"Rincon Chiaroscuro"
Tucson, Arizona, twilight, New year's Eve 2008
###
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Can You Get There From Here?
Airlines have so reduced their routes and seating capacities that the travel story of the new year is going to be the higher costs and sharply increased difficulties of getting there from here.
Even as fuel costs have tumbled, airlines are tightening the screws on the flying public, which they figure will now put up with just about anything. (Though once we have a look at passenger traffic data for December, we'll see just how much air-travel demand is falling, and will continue to fall in 2009).
Here's an example of the current mess: I need to get from Tucson to the ridiculously named George Bush "Intercontinental" Airport, preferably early in the morning of Jan. 7, in time for a 10.30 meeting at the airport.
That's about 900 miles, incidentally.
No can do. Instead, I'll need to fly in the day before and spend the night.
Fares? On Orbitz.com just a few minutes ago, here was the range among various airlines for that one-way flight (all requiring stops): $1,124 to $489.
Southwest Airlines, not listed on Orbitz, came in at a more sensible $226, but it requires a stop in Los Angeles and it arrives not at Houston Intergalactic (oops, I mean "Intercontinental") but at Houston Hobby Airport.
Why not consider the option of taking the train, as so many people are suggesting these days?
Ha-ha: The best Amtrak can do is get me from Tucson to Houston on Jan. 8, and the trip requires 26 and a half hours. The fare is $115 for a seat, and $891 if you want a sleeping compartment.
And how about the bus? Well, I can board a good old Greyhound at 6:30 a.m. on the 6th and arrive in Houston a mere 26 hours later, after transferring buses in El Paso and again in Dallas.
And sorry, but I can't get it out of my mind that during the summer, shortly after Greyhound began a marketing campaign saying there is no "air rage" on the bus, a lunatic on a Greyhound bus in Canada literally chopped the head off a sleeping passenger.
Hey, if that can happen in peace-loving Canada, no way I'm taking my chances in the middle of the night in El Paso.
###
Even as fuel costs have tumbled, airlines are tightening the screws on the flying public, which they figure will now put up with just about anything. (Though once we have a look at passenger traffic data for December, we'll see just how much air-travel demand is falling, and will continue to fall in 2009).
Here's an example of the current mess: I need to get from Tucson to the ridiculously named George Bush "Intercontinental" Airport, preferably early in the morning of Jan. 7, in time for a 10.30 meeting at the airport.
That's about 900 miles, incidentally.
No can do. Instead, I'll need to fly in the day before and spend the night.
Fares? On Orbitz.com just a few minutes ago, here was the range among various airlines for that one-way flight (all requiring stops): $1,124 to $489.
Southwest Airlines, not listed on Orbitz, came in at a more sensible $226, but it requires a stop in Los Angeles and it arrives not at Houston Intergalactic (oops, I mean "Intercontinental") but at Houston Hobby Airport.
Why not consider the option of taking the train, as so many people are suggesting these days?
Ha-ha: The best Amtrak can do is get me from Tucson to Houston on Jan. 8, and the trip requires 26 and a half hours. The fare is $115 for a seat, and $891 if you want a sleeping compartment.
And how about the bus? Well, I can board a good old Greyhound at 6:30 a.m. on the 6th and arrive in Houston a mere 26 hours later, after transferring buses in El Paso and again in Dallas.
And sorry, but I can't get it out of my mind that during the summer, shortly after Greyhound began a marketing campaign saying there is no "air rage" on the bus, a lunatic on a Greyhound bus in Canada literally chopped the head off a sleeping passenger.
Hey, if that can happen in peace-loving Canada, no way I'm taking my chances in the middle of the night in El Paso.
###
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
A Child's New Year's Wish
---I came across this letter on a humor forum on the aviation Web site ProPilot World. It's purported to be real -- a child's note to a pilot -- and it expresses everything we can hope for in the new year.
###
Monday, December 29, 2008
8,800 -- Count 'Em -- 8,800 Flight Cancellations Since Dec. 19
By the numbers, here is why the holiday travel season has been such a nightmare in the air:
There were nearly 8,800 flight cancellations at major U.S. airports between Dec. 19 and yesterday, Dec. 28, according to Flightstats.com
Bad weather, of course, was the main culprit. But even though air travel is off in sheer numbers this holiday season, airlines have removed so many seats from the system that there is absolutely no slack. Crews and aircraft have been chronically out of place as weather stacks up delays, and preemptive cancellations have been the norm on the worst-weather days.
