[UPDATED 4 p.m. Eastern Time]
Airlines continued to cancel large numbers of flights today at airports in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C. and Boston.
Yesterday, as the blizzard moved up the East Coast, more than 3,000 departures and arrivals were scrubbed at the three New York airports, at Philadelphia and at Dulles, Washington Reagan and Baltimore-Washington. As of 4 p.m. Eastern time today, more than 2,500 additional departures and arrivals had been canceled at those airports, now including Boston.
That's a whole lot of flights (a minority of them were routed between affected airports and are thus counted twice, as both departures and arrivals) -- each one presumably booked full with passengers, that did not occur in a two-day period. At the start of the Christmas travel season, most of those passengers who didn't fly today and yesterday are now trying to re-book seats into a system that is already fully booked, because airplanes have been flying almost full for well over a year as airlines have shrunk capacity.
How do the airlines work out of this fix? My guess is, they don't. There are x-number of airplanes and x-number of seats (mostly already sold before the storm). At the airports this week, it's not going to be a very pretty sight.
The media weather hysterics have now settled down about the amount of the "white stuff," as so many of them quaintly refer to it, and taken to their beds in exhaustion of all of their cliches.
Meanwhile, as the Northeast "digs out," which is another cliche they love, it's time to pay attention to the airports. The Newark newspaper was reporting gamely last night that "more than 100" flights had been canceled at the hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport. Well, I guess that would be correct, since 412 flights were canceled there yesterday. You could look it up, and if you're a reporter, you should have.
According to data from Flightstats.com, here are today's cancellation numbers at the New York, Philly and Washington airports, and at Boston as of 4 p.m.
Newark -- 286 flights canceled.
JFK -- 475
LaGuardia -- 366
Philadelphia -- 486
Dulles -- 170
Reagan -- 212
Baltimore-Washington -- 135
Boston -- 312
###
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Massive Flight Cancellations in Northeast, and Making Some Tough Calls at Airline Headquarters
PHOTO: What are you smiling about, pal?
Flights were scrubbed from the boards in huge numbers at airports in the Mid-Atlantic states as a severe snowstorm moved up the East Coast.
By all current indications, air travel in the Northeast could be impacted for days, and the ripple effect will be felt on connections throughout the country. Airlines will be scrambling to get idled or displaced airplanes and crews rescheduled and repositioned -- and to re-accommodate passengers in a system that, even under normal conditions, has no slack built in.
So forget what I said the other day about there being no Christmas travel crunch. With tangles from today's snarls stretching into the early part of the week, there now will be a Christmas travel crunch. Tens of thousands of passengers are already looking to make new travel arrangements.
As of 7 p.m. Eastern time today, here were some of the numbers of cancellations, according to Flightstats.com:
--Reagan National: 463 arrivals and departures canceled of a total 531 scheduled for the day. Reagan is essentially shut to commercial traffic till tomorrow morning.
--Dulles: 493 canceled of 834 total scheduled.
--Baltimore-Washington: 450 out of 574.
--Philadelphia: 595 of 1,042.
--Newark: 412 out of 1,132.
--LaGuardia: 263 of 640.
--JFK: 407 of 1,170.
The storm was expected to hit the New York area tonight, but as of 7 p.m. Eastern time, less than an inch of snow had fallen, with temperatures around 25 degrees. So it's apparent that airlines were preemptively canceling flights at the New York airports well before any serious snow accumulation in the area.
[UPDATE: At 10 p.m. Eastern time, the National Weather Service was still predicting a significant amount of snow in blizzard conditions for the New York area overnight.]
On the now evidently small chance that that storm, after clobbering Washington and Philadelphia, peels off into the Atlantic tonight without clobbering Newark, Kennedy or LaGuardia, airlines are going to have some explaining to do about why they canceled so many flights into and out of the New York airports today.
On the other hand, the airlines can defend preemptive cancellations by saying, accurately, that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. The last thing the airlines want right now is publicity, in the nation's media capital, about passengers sitting stranded on tarmacs for hours on end, with pictures of little Susie desperately asleep on her Teddy Bear in a darkened idled cabin. If New York gets hit hard by a blizzard, and you're an airline, your smart play is maybe to keep as many of your planes out of New York as possible, on the bet that the weather reports are accurate. Then you sort it out as best as you can on Sunday and Monday.)
I do wish the airlines the best of luck in sorting this incipient mess out. At airlines' headquarters right now, some of the best logistical transportation managers in the world are working all night -- and all day tomorrow -- to get the trains, so to speak, running. I see them now. To me, it sounds like the unexplainabe thrill of running a big newspaper city-desk on a really big breaking story -- and then having to argue a day later with some male or female grammar schoolmarm on a news desk who insists that there is no such word as unexplainable, that it's inexplicable --- which is not really the same thing, is it, and I find the idea uneatable. not inedible.
One of these days I need to spend some time reporting on what these men and women at airline headquarters really do, with increasingly limited options, in a weather crisis like this. You and I get to quarterback their results in a couple of days, but they are making the tough calls at this moment.
Meanwhile, delays remain high at Atlanta and the ripple effect is hitting Chicago and other big hubs. Orlando, Miami and Fort Lauderdale are also reporting major delays because of heavy rain.
Most airlines have now put emergency change policies into effect, meaning you can change a flight in affected areas without paying the usual penalty fee. My advice: If you can stay out of the air for the next several days, do it.
By the way, the FAA's worthless (but supposedly real-time) flight-delays status page at this moment is showing no delays -- let alone cancellations -- at any of the nation's airports, even as chaos mounts. What planet is the FAA monitoring? Your tax dollars at work!
###
USA Loves Dumb Storm Headlines!
With a nasty, dangerous snowstorm lashing the East Coast, only USA Today could come up with a headline this utterly clueless:
Top News
winter:
Storm slows holiday shoppers
###
Top News
winter:
Storm slows holiday shoppers
###
No Christmas Travel Crunch, Per Se -- But Oops, Here Comes a 'Snow' Crunch
I don't need to inform anyone on the East Coast today that air travel is a mess because of a big storm that's expected to dump a ton of snow on the Northeast. It's only raining in Atlanta, and delays and cancellations are piling up. Orlando also is reporting mounting delays. The big Northeast airports, from Philly through New York and up to Boston, are experiencing mounting weather delays.
Our air-travel system has absolutely no slack in it. That means a plane sidelined by bad weather represents a planeload of passengers who will struggle to find seats on another flight, because all the planes are full and have been for a year -- and because the airlines have slashed capacity.
So a ripple effect occurs, and it will now be felt right into the start of the Christmas travel peak.
So please: Do plan ahead. Make sure that flight is on, and that you still have a seat. Arrive at the airports two hours early. If you have to park a car, check ahead to make sure there's a space.
I spend most of my time these days in southern Arizona, where it's always sunny and where I am learning to forget the misery of a snowstorm.
In the 2007 movie "You Kill Me," the opening scene shows Ben Kingsley as an alcoholic busted-valise of a Buffalo hit-man. Snow-shovel in hand, he stands at his front stoop contemplating the miserable chore of shoveling a path through thigh-high show. He gets a bottle of vodka and tosses it into the snow about five feet ahead, and then gamely shovels to that point, takes a swig, and tosses the bottle another five feet down the path, incentivizing himself, as it were.
Nothing better illustrates my own attitude toward heavy snow.
Safe travels. And hire a kid to shovel that snow.
###
Friday, December 18, 2009
There Was No Thanksgiving Travel 'Crush,' and There Won't Be One For Christmas
Attention credulous air-travel reporters who churn out the same formula stories on holiday travel, year after year after year.
