy carriers are in trouble because they have lost sight of the consumer in an MBA frenzy to squeeze profits here and there. The GDSs provide one of the most cost-effective distribution methods of selling a complex, multi-part product that exists in America. CocaCola, General Motors or any publisher would love to have the distribution costs of the airline industry.
AA’s actions are misguided. Rather than focusing on customers and truly differentiating their product with quality, AA continues with hidden fees, marketing gimmicks and frequent-flier loyalty. At the same time they provide consumers a lower level of customer service and a dingy, second-class, back-of-the-plane product.
Customer service is the way to change the perception of AA’s product. Look at service at Southwest. Look at inflight entertainment at JetBlue and Virgin America. Examine the clean and functional cabins at each of those airlines. Those are some examples of how to differentiate your products.
I think every passenger who has experienced a transcontinental flight on JetBlue or Virgin America will choose one of those airlines every time they need to fly across the country. I can’t imagine any coach traveler who has experienced excellence in customer service going back willingly (or without the bribery of frequent flier programs) to any of our legacy carriers.
http://www.worldmate.com/travelog/2011/01/12/airline-seats-as-commodities/
Unfortunately, no matter what AA does, a legacy airline seat, is an airline seat, is an airline seat.
For some reason, AA and other legacy airlines feel that by getting control of their own airline seats again and only selling them through their proprietary data pipelines they will stem the tide of having their airline seats sold as, well, an airline seat between Point A and Point B.
I am obviously not a trained MBA or airline executive. For me a legacy carrier non-stop flight in coach from JFK to LAX is just that. The differences might be their frequent flier program and my level of membership. However, the seats are all threadbare, a percentage of the reading lamps don’t work, many seat pockets are filthy, some seats don’t recline, entertainment is limited, there is no food to speak of, tray tables wobble, blankets and pillows cost extra and the flight times are more or less the same.
It makes no difference whether I buy the ticket from AA.com, Delta.com, United.com, Expedia.com (except for AA), Travelocity.com, etc. The transcontinental seat is a seat, is a seat. It is a commodity — a perishable commodity.
Somehow, AA is making the argument that their direct-connect system that eliminates easy price comparisons between airline seats will allow them to “package” their seats. By “packaging” they plan to offer passengers various combinations of extra services that each cost a fee.
They already do this. American now allows passengers to pay a fee to avoid possible future fees. Isn’t that nice.
For a relatively reasonable price (they don’t tell you until the time of booking) passengers will be allowed to board early, fly standby on the same day of travel and save $75 off the $150 change fee should they want to change flights. Such a deal AA has for you.
From aa.com FAQs:Through bundles like this, marketing geniuses at AA think they can sell more tickets. Of course, included in this marketing matrix is the elimination of as much competition and price comparisons as possible.
Q: How much does the Boarding and Flexibility package cost?
A: Pricing for the Boarding and Flexibility Package varies and will be provided at the time of booking.
Where is the benefit to the consumer?
AA’s new system eliminates the ability to create tickets that include connections between different airlines. AA makes it more difficult to compare prices when purchasing tickets. AA still hides their fees “until booking” on their website, making it more difficult to learn the total airline transportation prices.
Weeks ago I sent emails to AA requesting three benefits to passengers that their new direct-connect program will provide. I still have not received an answer from this airline.
I also hear repeatedly that Southwest Airlines does not work through the GDSs. AA envies the Southwest control of their seats and claims that Southwest seats are not a commodity because they are sold outside of the GDS channel. But, AA is learning the wrong lesson from Southwest who carries far more passengers domestically than AA.
Southwest is not the top dog because they don’t work through a GDS. In fact back when Southwest started, AA (who used to own the biggest GDS) probably wouldn’t have allowed them into the GDSs for fear of competition (they tried to stop them every other way). Southwest is a winner and makes money, year after year, because they differentiate their product by providing what consumers want — fair prices, on-time schedules, simplicity in fare structure, honesty and great service.
AA and the legacy carriers are in trouble because they have lost sight of the consumer in an MBA frenzy to squeeze profits here and there. The GDSs provide one of the most cost-effective distribution methods of selling a complex, multi-part product that exists in America. CocaCola, General Motors or any publisher would love to have the distribution costs of the airline industry.
AA’s actions are misguided. Rather than focusing on customers and truly differentiating their product with quality, AA continues with hidden fees, marketing gimmicks and frequent-flier loyalty. At the same time they provide consumers a lower level of customer service and a dingy, second-class, back-of-the-plane product.
Customer service is the way to change the perception of AA’s product. Look at service at Southwest. Look at inflight entertainment at JetBlue and Virgin America. Examine the clean and functional cabins at each of those airlines. Those are some examples of how to differentiate your products.
I think every passenger who has experienced a transcontinental flight on JetBlue or Virgin America will choose one of those airlines every time they need to fly across the country. I can’t imagine any coach traveler who has experienced excellence in customer service going back willingly (or without the bribery of frequent flier programs) to any of our legacy carriers.
http://www.worldmate.com/travelog/2011/01/12/airline-seats-as-commodities/
If digital marketers would run airlines, planes would be falling out of the sky
Not a day goes by without a digital marketer complaining about their
flying experience: delays, cancellations, lost luggage. Sure, flying is
no fun. Being treated like a herd of sheep , forced to sit in cramped
quarters – well, I don’t have to tell you the sordid details.
Running an airline is a complex venture.
It’s about maths and probabilities. An aircraft seat is the most perishable product of any commodity going: Once the aircraft takes off, the seat is empty, you’ll never recover it again. It’s gone forever. You have to deal with the economic climate, gazillion of vendors, thousand of employees, circumstances you can’t control (Weather, political environment – you name it).
Considering this complexity, it’s a miracle that United Airlines had an on-time performance of 91.4% in November 2010. (Yes, I know, they are padding the schedule. Still.) It’s amazing that only 1 in 8,000,000 aircrafts crash.
Running a campaign and Social Media initiative is complex, too.
But, it can’t be compared to the complexity of running an airline. And, how many things are going wrong each and every day? Wrong creative, creative that misses the target, trafficking nightmares, planning horror scenarios, failed banner campaigns, wrong success metrics for SEM campaigns, sub-par SEO, failed Social Marketing initiatives, mini sites more focused on showcasing the agency, not conversion, and, and, and…
How come we have these high expectations for complex enterprises (airlines, automotive companies, hotels) but we don’t expect the same from our work? Why do we live with all the things that are going wrong in our own area of expertise but tend to complain about minor problems of other businesses, using our Social Media bullhorn?
I’m all for constructive criticism. I’m for helping companies improve the customer experience. (And I’m not defending airlines at all. There’s a lot of work to be done on their end.) But we have stop feeling entitled to complain about every little detail. Or even use our “status” in the Social Media world to force companies to deal with us.
Too often, it reminds me of the boy who cried “wolf”. When the real wolf finally showed up, nobody listened.
http://www.bateshook.com/tag/perishable-commodity/
Running an airline is a complex venture.
It’s about maths and probabilities. An aircraft seat is the most perishable product of any commodity going: Once the aircraft takes off, the seat is empty, you’ll never recover it again. It’s gone forever. You have to deal with the economic climate, gazillion of vendors, thousand of employees, circumstances you can’t control (Weather, political environment – you name it).
Considering this complexity, it’s a miracle that United Airlines had an on-time performance of 91.4% in November 2010. (Yes, I know, they are padding the schedule. Still.) It’s amazing that only 1 in 8,000,000 aircrafts crash.
Running a campaign and Social Media initiative is complex, too.
But, it can’t be compared to the complexity of running an airline. And, how many things are going wrong each and every day? Wrong creative, creative that misses the target, trafficking nightmares, planning horror scenarios, failed banner campaigns, wrong success metrics for SEM campaigns, sub-par SEO, failed Social Marketing initiatives, mini sites more focused on showcasing the agency, not conversion, and, and, and…
How come we have these high expectations for complex enterprises (airlines, automotive companies, hotels) but we don’t expect the same from our work? Why do we live with all the things that are going wrong in our own area of expertise but tend to complain about minor problems of other businesses, using our Social Media bullhorn?
I’m all for constructive criticism. I’m for helping companies improve the customer experience. (And I’m not defending airlines at all. There’s a lot of work to be done on their end.) But we have stop feeling entitled to complain about every little detail. Or even use our “status” in the Social Media world to force companies to deal with us.
Too often, it reminds me of the boy who cried “wolf”. When the real wolf finally showed up, nobody listened.
http://www.bateshook.com/tag/perishable-commodity/
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Upgraded Seletar Airport will resume normal operations on Thursday
Seletar Airport will resume normal operations
on Thursday, close to three years after work started to lengthen the
existing runway.
During the upgrading, which kept the runway out of bounds for at least 12 hours a day, private jet operators based at Seletar had no choice but to shift their operations to Changi Airport.
Announcing the completion of the project, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and Changi Airport Group said in a joint release that the new runway measuring 1.84km - close to 250m more than its original length - will be able to support larger jet operations, as well as heavier take-off loads.
The airport upgrading works are part of plans to develop the area into Singapore's next aviation hub. A key growth sector is business aviation, which has seen a compounded annual growth rate of 17 per cent in aircraft movements from 2007 to 2010.
During the upgrading, which kept the runway out of bounds for at least 12 hours a day, private jet operators based at Seletar had no choice but to shift their operations to Changi Airport.
Announcing the completion of the project, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and Changi Airport Group said in a joint release that the new runway measuring 1.84km - close to 250m more than its original length - will be able to support larger jet operations, as well as heavier take-off loads.
The airport upgrading works are part of plans to develop the area into Singapore's next aviation hub. A key growth sector is business aviation, which has seen a compounded annual growth rate of 17 per cent in aircraft movements from 2007 to 2010.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Airlines call flight ban a 'European mess'
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Apr/ST2003.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:600px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Apr/ST2003.pdf
http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Apr/ST2003.pdf
Budget flight service levels yet to take off
STRAITS TIMES
Nov 25, 2010
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Nov/ST2515.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:600px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Nov/ST2515.pdf
Nov 25, 2010
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Nov/ST2515.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:600px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2010/Nov/ST2515.pdf
Experimental test of airplane boarding methods
Experimental test of airplane boarding methods
Jason H. Ste en
Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics, Batavia, IL
Jon Hotchkiss
Hotchkiss Industries, Sherman Oaks, CA
Abstract
We report the results of an experimental comparison of di erent airplane boarding methods. This test was conducted
in a mock 757 fuselage, located on a Southern California soundstage, with 12 rows of six seats and a single aisle.