And every canceled flight means that many more passengers are stuck at the airport, hoping to find space available on another flight (difficult to do, since a shrunken system means most planes are already full, even though demand is down.)
So far (ain't over yet, sorry to say), the worst day for cancellations, according to Flightstats.com, was Dec. 19, when 2,175 flights were scrubbed. Two days later, more than 1750 flights never took off.
And on-time arrivals also were abysmal. On six of the busiest travel days in the 10-day holiday period so far, fewer than half of the scheduled flights arrived on time. And excessively delayed flights -- those arriving late 45 minutes or or more -- exceeded 20 percent on most of the 10 days.
Portland and Seattle, clobbered by snow and ice, fared the worst starting on Dec.20. Both Chicago airports were snarled the day after Christmas. On the 27th, delays and cancellations rippled throughout most of the air-travel system, especially affecting Dallas, Atlanta and, again, O'Hare.
Local media reflexively send someone out to the regional airport to remark on the numbers of people stranded and take pictures, but so far, no one has had a look at the big picture: Once again, our vital national air travel system has teetered and tottered and caused social disruptions. It won't be the last time.
###
There were nearly 8,800 flight cancellations at major U.S. airports between Dec. 19 and yesterday, Dec. 28, according to Flightstats.com
Bad weather, of course, was the main culprit. But even though air travel is off in sheer numbers this holiday season, airlines have removed so many seats from the system that there is absolutely no slack. Crews and aircraft have been chronically out of place as weather stacks up delays, and preemptive cancellations have been the norm on the worst-weather days.
And every canceled flight means that many more passengers are stuck at the airport, hoping to find space available on another flight (difficult to do, since a shrunken system means most planes are already full, even though demand is down.)
So far (ain't over yet, sorry to say), the worst day for cancellations, according to Flightstats.com, was Dec. 19, when 2,175 flights were scrubbed. Two days later, more than 1750 flights never took off.
And on-time arrivals also were abysmal. On six of the busiest travel days in the 10-day holiday period so far, fewer than half of the scheduled flights arrived on time. And excessively delayed flights -- those arriving late 45 minutes or or more -- exceeded 20 percent on most of the 10 days.
Portland and Seattle, clobbered by snow and ice, fared the worst starting on Dec.20. Both Chicago airports were snarled the day after Christmas. On the 27th, delays and cancellations rippled throughout most of the air-travel system, especially affecting Dallas, Atlanta and, again, O'Hare.
Local media reflexively send someone out to the regional airport to remark on the numbers of people stranded and take pictures, but so far, no one has had a look at the big picture: Once again, our vital national air travel system has teetered and tottered and caused social disruptions. It won't be the last time.
###
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
O'Hare: Cancellation City
In case you want to keep count, 548 of the 2,474 scheduled commercial flights into and out of Chicago O'Hare yesterday were canceled.
At snow-beaten O'Hare there have already been more than 100 flights canceled as of 9 a.m. central time today -- about half of them American Eagle flights.
At O'Hare and elsewhere around the country, the huge number of flight cancellations from the weekend onward have messed up the nation's airlines royally, with stranded passengers clamoring to be accommodated on flights that were already booked weeks ago, and with crews and airplanes out of position.
Yes, air travel is down sharply this holiday season. But the system is still in a huge jam.
Not a good day to be flying. If you must, need I suggest that you check ahead?
###
At snow-beaten O'Hare there have already been more than 100 flights canceled as of 9 a.m. central time today -- about half of them American Eagle flights.
At O'Hare and elsewhere around the country, the huge number of flight cancellations from the weekend onward have messed up the nation's airlines royally, with stranded passengers clamoring to be accommodated on flights that were already booked weeks ago, and with crews and airplanes out of position.
Yes, air travel is down sharply this holiday season. But the system is still in a huge jam.
Not a good day to be flying. If you must, need I suggest that you check ahead?
###
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Severe Downtown in Hotel Industry
Here's another update on one of the underreported current business stories:
After riding high for the last few years, U.S. hotels are getting clobbered in the economic slump.
And luxury hotels, as I have been reporting here, are getting hit the hardest.
Data for November released today by Smith Travel Research, the leading hotel research firm, show a 12.9 percent industry-wide decrease in revenue per available room (RevPAR), the key metric in analyzing hotel fortunes. The comparison is to November 2007.