As I pointed out before and after Thanksgiving, there was no travel crush in the air, despite all that media knee-jerking. During the Thanksgiving travel period, planes were full. Just as they were in the spring, summer and into the fall. That's because airlines are busy reducing seats flown -- off about 6 percent in November over the previous November. During the Thanksgiving period, travel delays were below average.
Want the actual numbers for November?
The Air Transport Association says today that 1 percent fewer passengers boarded domestic airlines in November compared with November of 2008, even though fares (which the ATA measures as the average price to fly one mile) dropped 6.4 percent.
Fewer passengers despite lower fares. There's your Thanksgiving travel "crunch?"
The worst news for domestic airlines is the steady drop in overall passenger revenue -- despite the sharp rise in revenues from things like checked bags and cancellation fees. The ATA estimates that average revenue was off 7 percent in November -- the 13th consecutive month in which revenue has dropped compared with the year-earlier month. The biggest declines in revenue on domestic carriers were on their trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes (and the collapse in demand for, or sharp fare reductions for, international premium-class seats business-class has a lot to do with that).
Still, there is nothing more stubborn than a canard. I'm already seeing travel stories warning about the Christmas crunch. Planes will be full! Plan ahead! Emergency, emergency!
Yeah, yeah. You could look it up. Planes have been full for well over a year, month in and month out. And fewer and fewer people are getting on them.
###
UK Court Blocks British Airways Strike
About a million passengers who already had bought tickets, and many others who had planned to fly British Airways over the Christmas and New Year holidays, evidently have a reprieve.
A British court, agreeing with British Airways that the strike vote by the union representing more than 13,000 BA flight attendants had "irregularities," issued an injunction barring the strike, which was set to begin next Tuesday and continue through Jan. 2. The union, obviously, is not happy with having the court step in.
Meanwhile, Gatwick, Luton and other airports in Britain are a mess today (and Heathrow operations are slowed). It snowed a little overnight.
###
A British court, agreeing with British Airways that the strike vote by the union representing more than 13,000 BA flight attendants had "irregularities," issued an injunction barring the strike, which was set to begin next Tuesday and continue through Jan. 2. The union, obviously, is not happy with having the court step in.
Meanwhile, Gatwick, Luton and other airports in Britain are a mess today (and Heathrow operations are slowed). It snowed a little overnight.
###
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Senator Schumer and the Flight Attendant
The usual media scolds and right-wing operatives are going all postal on Sen. Chuck Schumer, who seems to have riled a flight attendant on US Airways by not snapping off his cell-phone immediately upon orders, questioning her about it, and then muttering a not-nice word as she walked off. The word being "bitch."
Schumer has apologized for saying this word, which he did not say to the flight attendant.
By all accounts, Schumer uttered the word quietly to a Senate colleague in the next seat, and not to the aggrieved flight attendant. Bad on him for being rude, but it's notable that a Republican operative seated nearby ratted him out. The flight attendant never heard the word.
There are unanswered questions. It does not seem to be in dispute that the order to snap-shut the phone was given to Schumer before the cabin door closed. The flight attendant apparently insisted to the senator that no matter what the actual procedures were, flight crew orders were law and were to be followed without question. Period. This, evidently, is what Schumer was (unwisely, as it turns out) questioning.
We're all justifiably annoyed by cell-phone idiots on tarmac-parked planes who disregard the rules and continue on with their braying even after the cabin door has been closed, which we all understand to be the cut-off time. But it seems as if that is not what Schumer did.
I myself have noticed lately -- and so have many readers -- that some flight attendants have become cranky and bossy, and some seem to be making up rules as they go along. Yeah, they have tough jobs, which are getting tougher. But rudeness toward passengers has become a new air-travel problem.
I have always expressed deep sympathy for flight attendants, but really, some of them are out of control these days. Among the offenders, passive-aggressive males seem to be the worst, but more and more the occasional -- bad word uttered here, sotto voce! -- comes down the aisle, behaving rudely toward the paying customers for one supposed infraction or another. It has really become noticeable.
If Schumer broke the actual rules, he's deserves to be hammered in the media for being a jerk, If he did not, and was merely being pushed around by some cranked-up flight attendant on a power jag, I would say his quiet observation, directed not at the flight attendant but shared quietly with a colleague, impolite as it might have been, was accurate.
Airlines need to have a come-to-Jesus talk with some raging flight attendants and tell them this: If you can't stand your job and if you hate the passengers, when that cabin door is open, why not just go ahead and deplane?
Buh-bye.
###
Schumer has apologized for saying this word, which he did not say to the flight attendant.
By all accounts, Schumer uttered the word quietly to a Senate colleague in the next seat, and not to the aggrieved flight attendant. Bad on him for being rude, but it's notable that a Republican operative seated nearby ratted him out. The flight attendant never heard the word.
There are unanswered questions. It does not seem to be in dispute that the order to snap-shut the phone was given to Schumer before the cabin door closed. The flight attendant apparently insisted to the senator that no matter what the actual procedures were, flight crew orders were law and were to be followed without question. Period. This, evidently, is what Schumer was (unwisely, as it turns out) questioning.
We're all justifiably annoyed by cell-phone idiots on tarmac-parked planes who disregard the rules and continue on with their braying even after the cabin door has been closed, which we all understand to be the cut-off time. But it seems as if that is not what Schumer did.
I myself have noticed lately -- and so have many readers -- that some flight attendants have become cranky and bossy, and some seem to be making up rules as they go along. Yeah, they have tough jobs, which are getting tougher. But rudeness toward passengers has become a new air-travel problem.
I have always expressed deep sympathy for flight attendants, but really, some of them are out of control these days. Among the offenders, passive-aggressive males seem to be the worst, but more and more the occasional -- bad word uttered here, sotto voce! -- comes down the aisle, behaving rudely toward the paying customers for one supposed infraction or another. It has really become noticeable.
If Schumer broke the actual rules, he's deserves to be hammered in the media for being a jerk, If he did not, and was merely being pushed around by some cranked-up flight attendant on a power jag, I would say his quiet observation, directed not at the flight attendant but shared quietly with a colleague, impolite as it might have been, was accurate.
Airlines need to have a come-to-Jesus talk with some raging flight attendants and tell them this: If you can't stand your job and if you hate the passengers, when that cabin door is open, why not just go ahead and deplane?
Buh-bye.
###
Continental Latest Airline to Opt For In-Flight Wi-Fi
Continental Airlines, the laggard among major domestic airlines in deciding whether to install Internet Wi-Fi connectivity, said today that it chose Aircell's widely-used Gogo system. Starting in the second quarter of next year, Continental said it will offer Gogo service on its fleet of 21 Boeing 757-300 aircraft that primarily serve domestic routes.
The Gogo system runs off land-based towers and doesn't work on overseas flights. Competing systems like the one offered by Aircell's much-smaller competitor Row44 work off satellites, and thus can be used over oceans. Oddly, Row44's major domestic customer so far is mostly landlocked Southwest Airlines, which plans to roll out the system on its fleet of 737s. (Row44 claims it has superior connectivity and reliability; Gogo disputes that).
More than 600 aircraft flown by domestic airlines are now wired with Gogo. Delta Air Lines has been the leader, but American Airlines hasn't been far behind. AirTran and Virgin America now have their entire fleets wired. United, US Airways and Alaska Airlines and Air Canada are either slowly rolling out Gogo or plan to do so soon.
The costs for a connection vary, and many promotions are under way. Gogo service can cost up to $12.95 on some long-haul domestic flights, but the price is lower for shorter flights and for those using hand-held Wi-Fi devices, rather than laptops.
Continental said that it plans to offer the service from "$4.95 and up, based on length of flight." It didn't specify what "up" means. I'll get back to you on that.
