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.

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.

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/

<iframe src="https://viewer.zoho.com/https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/urlview.do?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.futureairport.com%2Farticles%2F025_mar2011%2FFAI025_qa-changi.pdf&embed=true" frameborder="0" width="590" height="500"> </iframe>

Upgraded Seletar Airport will resume normal operations on Thursday

By Karamjit Kaur, Aviation Correspondent 

 

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.

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

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

Experimental test of airplane boarding methods

Experimental test of airplane boarding methods
Jason H. Steen
Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics, Batavia, IL
Jon Hotchkiss
Hotchkiss Industries, Sherman Oaks, CA


 Abstract
We report the results of an experimental comparison of dierent 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