But lookit the November RevPAR as broken out for the luxury segment: At luxury hotels, RevPAR plunged 20.7 percent in November.
Down the scale after the luxury niche, the trend is obvious: For "upper upscale" chain hotels the decline is 13.7 percent. For "upscale" hotels it's minus 12.8 percent. For "midscale without food and beverage" the decline is 11.1 percent. For economy hotels, it's 9.6 percent off.
Mark Lomanno, the president of Smith Travel, noted that the "one silver lining" is that "the industry has been able to achieve positive year-over-year, year-to-date ADR [average daily rate] growth through November."
Even in the luxury segment, average daily room rates this year through November ($288.11 nationally) were up a slight 0.6 percent compared with the same 11-month period in 2007.
Still, luxury hotels are loath to be seen discounting and, as noted here before, are instead offering many promotions, including three-nights-for-the-price-of-two type deals, that are actually rate cuts that don't show up on the nightly rate cards.
We'll see how long before the dam bursts and hotel room rack-rates, especially at the top levels, come tumbling down. That's because a lot of customers, especially business travelers, are "trading down" to cheaper-level hotels -- and many simply are not showing up at all.
Overall industry-wide average occupancy in November in U.S. chain hotels fell 10.6 percent, Smith Travel said. For luxury hotels, the drop in occupancy was 15 percent in November compared with November 2007.
However, Smith Travel is optimistic that the industry slump won't last throughout next year. "We believe that after a very bumpy first half of 2009, the hotel industry will begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel as the second half of the year unfolds," Lomanno said.
###
After riding high for the last few years, U.S. hotels are getting clobbered in the economic slump.
And luxury hotels, as I have been reporting here, are getting hit the hardest.
Data for November released today by Smith Travel Research, the leading hotel research firm, show a 12.9 percent industry-wide decrease in revenue per available room (RevPAR), the key metric in analyzing hotel fortunes. The comparison is to November 2007.
But lookit the November RevPAR as broken out for the luxury segment: At luxury hotels, RevPAR plunged 20.7 percent in November.
Down the scale after the luxury niche, the trend is obvious: For "upper upscale" chain hotels the decline is 13.7 percent. For "upscale" hotels it's minus 12.8 percent. For "midscale without food and beverage" the decline is 11.1 percent. For economy hotels, it's 9.6 percent off.
Mark Lomanno, the president of Smith Travel, noted that the "one silver lining" is that "the industry has been able to achieve positive year-over-year, year-to-date ADR [average daily rate] growth through November."
Even in the luxury segment, average daily room rates this year through November ($288.11 nationally) were up a slight 0.6 percent compared with the same 11-month period in 2007.
Still, luxury hotels are loath to be seen discounting and, as noted here before, are instead offering many promotions, including three-nights-for-the-price-of-two type deals, that are actually rate cuts that don't show up on the nightly rate cards.
We'll see how long before the dam bursts and hotel room rack-rates, especially at the top levels, come tumbling down. That's because a lot of customers, especially business travelers, are "trading down" to cheaper-level hotels -- and many simply are not showing up at all.
Overall industry-wide average occupancy in November in U.S. chain hotels fell 10.6 percent, Smith Travel said. For luxury hotels, the drop in occupancy was 15 percent in November compared with November 2007.
However, Smith Travel is optimistic that the industry slump won't last throughout next year. "We believe that after a very bumpy first half of 2009, the hotel industry will begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel as the second half of the year unfolds," Lomanno said.
###
Brazil Crash: Finally, Someone Gets It Right
In all of the stories updating the Brazil mid-air collision, almost no one in the media has really got it right.
This includes one William Langewiesche, in a journalistically disgraceful article in the current Vanity Fair, in which the evidently clairvoyant Langewiesche narrates a fatuous description of the scene on the Legacy jet -- without having had the courage to contact any of us who were actually on the plane for our observations on his suppositions.
More on that later.
Anyway, I am impressed by an article this week in Air Transport World magazine. The writer, Aaron Karp, gets it exactly right in his update on the shaky Brazilian air force report on the crash. Here's his report:
***
Assessing blame: Gol 737 crash report cites ExcelAire pilots, but experts finger ATC
December 22, 2008--The final report released earlier this month on the Sept. 29, 2006, midair collision between a Gol 737-800 and an ExcelAire Legacy 600 that led to the deaths of all 154 aboard the 737 has cast a sharp focus on ATC organizations' critical responsibilities in managing traffic as well as the problematic role politics can play in accident investigations.