Nor did Continental say whether the Gogo system will be rolled out to the rest of its mainline domestic fleet, or when.
Aircell has told me that it costs about $100,000 per plane to install the Gogo equipment. However, it is not clear how much of that cost has been paid by individual airlines, or whether some of the installation costs have been paid by Aircell itself -- a company financed by venture capital betting heavily on the not-sure-bet proposition that enough people will pay for the service to make it profitable.
To date, the "take rate," which is the term for the percentage of passengers who opt to pay, has been in the 5-7 percent range on average on most flights, I am told. That is below break-even levels, but supporters of in-flight Wi-Fi firmly believe that there is a growing market, driven mostly by the sharp increase in the number of hand-held wireless Wi-Fi devices being carried by fliers -- that will soon be solid enough to build a profitable industry for in-flight connectivity and for promotion of ancillary products such as in-flight marketing, including retail sales.
###
The Gogo system runs off land-based towers and doesn't work on overseas flights. Competing systems like the one offered by Aircell's much-smaller competitor Row44 work off satellites, and thus can be used over oceans. Oddly, Row44's major domestic customer so far is mostly landlocked Southwest Airlines, which plans to roll out the system on its fleet of 737s. (Row44 claims it has superior connectivity and reliability; Gogo disputes that).
More than 600 aircraft flown by domestic airlines are now wired with Gogo. Delta Air Lines has been the leader, but American Airlines hasn't been far behind. AirTran and Virgin America now have their entire fleets wired. United, US Airways and Alaska Airlines and Air Canada are either slowly rolling out Gogo or plan to do so soon.
The costs for a connection vary, and many promotions are under way. Gogo service can cost up to $12.95 on some long-haul domestic flights, but the price is lower for shorter flights and for those using hand-held Wi-Fi devices, rather than laptops.
Continental said that it plans to offer the service from "$4.95 and up, based on length of flight." It didn't specify what "up" means. I'll get back to you on that.
Nor did Continental say whether the Gogo system will be rolled out to the rest of its mainline domestic fleet, or when.
Aircell has told me that it costs about $100,000 per plane to install the Gogo equipment. However, it is not clear how much of that cost has been paid by individual airlines, or whether some of the installation costs have been paid by Aircell itself -- a company financed by venture capital betting heavily on the not-sure-bet proposition that enough people will pay for the service to make it profitable.
To date, the "take rate," which is the term for the percentage of passengers who opt to pay, has been in the 5-7 percent range on average on most flights, I am told. That is below break-even levels, but supporters of in-flight Wi-Fi firmly believe that there is a growing market, driven mostly by the sharp increase in the number of hand-held wireless Wi-Fi devices being carried by fliers -- that will soon be solid enough to build a profitable industry for in-flight connectivity and for promotion of ancillary products such as in-flight marketing, including retail sales.
###
British Airways, Union in Talks to Avert Christmas Strike
British Airways and the union for its more than 13,000 flight attendants are negotiating today in an attempt to revolve issues that led to an overwhelming vote for a 12-day strike scheduled to start Dec. 22.
Here's an update from the Guardian newspaper.
###
Here's an update from the Guardian newspaper.
###
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Delta, Predicting $1.1B Loss for '09, Sees Recent Uptick in Business Travel Demand, Talks of Need For More Industry 'Consolidation'
Delta Air Lines today said it expected to lose $1.1 billion for this year, partly because of bad bets on fuel hedges earlier in the year.
Executives at Delta, which is now the world's largest airline, told an investors conference today that trends are improving. For example, the "volume" of tickets sold to corporate clients rose 15 percent in recent weeks, Delta said, according to this Reuters report. (That does not mean that revenue from those tickets rose similarly, however.)
And again, we're hearing the "consolidation" mantra, and this from the airline that swallowed Northwest. Consolidation will be the airline story of 2010.
Delta's CEO, Richard Anderson said "over time, more consolidation will help this business model evolve to a return on capital."
It will also raise fares and reduce choices, of course.
###
Executives at Delta, which is now the world's largest airline, told an investors conference today that trends are improving. For example, the "volume" of tickets sold to corporate clients rose 15 percent in recent weeks, Delta said, according to this Reuters report. (That does not mean that revenue from those tickets rose similarly, however.)
And again, we're hearing the "consolidation" mantra, and this from the airline that swallowed Northwest. Consolidation will be the airline story of 2010.
Delta's CEO, Richard Anderson said "over time, more consolidation will help this business model evolve to a return on capital."
It will also raise fares and reduce choices, of course.
###
British Airways Trying to Head Off Christmas Strike
British Airways is in court today in what it calls "an attempt to protect
customers from the massive stress and disruption threatened by Unite’s
decision to call a 12-day strike from December 22." Unite is the union representing more than 13,000 flight attendants and other employees.
BA is seeking an injunction to block the strike, set for Dec. 22. The airline is challenging the strike vote, claiming "irregularities" in balloting.
"As a backup to the legal action, British Airways managers have been
establishing which cabin crew might wish to work normally during the strike
period," a statement by the airline said.
A strike would cost BA about $49 million a day.
Here's an update on the situation from the Times of London today.
###
customers from the massive stress and disruption threatened by Unite’s
decision to call a 12-day strike from December 22." Unite is the union representing more than 13,000 flight attendants and other employees.
BA is seeking an injunction to block the strike, set for Dec. 22. The airline is challenging the strike vote, claiming "irregularities" in balloting.
"As a backup to the legal action, British Airways managers have been
establishing which cabin crew might wish to work normally during the strike
period," a statement by the airline said.
A strike would cost BA about $49 million a day.
Here's an update on the situation from the Times of London today.
###
With Another Bad Financial Year Ahead, World Airlines Look to More Consolidation
The indicators are clearing up for next year it's apparent now that world airlines are going to lose more money in 2010 than had been anticipated.
The International Air Transport Association today said world airlines are likely to lose about $5.6 billion in 2010, a figure considerably higher that the previous early forecast of $3.8 billion. IATA maintains its forecast of a $11 billion loss for 2009.
“We are ending an annus horribilis that brings to a close the 10 challenging years of an aviation decennis horribilis. Between 2000 and 2009, airlines lost $49.1 billion," said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s director general, tossing around both the Latin and the numerus horribilis.
“The worst is likely behind us," he said. Demand is improving and airlines are cutting non-fuel costs, he said.
On the other hand, I would note, airline employees are pushing back on cost-cuts, as demonstrated by the looming Christmas holiday strike by flight attendants at British Airways, which stands to take a financial clobbering not factored into current forecasts.
Plus, oil prices are edging up again, though airline cost-cutting is mitigating the full impact. IATA is forecasting an average price of $75 a barrel next year, up from the average of about $62 that is expected for this year. And the Air Transport Association in the U.S. is sounding a warning about speculation in the oil market.
Meanwhile, airlines are still unable to boost prices to offset costs. While a total of 2.28 billion passengers are expected to fly in 2010, bringing demand back in line with the peak recorded in 2007, though with $30 billion less in revenue, as fares continue to remain low by comparison with 2007. Passenger revenue, which fell 12% this year, is not expected to grow much next year, when previous aircraft orders will add 2.8 percent to total capacity.
"On top of this, corporate travel buyers have adjusted their budgets to reflect lower premium fare levels," IATA said.
The days of those $11,000 business class fares between New York and London are over.
"Tough times continue," said Bisignani.
And as I have been saying all year, something's gotta give.
"The industry is structurally out of balance," Bisignani said. He called it "hyper fragmentyed."
And that is another indication that the industry intends to consolidate further, mostly through the kinds of route and alliance collaborations that are really quasi-mergers.