Five methods were tested using 72 passengers of various ages. We found a significant reduction in the boarding times
of optimized methods over traditional methods. These improved methods, if properly implemented, could result in a
significant savings to airline companies.
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.5211v1.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:590px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Jason H. Ste en
Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics, Batavia, IL
Jon Hotchkiss
Hotchkiss Industries, Sherman Oaks, CA
Abstract
We report the results of an experimental comparison of di erent airplane boarding methods. This test was conducted
in a mock 757 fuselage, located on a Southern California soundstage, with 12 rows of six seats and a single aisle.
Five methods were tested using 72 passengers of various ages. We found a significant reduction in the boarding times
of optimized methods over traditional methods. These improved methods, if properly implemented, could result in a
significant savings to airline companies.
<iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.5211v1.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:590px; height:500px;" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Please be seated
THE job of the professional astrophysicist is to contemplate the
music of the spheres. Given the global nature of modern science,
however, today’s astrophysicists often spend just as much time
confronting the cacophony of the airport. Now, one of them has devised a
way to make that experience a little less tedious. Jason Steffen, from
Fermilab, near Chicago, has designed and experimentally tested a faster
method of boarding aeroplanes. By his calculation, it could save
airlines hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Dr Steffen spends his time thinking about such things as extrasolar planets, dark matter and cosmology. After waiting in a particularly long queue to board a flight, though, he began to harbour an interest in the mechanics of getting people on to planes. In 2008 he wrote a computer simulation to test different methods. Using a numerical technique familiar to him from his day job, he was able to find what looked like the best. He has put his answer to the test, and the results have just been submitted for publication to the Journal of Air Transport Management.
According to Dr Steffen, two things bog down the boarding process. The first is that passengers are often forced to wait in the aisle while those ahead of them stow their luggage and then get out of the way. The second is that passengers already seated in aisle or middle seats often have to get up and move into the aisle to let others take seats nearer the window. Dr Steffen’s proposal minimises the former type of disturbance and eliminates the latter.
In the Steffen method, passengers are boarded by seat type (ie, window, middle or aisle) while also ensuring that neighbours in the boarding queue are seated in alternating rows. First, the window seats for every other row on one side of the plane are boarded. Next, alternate rows of window seats on the opposite side are boarded. Then, the window seats in the skipped rows are filled in on each side. The procedure then repeats with the middle seats and the aisles.
By boarding alternate rows in this way, passengers are spaced far enough apart along the aisle to stow their luggage in parallel, all at the same time. Because passengers in the same seat types board together, they do not have to step over each other to swap seats.
To test the idea, Dr Steffen conducted a test using passengers and a mock Boeing 757 fuselage. The fuselage had a single aisle and 12 rows. Seventy-two passengers (including families with children) boarded, towing their bags and roll-aboard suitcases. In addition to the Steffen method, the team tried boarding in a strict back-to-front order, block boarding (the system now used by most airlines, with passengers assigned to groups within the cabin) and boarding in random order (which made its debut at American Airlines earlier this summer).
Standard block boarding turned out to be the slowest way to do things, taking almost seven minutes to fill the 12 rows. Dr Steffen’s system took half that time. Indeed, it was the fastest performing of the methods tested. With full-sized planes, the benefit should increase, as more people can stow their luggage simultaneously along the longer aisles.
Although Dr Steffen admits that the airline industry has shown no interest in his method so far, he points out that, in principle, there should be no barriers to its adoption. Though directing airline passengers on to a plane is a little like herding cats some airlines, such as Southwest, already try to get their passengers to line up in a certain order before boarding. If travellers believed that complying with the new arrangements really would make their lives easier, they would probably do so. And by Dr Steffen’s calculations, airlines have a pretty strong incentive to persuade them. Previous work has shown that every minute a plane spends at the terminal costs $30. Assuming the average carrier runs 1,500 flights a day, saving as little as six minutes per flight would add up to $100m a year. For hard-pressed airlines running on razor-thin margins, that really would be astronomical.
http://www.economist.com/node/21528218
Dr Steffen spends his time thinking about such things as extrasolar planets, dark matter and cosmology. After waiting in a particularly long queue to board a flight, though, he began to harbour an interest in the mechanics of getting people on to planes. In 2008 he wrote a computer simulation to test different methods. Using a numerical technique familiar to him from his day job, he was able to find what looked like the best. He has put his answer to the test, and the results have just been submitted for publication to the Journal of Air Transport Management.
According to Dr Steffen, two things bog down the boarding process. The first is that passengers are often forced to wait in the aisle while those ahead of them stow their luggage and then get out of the way. The second is that passengers already seated in aisle or middle seats often have to get up and move into the aisle to let others take seats nearer the window. Dr Steffen’s proposal minimises the former type of disturbance and eliminates the latter.
In the Steffen method, passengers are boarded by seat type (ie, window, middle or aisle) while also ensuring that neighbours in the boarding queue are seated in alternating rows. First, the window seats for every other row on one side of the plane are boarded. Next, alternate rows of window seats on the opposite side are boarded. Then, the window seats in the skipped rows are filled in on each side. The procedure then repeats with the middle seats and the aisles.
By boarding alternate rows in this way, passengers are spaced far enough apart along the aisle to stow their luggage in parallel, all at the same time. Because passengers in the same seat types board together, they do not have to step over each other to swap seats.
To test the idea, Dr Steffen conducted a test using passengers and a mock Boeing 757 fuselage. The fuselage had a single aisle and 12 rows. Seventy-two passengers (including families with children) boarded, towing their bags and roll-aboard suitcases. In addition to the Steffen method, the team tried boarding in a strict back-to-front order, block boarding (the system now used by most airlines, with passengers assigned to groups within the cabin) and boarding in random order (which made its debut at American Airlines earlier this summer).
Standard block boarding turned out to be the slowest way to do things, taking almost seven minutes to fill the 12 rows. Dr Steffen’s system took half that time. Indeed, it was the fastest performing of the methods tested. With full-sized planes, the benefit should increase, as more people can stow their luggage simultaneously along the longer aisles.
Although Dr Steffen admits that the airline industry has shown no interest in his method so far, he points out that, in principle, there should be no barriers to its adoption. Though directing airline passengers on to a plane is a little like herding cats some airlines, such as Southwest, already try to get their passengers to line up in a certain order before boarding. If travellers believed that complying with the new arrangements really would make their lives easier, they would probably do so. And by Dr Steffen’s calculations, airlines have a pretty strong incentive to persuade them. Previous work has shown that every minute a plane spends at the terminal costs $30. Assuming the average carrier runs 1,500 flights a day, saving as little as six minutes per flight would add up to $100m a year. For hard-pressed airlines running on razor-thin margins, that really would be astronomical.
http://www.economist.com/node/21528218
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Plane Truth: Boarding by Rows Is the Worst Possible Way, Says Physicist
Let’s face it: boarding an airplane with luggage is just downright frustrating. Not only do you have to puzzle out how you are going to wrestle your carry-on bag into the aircraft’s tiny overhead compartment, but you have to do it while trying not to get swept away by the tugging current of other passengers.
“OK, everybody count off!”Courtesy of Steffen, arXiv
Steffen timed how long it took the passengers to fill the plane under the different boarding procedures and found that the block style takes the longest, falling well behind the uber-sophisticated “random boarding” method—letting everyone on at the same time. The Steffen method was the quickest because it maximized the number of people who could use the aisle concurrently without crashing into each other.
So, Steffen argues, if airline companies started implementing his method, they could save money by shortening the amount of time the planes have spend in the terminal. But can you imagine how long it would take to get people to line up in the correct order in the first place?
Reference: J. Steffen and J. Hotchkiss. Experimental test of airplane boarding methods. arXiv:1108.5211v1
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2011/08/29/the-plane-truth-boarding-by-rows-is-the-worst-possible-way-says-physicist/
How to cut boarding time in HALF
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o9-XjEI8VmA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.rdhub.com/?p=7236
Boarding a plane is a completely
miserable, time-consuming experience. How often are you left waiting for
that oversized man jam his oversized luggage into the undersized
overhead compartment? Ridiculous! That’s why every airline needs to try
this new boarding method. It cuts the time in half.
Amazingly, it was invented by Dr. Jason
Steffen, an astrophysicist in his day job but a man more adept at
running airplanes than the airlines themselves. In his method, window
seats on alternate rows on one side of the plane boards first. Then
alternating window seats on the other side. Then alternating middle
seats on the original side, then alternating middle seats on the other
side. And then on and on and on until the plane is filled. Watch the
video, you’ll see a perfectly choreographed dance that maximizes aisle
space and overhead compartments.
Steffen figured out this method using the Monte Carlo optimization method
and promises that it can cut boarding time in half. It won’t cure the
ineptitude of airlines in other areas but it can make air travel less of
a pain in the ass. Delta? United? American? JetBlue? Virgin America?
Who’s in? [WBEZ via Consumerist]
http://www.rdhub.com/?p=7236
Flying straight into the competition
Karamjit Kaur
The Straits Times
Publication Date : 19-08-2011
The Straits Times
Publication Date : 19-08-2011
Australian
airline Qantas is looking at either Singapore or Kuala Lumpur as the
base for a new premium carrier it plans to launch.