Brazil's Centro de Investigacao e Prevencao de Acidentes Aeronauticos (CENIPA), a division of the country's Air Force, issued a report widely praised for its attention to detail and its willingness to spotlight weaknesses in the Air Force-controlled ATC system. But the decision by CENIPA to cite negligence by the ExcelAire pilots as a probable cause left aviation safety experts scratching their heads (ATWOnline, Dec. 11). While there is little dispute that the ExcelAire pilots inadvertently turned off the Legacy's transponder, causing no information on the aircraft's position to be sent to ATC for 58 min., the "primary responsibility" for the accident clearly rests with ATC, Flight Safety Foundation President and CEO William Voss tells ATWOnline.
Voss has particular expertise in ATC, having served previously as director of ICAO's Air Navigation Bureau and director of air traffic systems development at US FAA. "Radio failures and transponder failures are the kind of things that ATC expects to deal with," he explains. "They're routine and should have nothing to do with whether aircraft remain separated ... [When a transponder fails], there is a long list of things that has to be done by the ATC unit." As the US National Transportation Safety Board stated in its response to the Brazilian report, the controller with responsibility "never attempted to try a relay through other flight crews, emergency frequency, or any other means" to communicate with the Legacy.
Beyond trying alternate means to contact the ExcelAire pilots, controllers also assumed that the aircraft remained at the same altitude where it was when the transponder went off and directed the 737 accordingly, a major mistake, according to Voss. "A controller has an absolute obligation not to assume that an aircraft is at an altitude, but has an obligation to prove where the aircraft is," he says. "There has to be clear proof. . .What should be done if you can't prove [the aircraft's position] is you go to the aircraft you're talking to [the 737] and turn him." ATC assumed the Legacy was flying at 36,000 ft. when it was actually at 37,000 ft., the same altitude as the 737.
One of the reasons there does not appear to have been the necessary urgency when the Legacy lost contact is that ATC communication over the Amazon is known to be spotty. "On both sides of the microphone [pilots and controllers], there was never a sense that this was an ATC communication failure," Voss explains. "Everyone expected communication to be intermittent."
Another factor, one that certainly can serve as a lesson going forward, is the difference in how US and non-US pilots respond to ATC communication lapses. In the US, pilots are instructed that ATC's last assigned altitude overrides the flight plan. Outside the US, international norms call for pilots to revert to the flight plan since ATC communications may have been misunderstood, particularly when borders are being crossed. So controllers outside the US may think that the pilots would "fall back on the flight plan, which is absolutely counterintuitive to a pilot raised in a US environment," Voss says, adding that US pilots who fly internationally should be instructed on this "difference in philosophy."
This may be what CENIPA was getting at when it alleged that the two Americans piloting the Legacy were unfamiliar with Brazilian air traffic regulations. Nevertheless, all issues related to the crash "stem from the basic investigative question, namely, how the primary mission of ATC to separate aircraft within positive controlled airspace was unsuccessful," stated NTSB, adding that the pilots were "not in violation of any regulations." Preliminary reports found that the pilots attempted to contact ATC 19 times in the 8 min. prior to the crash without success.
The rush in Brazil to blame the surviving ExcelAire pilots was severe in the immediate aftermath of the accident. The pilots were detained in Brazil for more than two months after the crash amid a heated political atmosphere, and Brazilian police in late 2006 charged them with endangering aircraft safety. Brazilian officials were criticized heavily for "criminalizing" the accident investigation and, while the final report goes further in citing ATC errors than many expected, political considerations may have contributed to its tone, which seems to place equal blame on the Legacy pilots.
"The takeaway from this is that politics and aviation safety mix very badly," Voss says. "This [accident] caused a significant political uproar in Brazil and some of the comments made by officials [in the crash's aftermath] had significant political overtones, and political pressure was brought to bear in the investigation. . .Very political, knee-jerk reactions should not be playing a role in accident investigations."
--Aaron Karp
###
This includes one William Langewiesche, in a journalistically disgraceful article in the current Vanity Fair, in which the evidently clairvoyant Langewiesche narrates a fatuous description of the scene on the Legacy jet -- without having had the courage to contact any of us who were actually on the plane for our observations on his suppositions.