“Consolidation is the great hope for the industry. The round of consolidation experienced since this horrible decade began is a step in the right direction. But it has been confined within political borders as a result of ownership restrictions in the archaic bilateral system. The industry cannot afford the mounting losses of the status quo. The next decade must facilitate consolidation,” Bisignani said.
###
The International Air Transport Association today said world airlines are likely to lose about $5.6 billion in 2010, a figure considerably higher that the previous early forecast of $3.8 billion. IATA maintains its forecast of a $11 billion loss for 2009.
“We are ending an annus horribilis that brings to a close the 10 challenging years of an aviation decennis horribilis. Between 2000 and 2009, airlines lost $49.1 billion," said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s director general, tossing around both the Latin and the numerus horribilis.
“The worst is likely behind us," he said. Demand is improving and airlines are cutting non-fuel costs, he said.
On the other hand, I would note, airline employees are pushing back on cost-cuts, as demonstrated by the looming Christmas holiday strike by flight attendants at British Airways, which stands to take a financial clobbering not factored into current forecasts.
Plus, oil prices are edging up again, though airline cost-cutting is mitigating the full impact. IATA is forecasting an average price of $75 a barrel next year, up from the average of about $62 that is expected for this year. And the Air Transport Association in the U.S. is sounding a warning about speculation in the oil market.
Meanwhile, airlines are still unable to boost prices to offset costs. While a total of 2.28 billion passengers are expected to fly in 2010, bringing demand back in line with the peak recorded in 2007, though with $30 billion less in revenue, as fares continue to remain low by comparison with 2007. Passenger revenue, which fell 12% this year, is not expected to grow much next year, when previous aircraft orders will add 2.8 percent to total capacity.
"On top of this, corporate travel buyers have adjusted their budgets to reflect lower premium fare levels," IATA said.
The days of those $11,000 business class fares between New York and London are over.
"Tough times continue," said Bisignani.
And as I have been saying all year, something's gotta give.
"The industry is structurally out of balance," Bisignani said. He called it "hyper fragmentyed."
And that is another indication that the industry intends to consolidate further, mostly through the kinds of route and alliance collaborations that are really quasi-mergers.
“Consolidation is the great hope for the industry. The round of consolidation experienced since this horrible decade began is a step in the right direction. But it has been confined within political borders as a result of ownership restrictions in the archaic bilateral system. The industry cannot afford the mounting losses of the status quo. The next decade must facilitate consolidation,” Bisignani said.
###
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Christmas Strike Likely At British Airways [Updated]
British Airways flight attendants voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike starting Dec. 22.
According to this account in tomorrow's Times of London, travel bookers are saying some customers making holiday plans are exhibiting the "Abba affect" -- that is, "Anything But British Airways.'
###
According to this account in tomorrow's Times of London, travel bookers are saying some customers making holiday plans are exhibiting the "Abba affect" -- that is, "Anything But British Airways.'
###
Friday, December 11, 2009
The Number of Americans With Passports Is Surging, There Are A380s With 840 Seats On the Way, and Other Travel Tidbits ...
I always look forward to the chatty eight-times-a-year trans-Atlantic travel reports by Donald N. Martin & Co., the travel promotion company. The current one, forwarded by Hans C. Friis-Jacobsen and Neil S. Martin, the managing partners of the firm, is as usual full of interesting factoids, comments and even detailed charts for us serious travel geeks.
I hope they don't mind me sharing the whole report.
Among the highlights:
--Overall trans-Atlantic traffic fell in November for the 13th consecutive month. But seat capacity was down an average 6.1 percent, twice the percentage of decline for passenger traffic.
--The number of Americans holding passports continues to rise, with a record one third of the U.S. population now having a passport. "Since 2003, the number of passport-holding Americans has surged by more than 35 million -- an extraordinary 60 percent -- to 94.5 million (not counting passport cards)," says the report. (This gives lie to the canard, frequently repeated in European media, that a shockingly small number of Americans hold passports.)
--Overall U.S. domestic capacity is down 6.9 percent for 2009, the largest annual percent reduction since a 12-percent cut in 1942, the report says, quoting the Air Transport Association. OAG, the airline schedule publisher, has previously said that overall U.S. domestic capacity has been reduced by over 20 percent since 2000. (That's the equivalent of losing an entire major airline's capacity.)
--And this one was inevitable: While airlines currently flying new super-jumbo A380 double-deckers configure them in the 450-550-seat range in multiple classes (Air France's new A380 has 538 seats, for example), the giant Airbus airplane is actually certified to hold 855 passengers in an-all coach configuration. Sure enough, one airline, Air Austral, based in the French overseas region of Reunion in the Indian Ocean, has ordered two A380 configured in all-coach settings with 840 seats each. Delivery is scheduled for 2014. And just wait till one of those suckers gets diverted to, say, Mayotte or Lyon.
Zut alors.
###
I hope they don't mind me sharing the whole report.
Among the highlights:
--Overall trans-Atlantic traffic fell in November for the 13th consecutive month. But seat capacity was down an average 6.1 percent, twice the percentage of decline for passenger traffic.
--The number of Americans holding passports continues to rise, with a record one third of the U.S. population now having a passport. "Since 2003, the number of passport-holding Americans has surged by more than 35 million -- an extraordinary 60 percent -- to 94.5 million (not counting passport cards)," says the report. (This gives lie to the canard, frequently repeated in European media, that a shockingly small number of Americans hold passports.)
--Overall U.S. domestic capacity is down 6.9 percent for 2009, the largest annual percent reduction since a 12-percent cut in 1942, the report says, quoting the Air Transport Association. OAG, the airline schedule publisher, has previously said that overall U.S. domestic capacity has been reduced by over 20 percent since 2000. (That's the equivalent of losing an entire major airline's capacity.)
--And this one was inevitable: While airlines currently flying new super-jumbo A380 double-deckers configure them in the 450-550-seat range in multiple classes (Air France's new A380 has 538 seats, for example), the giant Airbus airplane is actually certified to hold 855 passengers in an-all coach configuration. Sure enough, one airline, Air Austral, based in the French overseas region of Reunion in the Indian Ocean, has ordered two A380 configured in all-coach settings with 840 seats each. Delivery is scheduled for 2014. And just wait till one of those suckers gets diverted to, say, Mayotte or Lyon.
Zut alors.
###
'Libel Tourism' Is Not Just a Problem in the UK ...
The New York Times today has a story out of London that summarizes a hard-hitting series of recent stories in the Times of London about Britain's disgraceful libel courts.
The story describes the issue in the UK in good detail, and reports that political movement is under way in Britain to reform libel laws that encourage aggrieved foreigners to come to England to sue Americans for libel, on charges that never would stand up in a U.S. court.
But there's a new wrinkle being inadvertently introduced by any notion that the problem is now being tackled. That's because these libel cases against Americans for things said or written in the U.S. are turning up elsewhere in the world, and not just in the UK (which has, however, led the way).
Largely in response to the UK "libel tourism" disgrace, Sen. Arlen Spector introduced a bill, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009, that would prohibit enforcement in the U.S. of libel judgments obtained against Americans in other countries, in cases that would be inimical to the U.S. First Amendment. Spector's bill prominently cited a libel case lost in Britain by Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York scholar who had been sued by a Saudi billionaire she mentioned in a book she wrote on how money is funneled into terrorism, "Funding Evil."
Spector's bill, S.449, co-sponsored by Sens. Schumer, Lieberman and Wyden, has been stalled in the Judiciary Committee all year. But only last week, some staffers of Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy finally joined efforts by Specter's legal staff to get behind the the languishing bill and possibly move it out of committee.