Its decision either way will have an impact not only on rival Singapore Airlines (SIA) and local carriers, but on the hub status of Singapore's Changi Airport. Qantas' new start-up is among several initiatives to boost business and salvage its loss-making international operations. Chief executive Alan Joyce has not disclosed much about it. What is known is that the new entity will be a separate brand from Qantas' distinctive flying kangaroo, and will kick off with a fleet of 11 single-aisle Airbus 320 aircraft. Many aviation watchers think Qantas will pick Singapore. But KL's appeal cannot be dismissed either. In some ways, Singapore is the obvious choice because Qantas and its low-cost arm Jetstar, is already the largest single foreign player at Changi, accounting for about 10.5 per cent of the total number of weekly seats. The SIA group, including regional airline SilkAir, controls 40 per cent of the market. Singapore is also a key hub for Qantas on the Australia-Britain route. In contrast, Qantas does not fly direct to KL. Picking Singapore would allow the new Qantas carrier to leverage on Changi Airport's position as a hub for premium and business travellers, and let it tap Changi's network of over 100 airlines operating to more than 200 cities. Kuala Lumpur International Airport is served by about 60 carriers. But there are also sound arguments in favour of KL being the base of the new carrier. For one thing, it allows Qantas to deepen existing partnerships with AirAsia and full-service carrier Malaysia Airlines (MAS). In January last year, AirAsia and Jetstar inked a deal to pool resources and expertise in a drive to slash costs and lower ticket prices. More recently, Qantas sponsored MAS' entry into the Oneworld global aviation alliance, which includes Qantas, British Airways and Cathay Pacific. This allows Qantas, which has a limited presence in Asia, to leverage on MAS' network to expand its own reach. But business links between the Qantas family and the MAS family do not necessarily mean that the Australian carrier should plant its new flag in KL. Flying out of KL could be counter-productive as the new entity could take away market share from the local players. By the same token, a new Qantas arm in Singapore that targets the premium market is going to hurt SIA and its regional carrier SilkAir. Already, SIA's market share and yields have eroded in recent years, in the face of competition from regional budget carriers and improved service from full-service airlines like Emirates and Cathay Pacific. A new Qantas-backed carrier flying out of Singapore will intensify the heat on SIA. SIA is already preparing for a more competitive skyscape. It plans to launch its own long-haul low-cost carrier by the middle of next year. It recently struck a deal with Virgin Australia to code-share - sell seats on each other's services - and coordinate flight schedules for seamless transfers. Whether its preferred choice is Singapore or KL, Qantas will need the official nod from the relevant civil aviation regulator to launch its new carrier. If Qantas wants to fly its new carrier out of Singapore, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) must scrutinise what value the new carrier will bring to Singapore. How will the new carrier enhance Singapore's position as a premier air hub in the region and make Changi more attractive to both airlines and travellers? Will the new carrier launch new routes and markets? Or is the intention merely to snatch market share away from SIA and other incumbents that fly out of Singapore? CAAS will have to strike a balance between promoting Changi as an air hub, and safeguarding the interests of existing airlines, including SIA, that fly out of Singapore. Its assessment must be guided ultimately by what is best for the country. Unlike some other countries reluctant to open their skies to foreign carriers for fear of weakening their own local airlines, the Singapore Government has always adopted a liberal stance. Having more airlines and linkages out of Singapore makes Changi attractive to travellers, and promotes business links and overall economic growth. The interests of SIA and other local airlines sometimes have to take a back seat to this paramount objective. This was a position then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew reiterated when he got involved in a dispute between SIA and its pilots several years ago. He had declared in January 2004 that if budget airlines were to eat into SIA's profits, his reaction would be: "So be it". This was because the more important objective was "our remaining a busy air hub". This of course does not mean that the Government does not push for SIA's rights and that of other local carriers. When air deals are sealed between countries, these are often the end result of delicate manoeuvring, with one eye on the commercial interests of the country's carrier/s and the other on the wider benefits that increased traffic will bring to that country. The ideal scenario from Singapore's point of view would be for the Australian carrier to fly out of Singapore in return for SIA getting air rights between Australia and the United States which it has long lobbied for. But even if no such deal is struck, CAAS should consider an application from Qantas on its own merit. If satisfied that Qantas' new arm will benefit Changi Airport and Singapore's aviation industry, then it must say yes to the kangaroo, even if it hurts Singapore's national airline SIA. But even that need not be a zero sum game. In fact, one can argue that SIA's success to date is due in part to the airline having to constantly upgrade and improve its services and products to deal with the competition. To its credit, SIA has risen to the challenge. There is every chance it will do so again, even if Qantas is allowed to plant its new flag at Changi. |
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
AIP Supplements
AIP Supplement (AIP SUP) publishes temporary changes of long duration (three months and longer) and information of short duration that contains extensive text and/or graphics, supplementing the permanent information contained in AIP Singapore.
http://www.caas.gov.sg/caas/en/Regulations/Aeronautical_Information/AIP_Supplements/index.html
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE: AIP
CAAS provides aeronautical information necessary for the safety, regularity and efficiency of international and national air navigation for the entire territory of Singapore and for the airspace over the high seas encompassed by the Singapore Flight Information Region (FIR).
Basic aeronautical information document that contains permanent information essential to air navigation within the Singapore FIR is published in Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) Singapore and its updates/amendments. AIP Singapore s made up of three parts, namely General (GEN), En-route (ENR) and Aerodromes (AD).
AIP Singapore is updated by a regular amendment service of reprinted pages issued once every two months.
Ben:
Catogorised here
http://www.caas.gov.sg/caas/en/Regulations/Aeronautical_Information/AIP/?__locale=en
or if you feel like a hero, 600 pages of it here
http://appserver1.caas.gov.sg/UploadedImages/AIPSingapore_5_May_2011.pdf
Basic aeronautical information document that contains permanent information essential to air navigation within the Singapore FIR is published in Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) Singapore and its updates/amendments. AIP Singapore s made up of three parts, namely General (GEN), En-route (ENR) and Aerodromes (AD).
AIP Singapore is updated by a regular amendment service of reprinted pages issued once every two months.
Ben:
Catogorised here
http://www.caas.gov.sg/caas/en/Regulations/Aeronautical_Information/AIP/?__locale=en
or if you feel like a hero, 600 pages of it here
http://appserver1.caas.gov.sg/UploadedImages/AIPSingapore_5_May_2011.pdf
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
SIA to form long-haul low-cost subsidiary
Operations at the Singapore-based wholly-owned subsidiary will begin within a year, and it will be managed separately from SIA, said the Star Alliance carrier.
"The new airline is being established following extensive review and analysis. It will enable the SIA Group to serve a largely untapped new market and cater to the growing demand among consumers for low-fare travel," added the airline.
This is the airline's first major decision under new CEO Goh Choon Phong, who took over the reins at SIA on 1 January and has largely kept a low profile while reviewing the carrier's medium to long-term strategy.
"We are seeing a new market segment being created and this will provide another growth opportunity for the SIA Group," he said. "As we have observed on short-haul routes within Asia, low-fare airlines help stimulate demand for travel, and we expect this will also prove true for longer flights."
The company remains committed to its flagship airline's premium model, and this new subsidiary will supplement the existing businesses, he added. "We remain fully committed to the further growth of SIA, which will continue to offer the highest-quality products and services to our customers."
Kuala Lumpur-based AirAsia X, in which Malaysian low-cost carrier AirAsia has a 16% stake, pioneered the long-haul low-cost model in Southeast Asia and has gradually grown since it began operations in November 2007. Its network now includes London, Paris, Tehran, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Christchurch, New Delhi, Mumbai, Chengdu, Tianjin, Hangzhou, Taipei, Seoul, Tokyo and Perth.
From Singapore, Qantas associate Jetstar Asia flies Airbus A330s long-haul to Melbourne and Auckland. It also plans to offer services to Japan and points in Europe in the near term.
Details related to the new airline's branding, products and services, and route network will be announced by its management team "in due course", said SIA.
Aircraft will initially be sourced from the parent carrier, which has 20 Boeing 787-9s and 20 Airbus A350-900s on order. SIA's spokesman said that subsequently, "all options are open on aircraft sourcing".
He added that there could be routes on which both the parent airline and the new subsidiary could operate on, although this will be decided by the management team.
SIA's regional airline SilkAir will retain its business model, he said. "SilkAir is a network carrier while this subsidiary will have a point-to-point model," he added.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/05/25/357171/sia-to-form-long-haul-low-cost-subsidiary.html
Singapore Air to set up low-fare long-haul carrier
* To use wide-body planes for medium, long haul
* Move comes as competition increases from budget airlines
* AirAsia boss dismisses threat from new carrier
(Adds AirAsia chief executive)
By Harry Suhartono and Charmian Kok
SINGAPORE, May 25 (Reuters) - Singapore Airlines (SIAL.SI), the world's second-most valuable listed airline, set out plans to enter the long-haul budget carrier market by setting up a new subsidiary expected to compete with AirAsia X.
The premium carrier faces competition from other players in Asia and the Middle East that cater to high-end passengers as well as fast-expanding budget airlines in Asia.
Wednesday's move by Singapore Airlines' new Chief Executive Officer Goh Choon Phong marks a major reversal from his predecessor's strategy.
"This is driven by the changing landscape in the industry. If you look at what's happening (in Malaysia), AirAsia X has really made leaps and bounds in terms of their operations," an aviation analyst at Standard & Poor's, Shukor Yusof, said.
"It's a new direction and it's been driven by a need for them to grow within the market," he said.
Singapore has built its reputation on high-quality cabin service.
Goh's predecessor Chew Choon Seng had questioned whether the budget carrier strategy could be successfully applied to long-haul routes, noting that passengers on 13-hour flights would expect to be served meals and enjoy some degree of comfort and entertainment.
"As we have observed on short-haul routes within Asia, low-fare airlines help stimulate demand for travel, and we expect this will also prove true for longer flights," said Goh, who has been in the top job for about six months.
The carrier controls about a third of Singapore-based budget carrier Tiger Airways (TAHL.SI), which mostly operates on short-haul routes, and owns regional carrier SilkAir.
AirAsia X is the long-haul budget carrier unit of Malaysia's AirAsia (AIRA.KL).
AirAsia Chief Executive Tony Fernandes dismissed the new threat.
"Not worried. They should be worried. Their p and l (profit and loss statemwent) going to hurt. Business(es) should stick to what they know best," he said on Twitter.
Fernandes is in the midst of negotiating a major deal with Airbus (EAD.PA) that could include more long-haul A330 passenger jets for AirAsia X as well as medium-haul A320neo aircraft.