More on that later.
Anyway, I am impressed by an article this week in Air Transport World magazine. The writer, Aaron Karp, gets it exactly right in his update on the shaky Brazilian air force report on the crash. Here's his report:
***
Assessing blame: Gol 737 crash report cites ExcelAire pilots, but experts finger ATC
December 22, 2008--The final report released earlier this month on the Sept. 29, 2006, midair collision between a Gol 737-800 and an ExcelAire Legacy 600 that led to the deaths of all 154 aboard the 737 has cast a sharp focus on ATC organizations' critical responsibilities in managing traffic as well as the problematic role politics can play in accident investigations.
Brazil's Centro de Investigacao e Prevencao de Acidentes Aeronauticos (CENIPA), a division of the country's Air Force, issued a report widely praised for its attention to detail and its willingness to spotlight weaknesses in the Air Force-controlled ATC system. But the decision by CENIPA to cite negligence by the ExcelAire pilots as a probable cause left aviation safety experts scratching their heads (ATWOnline, Dec. 11). While there is little dispute that the ExcelAire pilots inadvertently turned off the Legacy's transponder, causing no information on the aircraft's position to be sent to ATC for 58 min., the "primary responsibility" for the accident clearly rests with ATC, Flight Safety Foundation President and CEO William Voss tells ATWOnline.
Voss has particular expertise in ATC, having served previously as director of ICAO's Air Navigation Bureau and director of air traffic systems development at US FAA. "Radio failures and transponder failures are the kind of things that ATC expects to deal with," he explains. "They're routine and should have nothing to do with whether aircraft remain separated ... [When a transponder fails], there is a long list of things that has to be done by the ATC unit." As the US National Transportation Safety Board stated in its response to the Brazilian report, the controller with responsibility "never attempted to try a relay through other flight crews, emergency frequency, or any other means" to communicate with the Legacy.
Beyond trying alternate means to contact the ExcelAire pilots, controllers also assumed that the aircraft remained at the same altitude where it was when the transponder went off and directed the 737 accordingly, a major mistake, according to Voss. "A controller has an absolute obligation not to assume that an aircraft is at an altitude, but has an obligation to prove where the aircraft is," he says. "There has to be clear proof. . .What should be done if you can't prove [the aircraft's position] is you go to the aircraft you're talking to [the 737] and turn him." ATC assumed the Legacy was flying at 36,000 ft. when it was actually at 37,000 ft., the same altitude as the 737.
One of the reasons there does not appear to have been the necessary urgency when the Legacy lost contact is that ATC communication over the Amazon is known to be spotty. "On both sides of the microphone [pilots and controllers], there was never a sense that this was an ATC communication failure," Voss explains. "Everyone expected communication to be intermittent."
Another factor, one that certainly can serve as a lesson going forward, is the difference in how US and non-US pilots respond to ATC communication lapses. In the US, pilots are instructed that ATC's last assigned altitude overrides the flight plan. Outside the US, international norms call for pilots to revert to the flight plan since ATC communications may have been misunderstood, particularly when borders are being crossed. So controllers outside the US may think that the pilots would "fall back on the flight plan, which is absolutely counterintuitive to a pilot raised in a US environment," Voss says, adding that US pilots who fly internationally should be instructed on this "difference in philosophy."
This may be what CENIPA was getting at when it alleged that the two Americans piloting the Legacy were unfamiliar with Brazilian air traffic regulations. Nevertheless, all issues related to the crash "stem from the basic investigative question, namely, how the primary mission of ATC to separate aircraft within positive controlled airspace was unsuccessful," stated NTSB, adding that the pilots were "not in violation of any regulations." Preliminary reports found that the pilots attempted to contact ATC 19 times in the 8 min. prior to the crash without success.
The rush in Brazil to blame the surviving ExcelAire pilots was severe in the immediate aftermath of the accident. The pilots were detained in Brazil for more than two months after the crash amid a heated political atmosphere, and Brazilian police in late 2006 charged them with endangering aircraft safety. Brazilian officials were criticized heavily for "criminalizing" the accident investigation and, while the final report goes further in citing ATC errors than many expected, political considerations may have contributed to its tone, which seems to place equal blame on the Legacy pilots.