Now, some wind is going out of those sails -- because of the idea now spreading that the "libel tourism" problem, a phenomenon in Britain, is likely to be addressed and fixed by the British Parliament.
For example, here, rolling up its sleeves, comes the esteemed Scripps Howard News Service to muck the stalls today.
"England finally seems to have wearied over being the favored destination of libel tourists and, according to The New York Times, is considering overhauling its laughably outdated and one-sided libel and defamation laws," says an editorial sent out today by the Scripps Howard News Service. The sages at Scripps Howard do approve of the Free Speech Protection Act, in principle -- but they also note primly that "it would be best if England made it unnecessary for the Senate to act."
Stop the presses! What's "laughably outdated" is the notion that this is just a problem in Britain.
It so happens that "libel tourism" cases against American citizens are occurring in other countries besides Britain, including Ireland and in Canada (where Paul Williams, an American author, is being sued by a Canadian college for some things he wrote in the U.S. about a terrorist cell, on allegations that would never stand up in a U.S. court. The last time I spoke with Paul, he said he and his wife had spent over $100,000 so far on his defense in Canada.)
And, let's see, where else?
Oh, right: Brazil! I, of course, am being sued in Brazil for allegedly libeling the entire nation by my critical (and wholly accurate) reporting and commentary on the way Brazilian authorities botched the investigation of the horrific 2006 mid-air collision that killed 154 over the Amazon (I was one of seven survivors) -- and scapegoated the two American pilots on criminal charges that still stand, even after impartial investigations concluded that errors by Brazilian air-traffic control were the probable cause of the accident.
The Brazil suit against me was filed by a relative of one of those killed, a woman I never even heard of until the suit was announced, and certainly never wrote a word about. She claims she "feels discriminated against" by my reporting on Brazil authorities' xenophobic behavior after the crash, and on the shaky condition of air safety over the remote Amazon.
The lawsuit is based on the assertion that an insult to the "honor" of Brazil constitutes an actionable injury to each and every citizen of Brazil. It claims, in a series of jaw-dropping falsehoods, that I insulted those killed in the accident by questioning Brazilian air safety, and that I called the nation of Brazil bad names such as "most idiot of all idiots."
The Brazilians retained the New York law firm of Grant, Herrmann, Schwartz & Klinger to serve me with the papers at my home in New Jersey, and to try to enforce the Brazilian judgment against me -- which seeks about $300,000 in damages from me and demands an apology in the New York Times and numerous other news organizations, as well as in a separate blog I started right after the crash (and discontinued in Jan. 2008) to report on the aftermath.
If these kinds of cases stand in Brazil or Canada (or North Korea or Iran or Somalia or Switzerland or any other country that feels its "honor" has been impugned by something written or said in the U.S.) -- and if American citizens are subject to foreign libel or criminal judgments in such cases -- the free speech protections of the First Amendment cease to exist.
And the threat is to anyone who says or writes anything -- not just authors and journalists, but bloggers, scientists publishing papers, travel reviewers, comedians, sports writers, even casual users of social networking sites.
So it's good news that England, which is a dependably sensible country, looks as if it might address the problem that has made it an international legal disgrace.
But Congress still needs to act, because these cases are spreading and evolving. The libel tourism devil is busy all over the world, and in places where sense often flies out the window when emotion and politics barge through the door with writs in hand.
###
The story describes the issue in the UK in good detail, and reports that political movement is under way in Britain to reform libel laws that encourage aggrieved foreigners to come to England to sue Americans for libel, on charges that never would stand up in a U.S. court.
But there's a new wrinkle being inadvertently introduced by any notion that the problem is now being tackled. That's because these libel cases against Americans for things said or written in the U.S. are turning up elsewhere in the world, and not just in the UK (which has, however, led the way).
Largely in response to the UK "libel tourism" disgrace, Sen. Arlen Spector introduced a bill, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009, that would prohibit enforcement in the U.S. of libel judgments obtained against Americans in other countries, in cases that would be inimical to the U.S. First Amendment. Spector's bill prominently cited a libel case lost in Britain by Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York scholar who had been sued by a Saudi billionaire she mentioned in a book she wrote on how money is funneled into terrorism, "Funding Evil."
Spector's bill, S.449, co-sponsored by Sens. Schumer, Lieberman and Wyden, has been stalled in the Judiciary Committee all year. But only last week, some staffers of Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy finally joined efforts by Specter's legal staff to get behind the the languishing bill and possibly move it out of committee.
Now, some wind is going out of those sails -- because of the idea now spreading that the "libel tourism" problem, a phenomenon in Britain, is likely to be addressed and fixed by the British Parliament.
For example, here, rolling up its sleeves, comes the esteemed Scripps Howard News Service to muck the stalls today.
"England finally seems to have wearied over being the favored destination of libel tourists and, according to The New York Times, is considering overhauling its laughably outdated and one-sided libel and defamation laws," says an editorial sent out today by the Scripps Howard News Service. The sages at Scripps Howard do approve of the Free Speech Protection Act, in principle -- but they also note primly that "it would be best if England made it unnecessary for the Senate to act."
Stop the presses! What's "laughably outdated" is the notion that this is just a problem in Britain.
It so happens that "libel tourism" cases against American citizens are occurring in other countries besides Britain, including Ireland and in Canada (where Paul Williams, an American author, is being sued by a Canadian college for some things he wrote in the U.S. about a terrorist cell, on allegations that would never stand up in a U.S. court. The last time I spoke with Paul, he said he and his wife had spent over $100,000 so far on his defense in Canada.)
And, let's see, where else?
Oh, right: Brazil! I, of course, am being sued in Brazil for allegedly libeling the entire nation by my critical (and wholly accurate) reporting and commentary on the way Brazilian authorities botched the investigation of the horrific 2006 mid-air collision that killed 154 over the Amazon (I was one of seven survivors) -- and scapegoated the two American pilots on criminal charges that still stand, even after impartial investigations concluded that errors by Brazilian air-traffic control were the probable cause of the accident.
The Brazil suit against me was filed by a relative of one of those killed, a woman I never even heard of until the suit was announced, and certainly never wrote a word about. She claims she "feels discriminated against" by my reporting on Brazil authorities' xenophobic behavior after the crash, and on the shaky condition of air safety over the remote Amazon.
The lawsuit is based on the assertion that an insult to the "honor" of Brazil constitutes an actionable injury to each and every citizen of Brazil. It claims, in a series of jaw-dropping falsehoods, that I insulted those killed in the accident by questioning Brazilian air safety, and that I called the nation of Brazil bad names such as "most idiot of all idiots."
The Brazilians retained the New York law firm of Grant, Herrmann, Schwartz & Klinger to serve me with the papers at my home in New Jersey, and to try to enforce the Brazilian judgment against me -- which seeks about $300,000 in damages from me and demands an apology in the New York Times and numerous other news organizations, as well as in a separate blog I started right after the crash (and discontinued in Jan. 2008) to report on the aftermath.
If these kinds of cases stand in Brazil or Canada (or North Korea or Iran or Somalia or Switzerland or any other country that feels its "honor" has been impugned by something written or said in the U.S.) -- and if American citizens are subject to foreign libel or criminal judgments in such cases -- the free speech protections of the First Amendment cease to exist.
And the threat is to anyone who says or writes anything -- not just authors and journalists, but bloggers, scientists publishing papers, travel reviewers, comedians, sports writers, even casual users of social networking sites.
So it's good news that England, which is a dependably sensible country, looks as if it might address the problem that has made it an international legal disgrace.
But Congress still needs to act, because these cases are spreading and evolving. The libel tourism devil is busy all over the world, and in places where sense often flies out the window when emotion and politics barge through the door with writs in hand.