Singapore Airlines, 55 percent owned by state investor Temasek Holdings [TEM.UL], had said near-term weakness in load factors and high fuel prices are the top threats for the carrier and will affect its operating performance.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/singaporeairlines-idUSL3E7GP1HE20110525
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Airbus A380: how the airlines compare
With Korean Air soon to become the sixth carrier to operate the Airbus superjumbo, Business Traveller and seatplans.com examine the different A380 layouts offered by SIA, Emirates, Qantas, Air France, Lufthansa and Korean.
http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/airbus-a380-the-layouts
http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/airbus-a380-the-layouts
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
How the new DOT airline rules will benefit you
Last week, the Department of Transportation issued a sweeping new set of rules expanding the situations in which airlines must provide compensation to fliers and requiring greater disclosure of fees and taxes.
http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/hobica/story/2011/04/How-the-new-DOT-airline-rules-will-benefit-you/46575920/1?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4db9c0fd5104a480,0
Here's a look at how the new rules will affect you, and my response to them:
1. Refund of bag fees if luggage is lost
This is an absolute no-brainer and it's too bad the airlines had to be regulated into doing this. If you send something by FedEx and it's an hour late past the promised delivery time, you get a refund no questions asked. Disappointed that the rule doesn't include delayed bags — just lost ones.
2. Full disclosure of all fees on websites
If you know where to look, most airlines have already done this, but the fees aren't all on one easy-to-find page. Ryanair in Europe actually has had this for years with a link showing all its fees clearly spelled out. U.S. airlines need to do this too. It will lead to better customer relations. All fees, including frequent-flier fees, bags, online booking, changes, pets, infants and whatever else should be clearly organized in one place. Whether they should be displayed at check-in counters is another matter — that would be a pretty big sign.
AIRLINE FEES: What you'll pay for bags, ticket changes, etc.
3. Involuntary bumping payment increased
Even $1,300, the new maximum, won't compensate someone who missed a $10,000 cruise, or forfeited a $5,000 vacation and missed two days of work plus other expenses. I would rather have seen some mechanism for passengers who incur enormous financial loss because of a bump situation to get compensated fairly. The good news is that relatively few passengers are involuntarily bumped each year (about 65,000 in 2010).
4. Tarmac delay rule extended to international flights
Good idea, overdue. Airlines and airports are getting their act together and developing strategies to offload those passengers who wish to return to the terminal in the event of long tarmac delays. Remember, the rule does not say a flight has to be canceled. Just that you have to allow whoever wishes to return to the terminal the chance to do so.
5. Requiring taxes to be shown in all advertised fares
This one seems unfair to me. Should restaurants now add the meal and or sales tax to all menu prices? Should the local electronics retailer include sales tax on their television ad prices? Hotels? Rental car companies? Why are airlines being singled out? We do think that any fare that requires a round-trip purchase be listed in ads only as a round-trip fare. But requiring taxes to be listed is discriminatory and will be a nightmare for the airlines (especially since some taxes vary depending on connecting city and routing).
6. What should have been in the new rules
The list left off one regulation we need: compensation for schedule changes made long after you bought your ticket.
You buy a ticket in April; in October the airline tells you they don't fly that route anymore, but you can buy a new fare on another airline for three times the price or get your money back. No. The original airline should put you on the alternate airline at the same price you paid. Or perhaps you bought a nonstop flight, but the airline switches you to one making two connections at the same fare. No. A hamburger is not the same as filet mignon.
Another scenario: Your airline used to fly daily from a city, but service is reduced to 3 times a week. Five months after buying your fare and making land arrangements that are non-refundable, you have to buy two nights hotel at your own expense to wait out the next departure home. No. The airline should pay for the hotel.
Fliers, what did the new DOT rules get right, and what else do you wish was covered? Sound off in comments below.
George Hobica is the founder of Airfarewatchdog.com. Airfarewatchdog features the best airfares on thousands of routes verified by a team of expert fare analysts.
http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/hobica/story/2011/04/How-the-new-DOT-airline-rules-will-benefit-you/46575920/1?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4db9c0fd5104a480,0
DOT’s Tweaking of Traveler Protections
By Scott McCartney
The new airline customer-service rules issued Wednesday by the Department of Transportation may sound like a lot of change but really boil down to small modifications of existing rules and codifying some measures that airlines have already adopted.Perhaps the most impactful change for travelers is including international airlines in the tarmac-delay rule. We’ve seen some serious delays on international airlines – passengers stuck onboard grounded planes for 10 hours or so. U.S. airlines – faced with huge fines if they didn’t act – have largely learned to avoid long onboard delays. Now foreign airlines will have to do more to make sure they have gates and contingency plans for dealing with travel disruptions. They are subject to fines if passengers are left onboard a delayed flight for more than four hours.
The new rule also expands the number of airports where it would be in effect. Previously flights that were stranded at small airports were exempt. Now smaller airports, including airports to which flights divert, are included for domestic and international airlines.
Travelers should have the choice – wait it out or give up, go home or get on another flight, if you can.
Perhaps the least impactful new rule is the one getting a lot of headline attention – forcing airlines to refund baggage fees if bags get lost. The key here is that fees don’t get refunded if bags are simply late. You only get your $25 back if the airline never delivers the bag to you, not if it didn’t get on your flight or got sent to San Diego instead of San Antonio.
It can take many weeks for an airline to officially declare a bag “lost,’’ never to be found, and many more to actually get compensated for your losses. You may be out several hundred or even several thousand dollars (never check valuables!) in clothing and belongings, and you face a torturous process of trying to prove the value of lost goods to an airline with receipts. Airlines depreciate the value of goods lost and unilaterally decide what to pay you. The $25 bag fee is the least of your worries by the time you get through with the airline.
Bumping up compensation to involuntarily bumped passengers should further curb airline overbooking and make travel more reliable. It may also sweeten the offers airlines make to get volunteers to give up their seats.
The fee disclosure regulations probably won’t have much impact, however. By now, most travelers know most airlines charge baggage fees. Southwest Airlines advertising probably does more to educate the public on that than any regulation. Now airlines will have to tell you clearly that there may be additional fees like baggage, and make it easier to find the fees.
It can be difficult to click around an airline Web site to find actual baggage charges, often buried in sections with baggage rules. A clear menu would be preferable – if you want fries with your hamburger, the price of fries is on the same menu. Imagine if a restaurant just posted a notice that fries were an additional fee and you had to go somewhere else to find the actual price.
The DOT didn’t require airlines to include their customer-service promises in the legal contract of tickets, called the “contract of carriage.’’ That would have given travelers a way to take airlines to court when they didn’t live up to their promises.
The new rules do require airlines to let consumers either hold a reservation for 24 hours without a fare change or get a full refund within 24 hours. That’s actually something most airlines already do – most big carriers pledged to do that 10 years ago when they pre-empted passenger-rights legislation in Congress by voluntarily offering customer service protections.
It’s unfortunate the airline industry doesn’t seem to be able to step up on its own and treat customers more fairly, straighten out its service problems and be more open about its pricing. The DOT is trying to protect passengers, and airlines do respond when pushed by the government. Perhaps if the industry had more leadership and was more proactive instead of reactive, it wouldn’t have to come to that.
How to Turn Customers into Brand Ambassadors
After I talked about the future of “search” in my previous article, lets now look at what a brand should do to win in the new “search” paradigm.
It starts with listening, a simple act in the digital world the importance of which is yet to be fully understood or appreciated. Listening to conversations about your brand or product or service offers multiple opportunities. If people are speaking well of you, you’ve an opportunity to convert them to your brand ambassadors. If they are speaking ill of you, thank them for helping identify an opportunity for you to grow and to resolve an issue in a way that turns around their perceptions and experience.
Don’t listen and you end up missing out on both opportunities above and you should be prepared to face a potential backlash from dissatisfied customers. For example, Vishal Rao, a frustrated customer of MakeMyTrip ended up creating a new site RuinedMyTrip.com to share his horrifying experience and it is prominent on searches for the company. For more on this, check out this Mint story.
Tools such as Google Alerts and TweetDeck do a great job of helping a brand listen to conversations about it. Once a brand has laid the foundation to continuously listen, it can embrace some or all of the opportunities of “social search,” some of which are below:
–Be present on relevant Social Media: Given that search results increasingly throw out more social media channels such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Flickr, SlideShare, and others, being present on these channels opens up new opportunities to be found by customers on search engines. Take a minute to search for your name on Google and observe the results. This article ‘Google will force all B2B companies to Tweet’ will help you further understand the importance of Twitter.
–Turn your satisfied customers into brand ambassadors: Given that potential customers want to know about your product or service through the people who’ve already used it, the opportunity of leveraging your existing customers to bring in more customers is unmatched. But how? There are numerous ways to do it.
Recently, LinkedIn launched a new feature called its “Company Page,” where any company can list its products or services. There is no reason you should not request your satisfied customers to share their feedback about you. At Digital Vidya, we’ve been continuously making the most of our LinkedIn Company Page to build credibility and generate more business. Similarly, you can request recommendations be placed on your LinkedIn profile.
Today, Twitter is one of the favorite platforms for consumers to share their opinions. The question is whether you can encourage and inspire your satisfied customers to share their views about you. You can then use the stream of positive tweets about your brand as testimony to attract new customers. For examples, 24hoursloot.com has integrated a Twitter stream into their website in the form of “true testimonials from real people” to boost conversion rates for every campaign, which drives traffic to their Web site.
Believe me, it’s also worth spending time in identifying and requesting some of your customers to blog about you. Let me share two examples from our social media workshops: Social Media Workshops in India: The one I endorse and Social Media and the ‘GURUs’
In addition to blogging, it doesn’t cost you anything to request your satisfied customers write about their experience about your brand on popular review sites such as MouthShut.com. Here is an example of another business for which we requested experts to review our products at JavaRanch, one of the most popular Java discussion forums.
Likewise, depending upon your industry, you will have enough avenues to realize the opportunity of word of mouth. Please remember, if you are listening, you may discover a number of satisfied customers, who otherwise gets missed.
While it’s important to acknowledge and encourage your delighted customers, it’s even more critical to take care of your dissatisfied customers. In the world of social media, nothing works better than making a public apology and taking responsibility of your mistakes. By resolving the concerns of your customers in public, you are likely to strengthen your relationship with your satisfied customers in addition to turning your frustrated customers into brand ambassadors.