"The takeaway from this is that politics and aviation safety mix very badly," Voss says. "This [accident] caused a significant political uproar in Brazil and some of the comments made by officials [in the crash's aftermath] had significant political overtones, and political pressure was brought to bear in the investigation. . .Very political, knee-jerk reactions should not be playing a role in accident investigations."
--Aaron Karp
###
Monday, December 22, 2008
Holiday Travel: Ho-Ho-Hopeless?
Man, is this shaping up to be a miserable week in the air, despite the fact that the number of people flying this holiday season is projected to be about 10 percent lower than the 2007 year-end holiday season.
Bad weather across the country, combined with airline seat cutbacks, are giving the old one-two to holiday travelers this week. Not only do snarls at one major airport ripple to other airports, but each day of major delays and cancellations creates fleet and crew scheduling problems on the next day (and days).
As of 6 p.m. Eastern time today, according to Flightstats.com, the following airports are experiencing "excessive delays," defined as having flight operations averaging more than 45 minutes in late arrivals:
--Los Angeles
--San Francisco
--Portland
--Seattle
--Las Vegas
--The absurdly named George Bush Houston "Intercontinental" Airport
--Chicago O'Hare
--Orlando
--The ridiculously named Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
--Boston
--Kennedy
--La Guardia
--The hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport
###
.
Bad weather across the country, combined with airline seat cutbacks, are giving the old one-two to holiday travelers this week. Not only do snarls at one major airport ripple to other airports, but each day of major delays and cancellations creates fleet and crew scheduling problems on the next day (and days).
As of 6 p.m. Eastern time today, according to Flightstats.com, the following airports are experiencing "excessive delays," defined as having flight operations averaging more than 45 minutes in late arrivals:
--Los Angeles
--San Francisco
--Portland
--Seattle
--Las Vegas
--The absurdly named George Bush Houston "Intercontinental" Airport
--Chicago O'Hare
--Orlando
--The ridiculously named Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
--Boston
--Kennedy
--La Guardia
--The hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport
###
.
Initial Accident Report on Denver Crash
Here's the initial accident report on the Denver crash in which 38 people were injured but (thanks no doubt to excellent responses by flight attendants, passengers and firefighters) no one was killed.
It's from the Web site Aviation Safety Network.
###
It's from the Web site Aviation Safety Network.
###
Twittering the Denver Plane Crash
Twitter provides interesting first-person accounts of what it was like to be one of the more than 100 passengers who escaped that burning Continental Airlines 737 that veered off the runway and caught fire Saturday night in Denver.
(Note the comment about the passenger who quickly got an emergency door opened. I'll be thinking of that the next time I consider ignoring the flight attendants pre-takeoff safety spiel.)
Clearly, passengers and flight attendants kept their cool -- and prevented this from being a horrible disaster, rather than just a frightening accident.
Some excerpts from various passengers accounts on Twitter, starting with the aftermath:
***
@marioOlckers I think this will be it. I wouldn't want to be a celebrity, but it's been an interesting experience doing a couple interviews about 1 hour ago
***
Wife just picked me up from the airport. Relieved. about 17 hours ago from Touchdown! The crowd goes wild!
***
MetalRox gratz! about 21 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to MetalRox
@showtunes no-won't get our luggage for a while I think and sounded like my mac is likely melted to the floor about 21 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to showtunes
@richard_holland those who would/could fly again and were still wanting to get to Houston. I wonder how many took the bus instead?
***
Waiting in the continental club for the "replacement" flight. Noticing I'm a little sore.
***
Heading to the airport for another try at flying to Houston.
***
I'm very grateful to still be here. Thanks again to all the well wishers. I'm amazed and humbled by it all.
***
there was a fire station nearby and that's where we all ended up right after the crash
***
I made for the exit door as quickly as I could, fearing the right wing might explode from the fire. once out, i scrambled down the wing
***
Whoever was on the left side exit row, god bless him, was johnny on the spot and instantly had the door open - people crowded out in a mass
***
By the time the plane stopped we were burning pretty well and I think I could feel the heat even through the bulkhead and window
***
i believe it was after the jolt that the right engine, which was near my row, caught fire
***
i think we might have gone into a ravine and dropped some distance as there was a sudden bottom-dropped-out feeling and then a jolt
***
shortly after we veered off, the plane quite obviously left the runway at high speed (maybe 100 kts) and proceeded to go 4 wheel driving
***
a 1st class passenger I talked to indicated he saw the left engine come off at the time, but it's unclear if this was a cause or an effect
***
to all who've asked, it's hard to know exactly what went wrong -- we were in the middle of a normal takeoff when we suddenly veered off
***
You have your wits scared out of you, drag your butt out of a flaming ball of wreckage and you can't even get a vodka-tonic.