###
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Continental Is Latest Airline to Diss Lower-Level Elite Status Members
I’m just worn out by the drivel that comes every day from airlines, which keep watering down perks for lower and middle-level elite-status loyalty members. And do so with patently baloney-ridden announcements like the one we Continental elite status members found in our e-mail in-boxes tonight. Who in the world do they think they’re kidding as they alienate their loyalty base in these lunges for the always small, now shrinking, tip-top of the market?
(Obviously, they will reply, and with some degree of accuracy, that’s where the dough is, and any dope can look at the numbers and see that we need the dough. OK, I then counter, stop telling me that silver or gold elite status matters. Or, more logically, probably I should stop worrying about elite status loyalty altogether.)
Also, I should add, part of the rationale for the Continental move is that it needs to match up status levels to mesh with its new best friend alliance partner United. So it’s complicated.
Anyway, read it and weep unless you’re at the top:
***
FROM CONTINENTAL:
"We are pleased to announce these upcoming OnePass Elite benefits effective for earning Jan. 1, 2010:
System-wide Upgrades
Platinum Elite members who earn at least 100,000 Elite Qualification Miles (EQMs) or 120 Elite Qualification Points (EQPs) will earn four, one-way electronic System-wide Upgrade certificates. These certificates can be used in conjunction with any published fare on Continental, Continental Micronesia or Copa Airlines flights and are not subject to additional fees.
Learn more about System-wide Upgrades.
New Elite level — OnePass Presidential Platinum Elite
Presidential Platinum is a new invitation-only Elite tier designed to reward Continental’s top Platinum Elite members with some exciting new benefits. Members who achieve this level will be given all the benefits of a Platinum Elite member, plus top priority in Elite Upgrade recognition and flight standby, a dedicated VIP phone line and an annual fee waiver on the Continental Airlines Presidential PlusSM World MasterCard card subject to credit approval. The Presidential Plus card is available to members residing in the mainland U.S. and Alaska.
Learn more about Presidential Platinum Elite status.
We look forward to rewarding our Elite members with these new benefits, which will be available for redemption and fulfillment mid-year 2010.
Sincerely,
Mark Bergsrud
Sr. Vice President, Marketing Programs and Distribution
*$30,000 is the inaugural spend threshold for 2010. In subsequent years, this threshold may change in order to preserve the exclusivity of this program."
###
(Obviously, they will reply, and with some degree of accuracy, that’s where the dough is, and any dope can look at the numbers and see that we need the dough. OK, I then counter, stop telling me that silver or gold elite status matters. Or, more logically, probably I should stop worrying about elite status loyalty altogether.)
Also, I should add, part of the rationale for the Continental move is that it needs to match up status levels to mesh with its new best friend alliance partner United. So it’s complicated.
Anyway, read it and weep unless you’re at the top:
***
FROM CONTINENTAL:
"We are pleased to announce these upcoming OnePass Elite benefits effective for earning Jan. 1, 2010:
System-wide Upgrades
Platinum Elite members who earn at least 100,000 Elite Qualification Miles (EQMs) or 120 Elite Qualification Points (EQPs) will earn four, one-way electronic System-wide Upgrade certificates. These certificates can be used in conjunction with any published fare on Continental, Continental Micronesia or Copa Airlines flights and are not subject to additional fees.
Learn more about System-wide Upgrades.
New Elite level — OnePass Presidential Platinum Elite
Presidential Platinum is a new invitation-only Elite tier designed to reward Continental’s top Platinum Elite members with some exciting new benefits. Members who achieve this level will be given all the benefits of a Platinum Elite member, plus top priority in Elite Upgrade recognition and flight standby, a dedicated VIP phone line and an annual fee waiver on the Continental Airlines Presidential PlusSM World MasterCard card subject to credit approval. The Presidential Plus card is available to members residing in the mainland U.S. and Alaska.
Learn more about Presidential Platinum Elite status.
We look forward to rewarding our Elite members with these new benefits, which will be available for redemption and fulfillment mid-year 2010.
Sincerely,
Mark Bergsrud
Sr. Vice President, Marketing Programs and Distribution
*$30,000 is the inaugural spend threshold for 2010. In subsequent years, this threshold may change in order to preserve the exclusivity of this program."
###
Snow and Wind: A Bad Day Ahead for Air Travel
I'm in the Sonoran desert of southern Arizona and the other night a hellacious windstorm roared through, the front of some very bad weather in a very big hurry to get somewhere else.
Which it obviously has done. In Chicago today, they're expecting wind gusts of 25 miles an hour, and up to 35 mph tonight, along with rain, snow and ice. Same thing tomorrow.
Those little red dots are popping up on the FlightStats.com airport map. Flights are being canceled. At O'Hare at 9 a.m. Central, more than 200 flights had already been scrubbed (out of a total 2300 scheduled arrivals and departures). At Minneapolis, about 100 cancellations were already on the board. Milwaukee and Toronto were also reporting big delays and mounting cancellations. At the same time, high winds are affecting operations at Newark and LaGuardia.
Given the ripple effect and the dire weather forecast, especially for the Midwest, this shapes up as a real good day to find a way to stay out of the airports.
###
Which it obviously has done. In Chicago today, they're expecting wind gusts of 25 miles an hour, and up to 35 mph tonight, along with rain, snow and ice. Same thing tomorrow.
Those little red dots are popping up on the FlightStats.com airport map. Flights are being canceled. At O'Hare at 9 a.m. Central, more than 200 flights had already been scrubbed (out of a total 2300 scheduled arrivals and departures). At Minneapolis, about 100 cancellations were already on the board. Milwaukee and Toronto were also reporting big delays and mounting cancellations. At the same time, high winds are affecting operations at Newark and LaGuardia.
Given the ripple effect and the dire weather forecast, especially for the Midwest, this shapes up as a real good day to find a way to stay out of the airports.
###
Monday, December 07, 2009
The Person You Love .. At Airport Security.
I never brag. I'm just an aging newspaperman in a busted-valise industry.
My business-travel column in the New York Times has run weekly for almost 11 years -- but I am awfully proud of the first four or five paragraphs in my column in tomorrow's paper (which is difficult, as usual, to find on the newspaper's Web site.)
I teared up seeing this, writing it and, tonight, even reading it. This, I thought, is the nation that won the Battle of Midway six months after Pearl Harbor. And here were two once-young lovers, after all of these years, unable to protect each other's simple dignity in some crummy joint with this asinine name,Newark "Liberty" International Airport, where an old man and an old woman felt so powerless to even communicate with one another.
###
Just in case the link doesn't work, here's a paste-up of my column. As I said, it's the first couple of paragraphs that matter:
***
By JOE SHARKEY
Published: December 7, 2009
The man looked old enough to have gone ashore on D-Day, and that thought haunted me. He was ordered to stand behind a security partition while a security screener worked over a frail woman bent in a wheelchair.
“Your wife?” I asked.
He nodded but did not take his eyes off her. As the screener ran the wand up her legs, the elderly woman glanced anxiously at her husband, and you thought how many years — 50 or more? — they had spent looking after each other. Transportation Security Administration agents stood around idly in their crisp blue shirts at security gates at the airport in Newark, but the screener worked energetically, poking and prodding and patting every inch of the body of the woman in the wheelchair, as if she were a suspect just dragged out of a cave in Afghanistan.
The screener roughly turned the woman’s palm upward and swabbed it with a chemical to check for explosives. Beside me the man stiffened. “I suppose they have to be careful,” he said. Finally, his wife was wheeled out to join him.