CafeCoffeeDay has an interesting case in which they smartly recovered from a short-lived crisis by appropriately responding to their customers in a timely way. By publicly dealing with the situation, as MakeMyTrip is also doing, you show that you are doing your best to improve customer satisfaction.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on the tools and case studies discussed. Moreover, I invite you to share relevant personal experiences in the Comments.
Pradeep Chopra is chief executive of Digital Vidya, a leading Indian digital marketing training company. He also runs a digital marketing community on Facebook. He’s reachable on LinkedIn and on Twitter @pradeepchopra. You can read his full mentor bio here.
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/04/27/chief-mentor-how-to-turn-customers-into-brand-ambassadors/
It starts with listening, a simple act in the digital world the importance of which is yet to be fully understood or appreciated. Listening to conversations about your brand or product or service offers multiple opportunities. If people are speaking well of you, you’ve an opportunity to convert them to your brand ambassadors. If they are speaking ill of you, thank them for helping identify an opportunity for you to grow and to resolve an issue in a way that turns around their perceptions and experience.
Don’t listen and you end up missing out on both opportunities above and you should be prepared to face a potential backlash from dissatisfied customers. For example, Vishal Rao, a frustrated customer of MakeMyTrip ended up creating a new site RuinedMyTrip.com to share his horrifying experience and it is prominent on searches for the company. For more on this, check out this Mint story.
Tools such as Google Alerts and TweetDeck do a great job of helping a brand listen to conversations about it. Once a brand has laid the foundation to continuously listen, it can embrace some or all of the opportunities of “social search,” some of which are below:
–Be present on relevant Social Media: Given that search results increasingly throw out more social media channels such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Flickr, SlideShare, and others, being present on these channels opens up new opportunities to be found by customers on search engines. Take a minute to search for your name on Google and observe the results. This article ‘Google will force all B2B companies to Tweet’ will help you further understand the importance of Twitter.
–Turn your satisfied customers into brand ambassadors: Given that potential customers want to know about your product or service through the people who’ve already used it, the opportunity of leveraging your existing customers to bring in more customers is unmatched. But how? There are numerous ways to do it.
Recently, LinkedIn launched a new feature called its “Company Page,” where any company can list its products or services. There is no reason you should not request your satisfied customers to share their feedback about you. At Digital Vidya, we’ve been continuously making the most of our LinkedIn Company Page to build credibility and generate more business. Similarly, you can request recommendations be placed on your LinkedIn profile.
Today, Twitter is one of the favorite platforms for consumers to share their opinions. The question is whether you can encourage and inspire your satisfied customers to share their views about you. You can then use the stream of positive tweets about your brand as testimony to attract new customers. For examples, 24hoursloot.com has integrated a Twitter stream into their website in the form of “true testimonials from real people” to boost conversion rates for every campaign, which drives traffic to their Web site.
Believe me, it’s also worth spending time in identifying and requesting some of your customers to blog about you. Let me share two examples from our social media workshops: Social Media Workshops in India: The one I endorse and Social Media and the ‘GURUs’
In addition to blogging, it doesn’t cost you anything to request your satisfied customers write about their experience about your brand on popular review sites such as MouthShut.com. Here is an example of another business for which we requested experts to review our products at JavaRanch, one of the most popular Java discussion forums.
Likewise, depending upon your industry, you will have enough avenues to realize the opportunity of word of mouth. Please remember, if you are listening, you may discover a number of satisfied customers, who otherwise gets missed.
While it’s important to acknowledge and encourage your delighted customers, it’s even more critical to take care of your dissatisfied customers. In the world of social media, nothing works better than making a public apology and taking responsibility of your mistakes. By resolving the concerns of your customers in public, you are likely to strengthen your relationship with your satisfied customers in addition to turning your frustrated customers into brand ambassadors.
CafeCoffeeDay has an interesting case in which they smartly recovered from a short-lived crisis by appropriately responding to their customers in a timely way. By publicly dealing with the situation, as MakeMyTrip is also doing, you show that you are doing your best to improve customer satisfaction.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on the tools and case studies discussed. Moreover, I invite you to share relevant personal experiences in the Comments.
Pradeep Chopra is chief executive of Digital Vidya, a leading Indian digital marketing training company. He also runs a digital marketing community on Facebook. He’s reachable on LinkedIn and on Twitter @pradeepchopra. You can read his full mentor bio here.
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/04/27/chief-mentor-how-to-turn-customers-into-brand-ambassadors/
Thanks to Naviatarie's New Skies, AirAsia considering frequent flyer program
I was going through old e-mails (Easter weekend spring cleaning) and was bemused to see an August marketing e-mail from AirAsia poking fun at reward clubs with jibes like "pardon me random rewards card" and "what are you looking at Mr Buy 5 Get 1 Free Coffee Card?"
Only a few weeks prior AirAsia X chief executive Azran Osman-Rani remarked at a Sydney conference that the AirAsia group was mulling a frequent flyer program.
"The way I would look at frequent flyer points is not necessarily the way other airlines have looked at it," Osman-Rani starts. Indeed, two years ago Osman-Rani told me he shunned the thought of a frequent-flyer program. Now technological improvements have created new propositions.
"What has changed is this new engine--the [Navitaire] New Skies platform--and the ability to have a more robust and powerful CRM engine," Osman-Rani says of the booking engine and customer relationship management. "You can now have a real relationship with individuals," Osman-Rani says.
For instance, in exchange for storing all of my trips in an account so I can eventually receive a free ticket, AirAsia could receive valuable marketing information about me, such as where I like to fly, what ancillary options I choose. Rather than spend money on open marketing, AirAsia could spend that budget on a reward tickets.
"Our success relies on our ability to find the right way of connecting and reaching out to people and being able to execute it in a very efficient way," Osman-Rani says. Indeed, as Flightglobal publication Airline Business remarked in a recent editorial, "Airlines will need to plough copious amounts of their ever-scare cash reserves into truly reaching their customers and understanding their individual quirks."
AirAsia has always been improving its implementation, but technical limitations have impeded, for all airlines, faster and more efficient marketing. That is a hurdle AirAsia has been working to overcome. Last year the carrier raised eyebrows when it said a minimal cost advertising campaign on Facebook let it cut back on print advertising. Now New Skies permits the carrier to take another leap.
"It's about being able to create a program because you can do tailored one-on-one marketing, track purchasing patterns, histories, create deals and structures for them," Osman-Rani says.
Many marketing e-mails I receive from airlines are constructed based on what I have told airlines: where I live and travel from and what regions and offers I am interested in.
If AirAsia follows through with its thinking, it will now be New Skies predicting what I am interested in, and alerting me to special offers. But for New Skies to learn about me, it needs to know who I am, and what better way to get that information than a frequent flyer account where all of my trips are stored.
This is also good news for investors. AirAsia becoming leaner helps return dividends. For prospective AirAsia X investors, if the airline knows its passengers better gets them to travel more, that fuels the high growth trajectory the AirAsia X IPO is focused on.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2011/04/thanks-to-naviataries-new-skie.html
Only a few weeks prior AirAsia X chief executive Azran Osman-Rani remarked at a Sydney conference that the AirAsia group was mulling a frequent flyer program.
"The way I would look at frequent flyer points is not necessarily the way other airlines have looked at it," Osman-Rani starts. Indeed, two years ago Osman-Rani told me he shunned the thought of a frequent-flyer program. Now technological improvements have created new propositions.
"What has changed is this new engine--the [Navitaire] New Skies platform--and the ability to have a more robust and powerful CRM engine," Osman-Rani says of the booking engine and customer relationship management. "You can now have a real relationship with individuals," Osman-Rani says.
For instance, in exchange for storing all of my trips in an account so I can eventually receive a free ticket, AirAsia could receive valuable marketing information about me, such as where I like to fly, what ancillary options I choose. Rather than spend money on open marketing, AirAsia could spend that budget on a reward tickets.
"Our success relies on our ability to find the right way of connecting and reaching out to people and being able to execute it in a very efficient way," Osman-Rani says. Indeed, as Flightglobal publication Airline Business remarked in a recent editorial, "Airlines will need to plough copious amounts of their ever-scare cash reserves into truly reaching their customers and understanding their individual quirks."
AirAsia has always been improving its implementation, but technical limitations have impeded, for all airlines, faster and more efficient marketing. That is a hurdle AirAsia has been working to overcome. Last year the carrier raised eyebrows when it said a minimal cost advertising campaign on Facebook let it cut back on print advertising. Now New Skies permits the carrier to take another leap.
"It's about being able to create a program because you can do tailored one-on-one marketing, track purchasing patterns, histories, create deals and structures for them," Osman-Rani says.
Many marketing e-mails I receive from airlines are constructed based on what I have told airlines: where I live and travel from and what regions and offers I am interested in.
If AirAsia follows through with its thinking, it will now be New Skies predicting what I am interested in, and alerting me to special offers. But for New Skies to learn about me, it needs to know who I am, and what better way to get that information than a frequent flyer account where all of my trips are stored.
This is also good news for investors. AirAsia becoming leaner helps return dividends. For prospective AirAsia X investors, if the airline knows its passengers better gets them to travel more, that fuels the high growth trajectory the AirAsia X IPO is focused on.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2011/04/thanks-to-naviataries-new-skie.html
Monday, April 25, 2011
Handbook on Financial Planning
by Mr. Tan Kin Lian
For free distribution to consumers
31 March 2011
For free distribution to consumers
31 March 2011
embedded viewer courtesy of: https://docs.google.com/viewer
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Is the hub and spoke model broken?
Network players have always struggled to make short haul pay, but it remains an essential part of the hub-and-spoke model. Now low-cost carriers dominate this market, can the two sides shift their strategies to work together?
There is an uneasy tension brewing in the hub-and-spoke model. Network players would kill to have feeder partners the size of Ryanair, AirAsia or Southwest. While squaring the business case for all sides is tough, both camps are keen to boost their passenger numbers and bottom lines at minimal cost. This sparks hope for hub-and-spoke relations between the two opposing creeds.