As yet another busy travel season approaches, how many times will we all witness sad scenes like this, which make you question the common sense of many security procedures. Watching screeners confiscate Christmas snow globes, bags of frozen tomato sauce, nearly spent toothpaste tubes, how many of us will have this thought: Are they making this stuff up as they go along? Once they X-rayed and intimately patted that woman in the wheelchair, what was the point of swabbing her for explosives?
Readers often write about perceived security absurdities. One women said her pumpkin pie was confiscated, on the ground that pumpkin pie contained gel-like material. Caitlin Chaffee, concerned about “inconsistencies,” wrote that at one security checkpoint, “I even had an orange confiscated, because they said it was a liquid of more than three ounces.”
The Homeland Security Department recently reminded travelers that liquids and gels could be carried on only in “three-ounce containers” that all fit in a quart-size zipper bag. But even that was slightly incorrect. For some time now, the maximum container size has actually been 3.4 ounces, in a nod to the European Union’s insistence that the standard should conform to the metric system (3.4 ounces equals 100 milliliters).
The T.S.A. says the limits on liquids and gels are based on chemistry, because such small volumes make it virtually impossible to assemble explosives on a plane. On the other hand, a separate T.S.A. regulation says that “travelers with disabilities and medical conditions” are “not limited in the amount of volume” of liquids or gels they may carry, including “items used to augment the body for medical or cosmetic reasons,” including “bras or shells containing gels, saline solution or other liquids.”
This is not to say that people with medical needs should have to fly without vital liquids or gels, but rather to underscore the inconsistencies, sometimes understandable, often infuriating, that we all face at the airport. A better effort is needed — and perhaps we should start here, with readers’ suggestions — to require airlines and security personnel to get the rules straight and to use more common sense in their application.
That includes some strange rules enforced in flight in the name of “safety.” As I have mentioned in several columns, some airlines had been instructing passengers that, based on Federal Aviation Administration safety rules, nothing could be placed in seat pockets — not even eyeglasses. In the commotion that ensued, the F.A.A. issued a notice on Nov. 12 to “clarify” that, saying small items not exceeding three pounds could be placed in the pockets.
SkyWest Airlines, which had been enforcing a total ban, immediately changed its policy to comply. But on Southwest Airlines, where the ban was sometimes enforced and sometimes not, evidently not all flight attendants got the word.
“I had two flights on Southwest this week,” Stephen Meltzer wrote the other day, and the flight attendants “on both flights making the safety announcements were very stern in telling us that nothing could be placed in the pockets.”
Southwest has now also clarified that. The F.A.A. “asks the airlines to take a common sense approach to items in the seat-back pocket,” said Whitney Eichinger, a spokeswoman for Southwest. “Personal items are allowed in the seat-back pocket, but the heaviest items must be secured.”
Let’s hear it for common sense.
###
My business-travel column in the New York Times has run weekly for almost 11 years -- but I am awfully proud of the first four or five paragraphs in my column in tomorrow's paper (which is difficult, as usual, to find on the newspaper's Web site.)
I teared up seeing this, writing it and, tonight, even reading it. This, I thought, is the nation that won the Battle of Midway six months after Pearl Harbor. And here were two once-young lovers, after all of these years, unable to protect each other's simple dignity in some crummy joint with this asinine name,Newark "Liberty" International Airport, where an old man and an old woman felt so powerless to even communicate with one another.
###
Just in case the link doesn't work, here's a paste-up of my column. As I said, it's the first couple of paragraphs that matter:
***
By JOE SHARKEY
Published: December 7, 2009
The man looked old enough to have gone ashore on D-Day, and that thought haunted me. He was ordered to stand behind a security partition while a security screener worked over a frail woman bent in a wheelchair.
“Your wife?” I asked.
He nodded but did not take his eyes off her. As the screener ran the wand up her legs, the elderly woman glanced anxiously at her husband, and you thought how many years — 50 or more? — they had spent looking after each other. Transportation Security Administration agents stood around idly in their crisp blue shirts at security gates at the airport in Newark, but the screener worked energetically, poking and prodding and patting every inch of the body of the woman in the wheelchair, as if she were a suspect just dragged out of a cave in Afghanistan.
The screener roughly turned the woman’s palm upward and swabbed it with a chemical to check for explosives. Beside me the man stiffened. “I suppose they have to be careful,” he said. Finally, his wife was wheeled out to join him.
As yet another busy travel season approaches, how many times will we all witness sad scenes like this, which make you question the common sense of many security procedures. Watching screeners confiscate Christmas snow globes, bags of frozen tomato sauce, nearly spent toothpaste tubes, how many of us will have this thought: Are they making this stuff up as they go along? Once they X-rayed and intimately patted that woman in the wheelchair, what was the point of swabbing her for explosives?
Readers often write about perceived security absurdities. One women said her pumpkin pie was confiscated, on the ground that pumpkin pie contained gel-like material. Caitlin Chaffee, concerned about “inconsistencies,” wrote that at one security checkpoint, “I even had an orange confiscated, because they said it was a liquid of more than three ounces.”
The Homeland Security Department recently reminded travelers that liquids and gels could be carried on only in “three-ounce containers” that all fit in a quart-size zipper bag. But even that was slightly incorrect. For some time now, the maximum container size has actually been 3.4 ounces, in a nod to the European Union’s insistence that the standard should conform to the metric system (3.4 ounces equals 100 milliliters).
The T.S.A. says the limits on liquids and gels are based on chemistry, because such small volumes make it virtually impossible to assemble explosives on a plane. On the other hand, a separate T.S.A. regulation says that “travelers with disabilities and medical conditions” are “not limited in the amount of volume” of liquids or gels they may carry, including “items used to augment the body for medical or cosmetic reasons,” including “bras or shells containing gels, saline solution or other liquids.”
This is not to say that people with medical needs should have to fly without vital liquids or gels, but rather to underscore the inconsistencies, sometimes understandable, often infuriating, that we all face at the airport. A better effort is needed — and perhaps we should start here, with readers’ suggestions — to require airlines and security personnel to get the rules straight and to use more common sense in their application.
That includes some strange rules enforced in flight in the name of “safety.” As I have mentioned in several columns, some airlines had been instructing passengers that, based on Federal Aviation Administration safety rules, nothing could be placed in seat pockets — not even eyeglasses. In the commotion that ensued, the F.A.A. issued a notice on Nov. 12 to “clarify” that, saying small items not exceeding three pounds could be placed in the pockets.
SkyWest Airlines, which had been enforcing a total ban, immediately changed its policy to comply. But on Southwest Airlines, where the ban was sometimes enforced and sometimes not, evidently not all flight attendants got the word.
“I had two flights on Southwest this week,” Stephen Meltzer wrote the other day, and the flight attendants “on both flights making the safety announcements were very stern in telling us that nothing could be placed in the pockets.”
Southwest has now also clarified that. The F.A.A. “asks the airlines to take a common sense approach to items in the seat-back pocket,” said Whitney Eichinger, a spokeswoman for Southwest. “Personal items are allowed in the seat-back pocket, but the heaviest items must be secured.”
Let’s hear it for common sense.
###
Friday, December 04, 2009
Heads Up: It's Snowing in Houston
Operations at the grandly named George Bush Houston Intercontinental Airport are being affected today by snow, which is expected to accumulate to about an inch.
[UPDATE 6.30 pm Central time: Ice is setting in and IAH is a mess. A third of today's 1,554 arrivals and departures have been canceled, according to FlightStats.com
That means operations won't return to normal for a day or more.]
Expressjet accounted for more than half of the cancellations, by the way.
###
[UPDATE 6.30 pm Central time: Ice is setting in and IAH is a mess. A third of today's 1,554 arrivals and departures have been canceled, according to FlightStats.com
That means operations won't return to normal for a day or more.]
Expressjet accounted for more than half of the cancellations, by the way.
###
'Whatever You Do, Don't Dis Brazil'
Patrick Smith, a pilot for a major airline and the "Ask the Pilot" columnist for Salon, is always a sensible and informative voice on issues related to air travel and aviation in general.
He is also a stand-up guy, as evidenced by his column today on the libel suit against me on the ridiculous charge that I offended the "honor" of Brazil by my reporting and commentary, in the mainstream media and on my personal blog, about air safety and justice in Brazil after the horrific 2006 mid-air collision over the Amazon.
(That blog, www.sharkeyonbrazil.blogspot.com, went inactive in January 2008 because I said all I thought I needed to say about lax air safety over the Amazon and the terrible way the Brazilian authorities handled an investigation into a crash that killed 154 people. I was one of seven survivors.)
I've been somewhat dismayed in recent months by the utter lack of interest in this weird but important case shown by self-styled U.S. media watchdogs such as the Poynter Institute's Romenesko media site, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Columbia Journalism Review -- whose editors did not even deign to reply to my e-mails or phone calls. To me, it's been a lesson in the dangers of "kept" journalism, where subsidized watchdogs behave more like poodles, yapping at the mailman, cowering at the burglar.
On the other hand, the Brazil case has been taken up by major First Amendment attorneys and by staffers in the offices of Sens. Arlen Specter, Charles Schumer and, lately, Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That's important because the Judiciary Committee is where a key piece of legislation, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009, is currently stalled.
The Free Speech Protection Act (S.449) would prohibit enforcement of foreign libel judgments in cases that would never hold water in the United States. That is, the law would protect journalists and others (see next paragraph) from being silenced and recklessly intimidated by some foreign government, or person in a foreign country, taking offense at something written or said in the United States that is fully protected speech under the U.S. Constitution.
When I say it would protect "others" besides journalists, I am being quite serious. In Britain, where libel courts have become a national disgrace, U.S. scientists have been sued for debunking fraud in articles written in the U.S. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an author and professor, lost a libel case to a rich Saudi terrorism financier who took exception to a few mentions of himself in a book she wrote about financial sources for al Qaeda.
In Canada, an American author, Paul Williams, is being sued by a university for reporting -- in the United States -- on a terrorist cell based at that university. Paul has spent $100,000 of his own money so far to defend himself.
In Brazil, as Patrick Smith notes in his column, numerous Brazilian journalists and others have been backed down by frivolous lawsuits. Brazil's young and shaky tradition of free speech is in serious question.
Journalists, bloggers, authors, travel writers, food critics, sports writers, policy-makers, corporate travel managers issuing country alerts, scientists, even casual users of social networking sites -- all stand vulnerable because these foreign judgments are invariably based on the argument that anything that appears on the Internet, no matter where it originated, is fair game for a libel suit.
In my case, the Brazilians have gone even further -- maintaining that my reporting on the way Brazilian authorities botched the investigation into the crash and rushed to scapegoat the two American pilots constituted an injury to each and every citizen of Brazil. The plaintiff in the case is a person I never heard of -- and certainly never wrote or spoke a word about -- till the lawsuit was filed. In the suit, she claims she "feels discriminated against" by my reporting on air safety in Brazil -- which reporting has been shown to be absolutely accurate, incidentally.
And as I noted earlier this week, there's now an attempt underway to add a criminal charge to the case against me, on the asinine ground that I impeded justice by writing favorably about the two American pilots.
If such legal precedents stand internationally (and remember, a foreign judgment against someone, even if it is ridiculous, still stands as a judgment and can impede international travel), free speech in the United States is in peril. Any nation that feels treated with insufficient reverence by someone in the U.S. could reach across international borders and effectively nullify the First Amendment.
The Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 would at least mitigate some of that threat. Besides Sens. Specter and Schumer, its co-sponsors are Sens. Lieberman and Wyden. But Sen. Leahy is the key figure, because he's the one who can get the bill out of committee.
###
He is also a stand-up guy, as evidenced by his column today on the libel suit against me on the ridiculous charge that I offended the "honor" of Brazil by my reporting and commentary, in the mainstream media and on my personal blog, about air safety and justice in Brazil after the horrific 2006 mid-air collision over the Amazon.
(That blog, www.sharkeyonbrazil.blogspot.com, went inactive in January 2008 because I said all I thought I needed to say about lax air safety over the Amazon and the terrible way the Brazilian authorities handled an investigation into a crash that killed 154 people. I was one of seven survivors.)
I've been somewhat dismayed in recent months by the utter lack of interest in this weird but important case shown by self-styled U.S. media watchdogs such as the Poynter Institute's Romenesko media site, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Columbia Journalism Review -- whose editors did not even deign to reply to my e-mails or phone calls. To me, it's been a lesson in the dangers of "kept" journalism, where subsidized watchdogs behave more like poodles, yapping at the mailman, cowering at the burglar.
On the other hand, the Brazil case has been taken up by major First Amendment attorneys and by staffers in the offices of Sens. Arlen Specter, Charles Schumer and, lately, Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That's important because the Judiciary Committee is where a key piece of legislation, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009, is currently stalled.
The Free Speech Protection Act (S.449) would prohibit enforcement of foreign libel judgments in cases that would never hold water in the United States. That is, the law would protect journalists and others (see next paragraph) from being silenced and recklessly intimidated by some foreign government, or person in a foreign country, taking offense at something written or said in the United States that is fully protected speech under the U.S. Constitution.
When I say it would protect "others" besides journalists, I am being quite serious. In Britain, where libel courts have become a national disgrace, U.S. scientists have been sued for debunking fraud in articles written in the U.S. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an author and professor, lost a libel case to a rich Saudi terrorism financier who took exception to a few mentions of himself in a book she wrote about financial sources for al Qaeda.
In Canada, an American author, Paul Williams, is being sued by a university for reporting -- in the United States -- on a terrorist cell based at that university. Paul has spent $100,000 of his own money so far to defend himself.
In Brazil, as Patrick Smith notes in his column, numerous Brazilian journalists and others have been backed down by frivolous lawsuits. Brazil's young and shaky tradition of free speech is in serious question.
Journalists, bloggers, authors, travel writers, food critics, sports writers, policy-makers, corporate travel managers issuing country alerts, scientists, even casual users of social networking sites -- all stand vulnerable because these foreign judgments are invariably based on the argument that anything that appears on the Internet, no matter where it originated, is fair game for a libel suit.
In my case, the Brazilians have gone even further -- maintaining that my reporting on the way Brazilian authorities botched the investigation into the crash and rushed to scapegoat the two American pilots constituted an injury to each and every citizen of Brazil. The plaintiff in the case is a person I never heard of -- and certainly never wrote or spoke a word about -- till the lawsuit was filed. In the suit, she claims she "feels discriminated against" by my reporting on air safety in Brazil -- which reporting has been shown to be absolutely accurate, incidentally.
And as I noted earlier this week, there's now an attempt underway to add a criminal charge to the case against me, on the asinine ground that I impeded justice by writing favorably about the two American pilots.
If such legal precedents stand internationally (and remember, a foreign judgment against someone, even if it is ridiculous, still stands as a judgment and can impede international travel), free speech in the United States is in peril. Any nation that feels treated with insufficient reverence by someone in the U.S. could reach across international borders and effectively nullify the First Amendment.
The Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 would at least mitigate some of that threat. Besides Sens. Specter and Schumer, its co-sponsors are Sens. Lieberman and Wyden. But Sen. Leahy is the key figure, because he's the one who can get the bill out of committee.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