"Herb Kelleher created a bit of a religion with his no-frills approach," says Vueling chief Alex Cruz. "Nearly 30 years later, easyJet and Ryanair have been dictating what is and what is not acceptable within the religion." Clickair, which is now merged into Vueling, started off as a good disciple, following the low-cost doctrine to the letter. "We believed everything in this new religion would make us successful," says Cruz. "But our business-class passengers said 'sod this, we're going to another carrier'. After that we began to pick and choose every commandment."
Vueling began connecting its own passengers via its Barcelona base in July 2010. "That is a big no-no," says Cruz. "Commandment number five states 'thou shalt not connect passengers'." By the end of 2010 it had handled a "meaningful" 177,000 transfers. "It was obvious with our network size that it was worth doing," says Cruz. "The results have been fantastic. We have had very few increased costs, yet it has been a tremendous additional revenue source." In 2011 Vueling expects to increase its transfer traffic total towards half a million.
Passengers pay for both point-to-point legs, plus a €5 ($6.80) connecting fee. As part of the deal they get free wireless access and shopping discounts at Barcelona airport. This costs Vueling nothing; it is an airport incentive. "We took on one single, non-variable expense - a transit position at Barcelona airport in case of lost boarding cards," Cruz explains.
Vueling's Navitaire Open Skies platform was able to handle multiple segments, so only "a little bit of development" was needed, although the airline plans to upgrade to New Skies at the end of the year. The remainder of the relaxed six-month lead-up was used for talks with Barcelona airport operator Aena and for handling agent training. "We are probably slow at these things, but we tend not to fail," says Cruz. "We have proven that we are able to do this and drive our cost base down."
Madrid-based Iberia, which owns 45.85% of Vueling, has looked on with interest. Facing competition from low-cost carriers and high-speed rail, Iberia is "simply not making money on short- and medium-haul operations", said chief executive Antonio Vazquez, just before becoming chairman of International Airlines Group, the new British Airways and Iberia parent.
"We cannot operate with the costs of Iberia and the revenues of a low-cost carrier. We must adapt, otherwise we will lose market share and put our long-haul feeder operations in danger," said Vazquez. Iberia's priority may lie with long-haul, but a restructured feeder network is vital because 70% of its international passengers connect.
In Vueling, it seems, Iberia may have found a partial solution. It has tapped Vueling to operate a selection of short-haul routes from Madrid under a short-term contract that runs from April until the end of the summer.
Iberia is also handling several short-haul routes to regional franchise partner Air Nostrum, as it tries to thrash out a longer-term solution with its pilots. Several options are on the table, including establishing a new short-haul airline and contracting out flying to third parties under similar agreements to the one signed with Vueling and Air Nostrum.
This fits neatly with Vueling's growth strategy. "Obviously the next step for us is to connect with another airline and we wanted to do in a controlled way," says Cruz. "This year we are going to attempt to prove wrong commandment number six - 'thou shalt not do anything with other airlines'."
In addition to the Madrid routes, Vueling will feed Iberia's Barcelona-originating Sao Paulo and Miami services, although neither will be available through Vueling's website. Most of Vueling's flights already carry Iberia's code under a one-way codeshare deal, regardless of whether they connect or not. But Vueling has now lifted a GDS restriction, which limited its flights to point-to-point sale, so its flights can be sold in conjunction with Iberia's. This means a passenger can request a Miami-Mallorca flight from their agent, including Vueling's Barcelona-Mallorca segment, on a single, all-Iberia coded itinerary.
BREAKING THE RULES
"As time goes by, we will remove further restrictions and sign deals with other airlines so that they can sell itineraries with their own airline and an Iberia segment, even though it is flown by our metal," says Cruz. "We have this job for Iberia, but we are building it very much in mind to fit with other airlines."
Cruz says Vueling has received tentative feeder approaches from several carriers, including oneworld's American Airlines. "We are quite aware of the fact that we are 45.85%-owned by a oneworld airline. This gives us easier access to oneworld carriers."
Through its diluted alliance ties, Vueling is virtually cousins with Qantas budget subsidiary Jetstar, which has a well-advanced feeder strategy. The Melbourne-based carrier boasts codeshares with American Airlines, Japan Airlines and Qantas, as well as an increasing number of interlines.
Like Cruz, Jetstar Group chief Bruce Buchanan is deliberately shaking things up, offering products not typical to low-cost players. On 1 February, Jetstar became the first non-oneworld carrier to participate in oneworld-branded fare packages, via its Qantas codeshare. "Through strategic interline and alliance fare agreements such as this, we are tapping into new customer markets," says Buchanan. Cruz believes this could be a viable path for Vueling. "It makes a lot of sense and could be a very interesting model for us to follow, but they are 18-24 months ahead of us."
Low-cost purists would probably argue that Jetstar and Vueling are complicating their models under the influence of their legacy airline owners. But, surprisingly, even the greatest fundamentalist of them all, Ryanair, does not immediately dismiss the idea. "If someone was willing to pay us for feed, we would be very happy to talk to them," says Ryanair deputy chief executive Michael Cawley. He says there are two ways Ryanair could be motivated to act as a feeder: to generate additional passengers or being given "a big cheque to do it". But Cawley is quick to add that any partner would have to take all the responsibility: "We would not want any complexity, and the passenger would have to transfer their own bag." But this would be "virtually impossible", says Marcelo Bento Ribeiro, who is yield and alliances director at Brazilian low-cost carrier Gol. "If you want to service international connecting passengers, you have to bring in some complexity."
COMPLEXITY KICK
Gol kicked off its feeder strategy three years ago and today it has one-way codeshares with Air France, American Airlines, Delta, Iberia and KLM. Similar deals with Aeromexico and Qatar Airways should go live by June and it has interline deals with many more. "Every passenger we get through those partnerships, we wouldn't get any other way," says Bento Ribeiro. "Their revenue goes straight to the bottom line - I can't give any numbers, but it definitely contributes to our results. Gol really has to thank Air France, because it took the time - and a considerable workload - to see whether it was even possible. Other airlines were much more conservative."
Gol was cautious too, restricting its deals to the "low-hanging fruit" of one-way codeshares. "It is easy to do it all one-way, but that doesn't mean we'll never have the ability to market other airlines. It brings more complexity in terms of fare structures and workload, so, if we ever started doing that, we would start with just three or four [destinations]."
Bento Ribeiro says the jump from interlines to codeshares was "not much more complex, operationally". Gol was already listed on the global distribution systems and offered connections on its own network, meaning most of the work was IT-related. Gol now uses Navitaire's New Skies platform and is satisfied with it. "We don't have any plan move away from it. For our business, it fulfils our needs."
Gol revisited every aspect of its operation before its feeder debut in 2009. This revealed that its staff had never seen paper tickets before and its bag tags were not 100% IATA-compliant. "I would advise anyone considering such as move to do very careful planning," says Bento Ribeiro. "This is not something you can turn on one day and have working the next. You need to work closely with your airline partner to make sure you understand one another's expectations. You need to agree on every point, to avoid misunderstanding or unfulfilled expectations, and communicate well with your employees so they understand what to do in every situation." He also recommends "very careful and transparent" dialogue with investors. "Our only concern was making sure our investors knew we were adding to our business and not changing it."
Gol's key motivation was to increase its passenger numbers. "Low-cost carriers all over the world are evolving. They realise that to grow, you must cater for different sections of the market. If they only cater for cost-sensitive leisure customers, at a certain point they will reach their fill of that and have to go for another segment," says Bento Ribeiro. Seabury senior vice-president Geoffrey Weston agrees: "As the low-cost market shakes out, everyone is focusing on segmentation, putting even more pressure on network carriers."
Although codeshares are not hugely different from interline deals, passengers are reassured by familiar branding, he says. "When you carry another code, like Delta's, customers know what degree of service they are going to get. They know it has been audited as safe and secure. This increases customer confidence and customer volumes."
Long-haul players seeking feed in Brazil have a limited choice - two airlines control 80% of the market - but Bento Ribeiro believes that, beyond his own market, low-cost and network partnerships are a hot topic. "This is something virtually every long-haul carrier these days is trying to figure out. The big issue is that not all low-cost carriers want to do it, but I do think this is a trend." JetBlue director, alliances and partnerships Scott Resnick agrees, saying that low-cost to traditional airline feed is "definitely" something to watch. "This is new area for us, but it has growing importance within JetBlue."
ATTRACTING A MATE
This is hardly a surprise. JetBlue is quite the sought-after partner, thanks to its New York JFK hub, even attracting an equity investment from Star Alliance heavyweight Lufthansa. But this did not stop it sealing an interline deal with Lufthansa's oneworld rival American Airlines. "Lufthansa is a good partner, but we don't want to be tied down to any alliance or partnership. Our obligation to our shareholders is to find partners that deliver the most value," says Resnick.
Resnick dismisses concerns about the risk of a product divide as passengers transition from traditional carriers to low-cost players. "It's not as important as it once was. Although we are an all-coach carrier, we make sure we deliver a premium experience that happens to be coach, but is consistent with legacy airlines. Passengers are looking for good connections, which are seamless and on time with friendly staff." After pursuing an organic growth strategy, JetBlue was looking to swell its passenger numbers. Resnick says it was "hard to look beyond the opportunity" of connecting traffic, although costs remained a prime concern. "We don't disclose the specific results of our partnerships, but we are really pleased and encouraged by how they are performing, contributing to our growth and ramp-up. We are happy with what we have seen so far."
JetBlue codeshares with Cape Air and Lufthansa on selected routes and has interline deals with Aer Lingus, American Airlines, El Al, Emirates and South African Airlines. "We will add about another six this year," says Resnick. "I'm not sure what the maximum is, but most airlines have more than 100 interline partners; we have seven. I don't envision 100-200. That's just not the right model for us."
JetBlue recently invested $50 million in its transition to Sabre, but its earliest deals were done with a "less robust" reservations platform, which meant it needed to work more closely with its first three partners. "Technology cannot be understated in this field. Our cutover to Sabre has accomplished many, many benefits beyond partnerships. What we are doing today would not have been possible before, so we have no regrets."
Resnick believes technology has a big part to play in reducing the complexity and cost implications of low-cost to traditional airline tie-ups. "I suspect we will see this as a trend see among low-cost carriers. There is definitely space and room in the industry for low-cost technology to make this easier."
Today JetBlue's interline fares are only available for sale via its partners' websites and through travel agencies, but the airline is looking to add this functionality to its own website. "We are excited about this, which is something we are working on actively now. It will be the first half of this year."
Unlike Gol, JetBlue prefers interlines to codeshares as they deliver the majority of the value, without the extra complexity. "What does the code really bring, other than complexity?" asks Resnick. "If you end up being the marketing carrier, you have a big [cost] lift in having to file fares in partners' markets. We have invested a lot in our brand. We want to be transparent about who we work with." He has reason to be cautious. Late last year, Jet-Blue faced a hefty fine from the US Department of Transportation because its call-centre staff failed to specify when flights were operated by Cape Air under codeshare. "That was an important lesson for us to learn," says Resnick. "We have taken it very seriously."
Then there is the question of airport preference. Dirk Albrecht, partner in charge of Roland Berger's Aviation Practice, believes the mega-hub or point-to-point debate is "projecting itself onto the short-haul market more than long-haul at the moment". Low-cost carriers favour cheaper, uncongested airports, while network carriers want mega-hubs. This is just one more element that would have to be resolved for the two sides to join forces.
But a solution might be needed sooner rather than later. Roland Berger's report "Future scenarios for the European airline industry" questions whether low-cost airlines will operate all intra-European flights by 2015.They already dominate short-haul, making disconnect a major question for legacy airlines, says Albrecht. "I don't think they can avoid this situation, because they are already in the middle of it, so it's a more a case of what they can do to alleviate it," he says.
In the absence of a coherent solution from the airlines, passengers are becoming more savvy. "Those passengers who know how to connect will connect anyway," says Chris Tarry, principal of aviation consultancy CTAIRA. He adds that if just two or three passengers per flight transferred between easyJet and Virgin Atlantic at Gatwick, it would create a feasible feeder operation. This has not escaped Virgin's attention. Last May, Julie Southern, then Virgin Atlantic chief commercial and financial officer, said: "We do talk [with easyJet] about it periodically and we already have quite a lot of self-connecting traffic. The challenge is we have fundamentally different business models. EasyJet is not willing to put complexity into its model."
OVERLAY OPENINGS
Tarry says this reluctance creates openings for overlay services, such as transfer agents, and new ancillaries like connecting insurance. "The easier you make it for the travelling public, the more likely they are to take it up." Indeed, in an ironic echo of the travel agency days, companies such as Icelandic technology firm Dohop have stepped in to encourage passengers down the self-connecting route.
Airports have also emerged as unlikely connections facilitators, lured in by the appeal of increasing their airline and passenger numbers. But while airports may have a link role to play, a senior airline source observes that "eight out of ten people don't know who airport operators like BAA are", so they would need to invest in a consumer-facing brand.
Despite this reservation, the source believes low-cost and network carrier connections have a future. He flags the potential of a tie-up between low-cost goliaths like easyJet and Southwest, with the transatlantic leg served by a new joint-venture long-haul carrier or an existing player like Virgin Atlantic. "This is not too remote from reality," he says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/22/353510/focus-is-the-hub-and-spoke-model-broken.html
Friday, April 22, 2011
Government Adds New Rules to Airlines: the winners and losers
he US Department of Transportation announced more regulation on the airline business this week and it has me a bit confused. The airline industry is already one of the most regulated industries in the US and some of these new rules just seem silly. Let’s take a look at them one by one:
Lost Bag Means Bag Fee Refund
I actually like the concept of this — it makes sense to me. If I am paying an airline money to handle my bag, it makes sense that I be refunded that fee if the bag is lost at no fault of my own. However, I am not to keen on the government forcing airlines to do this.
Tarmac Delay Rule to Include International Flights
Even though I love flying, I hate being stuck on the tarmac. I can sit on a plane for 15 hours while flying and be fine since I am making progress. However just sitting on the tarmac going no where just bites. The DOT already has regulated domestic flights cannot be sitting on the tarmac for more than three hours and now extends that to international flights. I am already not a fan of the domestic three hour tarmac rule and even more against international flights.
Not all airports can handle international flights the same. If a flight needs to be diverted to an airport that normally doesn’t handle international flights, it is going to take time to get the proper personnel there.
Now that airlines could face huge fines with international flights to the US, they will be more likely to cancel them. Unlike many domestic flights, which have multiple flights per day, many international flights will only have a few flights per week. That means you could be stranded in another country for days versus being stranded on the tarmac in the US for a few hours.
More Money for Bumped Passengers
Over booking flights always makes sense on paper, but is super annoying when you are the person that gets bumped.
When an airline knows that on average there will be a certain percentage of people that won’t show up for a flight, so they oversell, that makes good business sense. Good business sense doesn’t always means good customer service. The fees will be increased from $400 to $650 for short delays and $800 to $1,300 for longer ones.
It does annoy me that many airlines do not seem to do the right thing when it comes to bumping passengers and quite a few have been fined. Out of all the rules imposed by the DOT, this is the one actually angers me the least.
Disclose All Fees
This seems to duplicate what airlines already do. Maybe I have missed something, but every airline I have ever booked with clearly states on their website what they charge for. Sure some might be a little more tricky than others, but many businesses operate the same way. Have you ever tried to buy a car and get additional fees? Of course.
What is really bothersome is the government is looking to regulate how airlines show their fees. Why does the government feel the need to force airlines to do this, but not other industries?
Add Taxes and Government Fees to Advertised Fares
This one makes the least sense. What other industry is required by the government to include taxes and government fees to their advertised prices?
Most states have tax and people know they will pay tax. Can I walk into a dollar store with $1 and buy something? Nope, where I live I will need $1.09 and I know that. I think this goes to show that the airline business is treated unfairly and “consumer protection” groups are going too far to discriminate against airlines. I just wish the government wouldn’t play along.
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2011/04/government-adds-new-rules-to-airlines-the-winners-and-losers/
Lost Bag Means Bag Fee Refund
I actually like the concept of this — it makes sense to me. If I am paying an airline money to handle my bag, it makes sense that I be refunded that fee if the bag is lost at no fault of my own. However, I am not to keen on the government forcing airlines to do this.
Tarmac Delay Rule to Include International Flights
Even though I love flying, I hate being stuck on the tarmac. I can sit on a plane for 15 hours while flying and be fine since I am making progress. However just sitting on the tarmac going no where just bites. The DOT already has regulated domestic flights cannot be sitting on the tarmac for more than three hours and now extends that to international flights. I am already not a fan of the domestic three hour tarmac rule and even more against international flights.
Not all airports can handle international flights the same. If a flight needs to be diverted to an airport that normally doesn’t handle international flights, it is going to take time to get the proper personnel there.
Now that airlines could face huge fines with international flights to the US, they will be more likely to cancel them. Unlike many domestic flights, which have multiple flights per day, many international flights will only have a few flights per week. That means you could be stranded in another country for days versus being stranded on the tarmac in the US for a few hours.
More Money for Bumped Passengers
Over booking flights always makes sense on paper, but is super annoying when you are the person that gets bumped.
When an airline knows that on average there will be a certain percentage of people that won’t show up for a flight, so they oversell, that makes good business sense. Good business sense doesn’t always means good customer service. The fees will be increased from $400 to $650 for short delays and $800 to $1,300 for longer ones.
It does annoy me that many airlines do not seem to do the right thing when it comes to bumping passengers and quite a few have been fined. Out of all the rules imposed by the DOT, this is the one actually angers me the least.
Disclose All Fees
This seems to duplicate what airlines already do. Maybe I have missed something, but every airline I have ever booked with clearly states on their website what they charge for. Sure some might be a little more tricky than others, but many businesses operate the same way. Have you ever tried to buy a car and get additional fees? Of course.
What is really bothersome is the government is looking to regulate how airlines show their fees. Why does the government feel the need to force airlines to do this, but not other industries?
Add Taxes and Government Fees to Advertised Fares
This one makes the least sense. What other industry is required by the government to include taxes and government fees to their advertised prices?
Most states have tax and people know they will pay tax. Can I walk into a dollar store with $1 and buy something? Nope, where I live I will need $1.09 and I know that. I think this goes to show that the airline business is treated unfairly and “consumer protection” groups are going too far to discriminate against airlines. I just wish the government wouldn’t play along.
http://www.airlinereporter.com/2011/04/government-adds-new-rules-to-airlines-the-winners-and-losers/
Check This: Traveler Sentiment Falls Amid Airline Fee Free-For-All
March 24, 2011
When it comes to air travel, U.S. travelers increasingly feel like they are being taken for a ride, according to a new PhoCusWright report. While traveler attitudes toward airlines are lukewarm overall, consumers report feeling worse about their airline experiences versus a few years ago.
Heat from the Middle Seat: The U.S. Consumer Perspective on Air Travel reveals that less than half of U.S. air travelers feel positive about their airline experiences. A quarter of fliers feel negatively, while three in 10 are neutral. The results translate to an average score of 3.29 on a scale of 1 to 5.
"Fliers are essentially giving airlines a grade of C+, which is barely above satisfactory," said Carroll Rheem, director, research. "But even more concerning for airlines is that their most valuable customers – business travelers and those with higher annual household incomes – are even less happy than the average."
Both business travelers and affluent travelers (i.e., those with an annual household income of US$100,000 or more) are less likely to have positive sentiments toward their flying experiences and more likely to have negative sentiments. The trend is particularly pronounced for affluent travelers, who are nearly twice as likely as travelers with annual household incomes of $50,000 to have slightly or very negative sentiments.
Consumer attitudes towards their air travel experiences have soured over the same period that airlines have added baggage fees and other new charges. Thirty-eight percent of leisure-only U.S. travelers feel slightly or substantially worse about their airline experiences compared to a few years ago, while just 13% feel slightly or substantially better. Four in ten business travelers feel their experiences have gotten worse.
In addition to checked baggage fees, airlines are aiming to increase sales of optional services like preferred seating and priority boarding. These new products and packages represent a tremendous opportunity for airlines. However, the decline in traveler satisfaction could limit their ability to fully realize that opportunity.
"Consumers are inherently reluctant to buy more services from companies they feel are taking advantage of them – and unfortunately, many feel that way about airlines today," said Rheem. "Airlines have therefore put a ceiling of their own creation on the potential success of optional services. If they focus on repairing relationships with their passengers, airlines have the ability to break that ceiling. Whether or not they have the inclination remains to be seen."
Heat from the Middle Seat: The U.S. Consumer Perspective on Air Travel provides insight into key issues that shape travelers' relationships with airlines, and analyzes how those relationships impact the leisure air travel landscape. The report studies air shopping and booking behavior among U.S. travelers, measures consumer sentiment toward airlines, and examines the factors impacting traveler loyalty. Key topics include:
When it comes to air travel, U.S. travelers increasingly feel like they are being taken for a ride, according to a new PhoCusWright report. While traveler attitudes toward airlines are lukewarm overall, consumers report feeling worse about their airline experiences versus a few years ago.
Heat from the Middle Seat: The U.S. Consumer Perspective on Air Travel reveals that less than half of U.S. air travelers feel positive about their airline experiences. A quarter of fliers feel negatively, while three in 10 are neutral. The results translate to an average score of 3.29 on a scale of 1 to 5.
"Fliers are essentially giving airlines a grade of C+, which is barely above satisfactory," said Carroll Rheem, director, research. "But even more concerning for airlines is that their most valuable customers – business travelers and those with higher annual household incomes – are even less happy than the average."
Both business travelers and affluent travelers (i.e., those with an annual household income of US$100,000 or more) are less likely to have positive sentiments toward their flying experiences and more likely to have negative sentiments. The trend is particularly pronounced for affluent travelers, who are nearly twice as likely as travelers with annual household incomes of $50,000 to have slightly or very negative sentiments.
Consumer attitudes towards their air travel experiences have soured over the same period that airlines have added baggage fees and other new charges. Thirty-eight percent of leisure-only U.S. travelers feel slightly or substantially worse about their airline experiences compared to a few years ago, while just 13% feel slightly or substantially better. Four in ten business travelers feel their experiences have gotten worse.
In addition to checked baggage fees, airlines are aiming to increase sales of optional services like preferred seating and priority boarding. These new products and packages represent a tremendous opportunity for airlines. However, the decline in traveler satisfaction could limit their ability to fully realize that opportunity.
"Consumers are inherently reluctant to buy more services from companies they feel are taking advantage of them – and unfortunately, many feel that way about airlines today," said Rheem. "Airlines have therefore put a ceiling of their own creation on the potential success of optional services. If they focus on repairing relationships with their passengers, airlines have the ability to break that ceiling. Whether or not they have the inclination remains to be seen."
Heat from the Middle Seat: The U.S. Consumer Perspective on Air Travel provides insight into key issues that shape travelers' relationships with airlines, and analyzes how those relationships impact the leisure air travel landscape. The report studies air shopping and booking behavior among U.S. travelers, measures consumer sentiment toward airlines, and examines the factors impacting traveler loyalty. Key topics include:
- The role of intermediaries in the air shopping process
- Traveler interest in ancillary products
- Traveler attitudes towards airlines, and trends over time
- Attitudes and behaviors of airlines' most valuable customers, including business travelers and those with high annual travel spend
- Incidence of behavioral loyalty toward airlines, impact on booking channel and loyalty drivers
This report, a derivative of PhoCusWright's Consumer Travel Report Third Edition (forthcoming), is essential reading for travel companies throughout the air distribution chain. As airlines seek to minimize distribution costs and boost earnings with new, bundled services, the consumer perspective remains a crucial – but often overlooked – success factor. Heat from the Middle Seat: The U.S. Consumer Perspective on Air Travel (US$695) tracks the most important traveler trends impacting air travel sales and distribution.
http://www.phocuswright.com/library/fyi/1585
Study shows increase in negative sentiments toward airlines
Less than half of U.S. air travelers feel positive about their airline experiences, while a quarter of U.S. fliers feel negative, according to a new report from PhoCusWright.
The report, "Heat from the Middle Seat: The U.S. Consumer Perspective in Air Travel," finds that consumers feel worse about their airline experiences now versus a few years ago, coinciding with the same period that airlines have added baggage fees and other charges.
PhoCusWright found that 38% percent of leisure-only U.S. travelers feel slightly or substantially worse about their airline experiences compared to a few years ago, while just 13% feel slightly or substantially better. Among business travelers, 40% feel their experiences have gotten worse.
"Fliers are essentially giving airlines a grade of C+, which is barely above satisfactory," said Carroll Rheem, PhoCusWright director of research. "But even more concerning for airlines is that their most valuable customers — business travelers and those with higher annual household incomes — are even less happy than the average."
The report found that affluent travelers (those with an annual household income of $100,000 or more) are nearly twice as likely as less affluent travelers (those with annual household incomes of $50,000) to have slightly or very negative sentiments.
In addition, both business travelers and affluent travelers are less likely to have positive sentiments toward their flying experiences and more likely to have negative sentiments, the report found.
PhoCusWright said that in addition to baggage fees, airlines are aiming to increase sales of optional services like preferred seating and priority boarding.
Those fees represent "a tremendous opportunity for airlines," PhoCusWright said, but one that could be difficult to realize with the decline in traveler satisfaction.
"Consumers are inherently reluctant to buy more services from companies they feel are taking advantage of them — and unfortunately, many feel that way about airlines today," Rheem said.
"Airlines have therefore put a ceiling of their own creation on the potential success of optional services. If they focus on repairing relationships with their passengers, airlines have the ability to break that ceiling. Whether or not they have the inclination remains to be seen."
The report, "Heat from the Middle Seat: The U.S. Consumer Perspective in Air Travel," finds that consumers feel worse about their airline experiences now versus a few years ago, coinciding with the same period that airlines have added baggage fees and other charges.
PhoCusWright found that 38% percent of leisure-only U.S. travelers feel slightly or substantially worse about their airline experiences compared to a few years ago, while just 13% feel slightly or substantially better. Among business travelers, 40% feel their experiences have gotten worse.
"Fliers are essentially giving airlines a grade of C+, which is barely above satisfactory," said Carroll Rheem, PhoCusWright director of research. "But even more concerning for airlines is that their most valuable customers — business travelers and those with higher annual household incomes — are even less happy than the average."
The report found that affluent travelers (those with an annual household income of $100,000 or more) are nearly twice as likely as less affluent travelers (those with annual household incomes of $50,000) to have slightly or very negative sentiments.
In addition, both business travelers and affluent travelers are less likely to have positive sentiments toward their flying experiences and more likely to have negative sentiments, the report found.
PhoCusWright said that in addition to baggage fees, airlines are aiming to increase sales of optional services like preferred seating and priority boarding.
Those fees represent "a tremendous opportunity for airlines," PhoCusWright said, but one that could be difficult to realize with the decline in traveler satisfaction.
"Consumers are inherently reluctant to buy more services from companies they feel are taking advantage of them — and unfortunately, many feel that way about airlines today," Rheem said.
"Airlines have therefore put a ceiling of their own creation on the potential success of optional services. If they focus on repairing relationships with their passengers, airlines have the ability to break that ceiling. Whether or not they have the inclination remains to be seen."
http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Travel-Agent-Issues/Study-shows-increase-in-negative-sentiments-toward-airlines/
Saturday, April 16, 2011
ICAO CAPSCA:
Contains materials like:
http://www.capsca.org/CAPSCARefs.html
- Convention Articles, Assembly Resolutions, Council Decisions and Declarations & Press Releases
- SARPs & Guidelines
- Forms
http://www.capsca.org/CAPSCARefs.html
Friday, April 8, 2011
TTG Asia: Taking off in clear skies
The gloom and doom is over as ASEAN flag carriers grow revenue and spread their wings this year
Friday, March 25, 2011
Airline Passenger Experience Association: The iPad in IFE
22'02'11
The facts, challenges and progress of a widely talked about story...
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/runway-girl/2011/03/07/D.Brown_M.Reilly_Introduction_of_iPads.pdf
The facts, challenges and progress of a widely talked about story...
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/runway-girl/2011/03/07/D.Brown_M.Reilly_Introduction_of_iPads.pdf
Thursday, March 10, 2011
iPads could replace paper charts in planes
Jeppesen's iPad app offers electronic aeronautical charts.
(Credit: Jeppesen Systems)
(Credit: Jeppesen Systems)
Apple's iPad may soon find its way onto your next commercial flight, and not just in the cabin as an entertainment device. Major airlines and a charter jet company are considering using the tablet as a way to replace paper navigation charts and laptops both on the ground and during flight.
So far, no US airline has adopted iPads exclusively, but Delta Airlines and Alaska Airlines are testing the device for navigational purposes. Alaska spokeswoman Maryanne Lindsay told the Seattle Times that the carrier is running a trial program with a select group of pilots. Calls made by CNET to the Alaska Airlines press office were not returned at the time of this writing.
Switching to iPads or other tablet devices would cut down on paper, and on the equipment pilots have to carry. While some specially designed laptops, or "electronic flight bags," can weigh up to 8.2kg, the current iPad weighs just just 730g (the recently announced iPad 2 is a tad lighter). What's more, it should save airlines money as well.
Yes, there's an app for that
To power the iPads, Englewood-Colo.-Jeppesen Systems has developed an iPad app called Mobile TC that delivers electronic charts (available now for free in the iTunes App Store). At the the time of this writing, Mobile TC covers only airport terminal charts, but Jeppesen spokesman Brian Rantala told CNET that the app will be expanded to cover in flight use.
Last month, the Federal Aviation Administration authorized private jet charter Executive Jet Management to begin using the app as an alternative to paper aeronautical charts. A wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing, Jeppesen also developed an iPhone and iPad app called CrewAlert manage airline crew fatigue.
And back in the cabin, Qantas subsidiary Jetstar is close to using iPads as in-flight entertainment units on selected Airbus A320 and A330 aircraft. Though JetStar initially announced its iPad plans last summer, Flightglobal reported today that the airlines airline has compiled a presentation for major movie studios.
http://asia.cnet.com/crave/ipads-could-replace-paper-charts-in-planes-62207544.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)