***
Continental keeping us locked up at the presidents club until they can sort everything out. Won't even serve us drinks.
###
(Note the comment about the passenger who quickly got an emergency door opened. I'll be thinking of that the next time I consider ignoring the flight attendants pre-takeoff safety spiel.)
Clearly, passengers and flight attendants kept their cool -- and prevented this from being a horrible disaster, rather than just a frightening accident.
Some excerpts from various passengers accounts on Twitter, starting with the aftermath:
***
@marioOlckers I think this will be it. I wouldn't want to be a celebrity, but it's been an interesting experience doing a couple interviews about 1 hour ago
***
Wife just picked me up from the airport. Relieved. about 17 hours ago from Touchdown! The crowd goes wild!
***
MetalRox gratz! about 21 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to MetalRox
@showtunes no-won't get our luggage for a while I think and sounded like my mac is likely melted to the floor about 21 hours ago from twitterrific in reply to showtunes
@richard_holland those who would/could fly again and were still wanting to get to Houston. I wonder how many took the bus instead?
***
Waiting in the continental club for the "replacement" flight. Noticing I'm a little sore.
***
Heading to the airport for another try at flying to Houston.
***
I'm very grateful to still be here. Thanks again to all the well wishers. I'm amazed and humbled by it all.
***
there was a fire station nearby and that's where we all ended up right after the crash
***
I made for the exit door as quickly as I could, fearing the right wing might explode from the fire. once out, i scrambled down the wing
***
Whoever was on the left side exit row, god bless him, was johnny on the spot and instantly had the door open - people crowded out in a mass
***
By the time the plane stopped we were burning pretty well and I think I could feel the heat even through the bulkhead and window
***
i believe it was after the jolt that the right engine, which was near my row, caught fire
***
i think we might have gone into a ravine and dropped some distance as there was a sudden bottom-dropped-out feeling and then a jolt
***
shortly after we veered off, the plane quite obviously left the runway at high speed (maybe 100 kts) and proceeded to go 4 wheel driving
***
a 1st class passenger I talked to indicated he saw the left engine come off at the time, but it's unclear if this was a cause or an effect
***
to all who've asked, it's hard to know exactly what went wrong -- we were in the middle of a normal takeoff when we suddenly veered off
***
You have your wits scared out of you, drag your butt out of a flaming ball of wreckage and you can't even get a vodka-tonic.
***
Continental keeping us locked up at the presidents club until they can sort everything out. Won't even serve us drinks.
###
Christmas Week Option: Stay Ho-Ho-Home?
I need to stipulate that this is being written from Tucson, where I can look out the window as I type and see the green Sonoran desert roll out to the Rincon under sunny blue skies, where birdies and bunny rabbits make room for each other at the seed block like business travelers at a breakfast buffet ...
Ok, ok, I'll put a lid on it.
But lucky me (and my wife), we got to Tucson from the hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport last week (with a connection through the absurdly named George Bush Houston "Intercontinental" Airport), at a time when the weather across the country was just fine, and the flights were running on time.
Wotta mess the air-travel system has become in the last few days, though. Lazy reporters on TV and in the papers keep telling us that "dozens of flights" were canceled. They get this useless information from some guy at the local airport who answers a phone number that's been on metro-desk call lists since the Carter Administration, and who really doesn't have a clue about the actual numbers, as he just works for the city.
So let's make that "several thousand" flights have been canceled since the weekend. If you want a real-time tally, go to Flightstats.com (and click on airports, and then "airport scorecard" and enter the specific airport.)
If I weren't already where I wanted to be, I'd be considering staying home this holiday season rather than plunging into the air-travel system.
Right now, early on Monday, the biggest problems are in Seattle, where 537 of the 953 scheduled flights yesterday were canceled. And as of 6 a.m. Pacific time today, more than 200 flights have already been canceled at the cumbersomely named Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Today's a brief respite from snowy and icy weather in the Northwest (it returns tomorrow), so it's apparent that the large number of preemptive cancellations reflects tie-ups in the system -- as previous large numbers of cancellations in the Northeast and Northwest have put hundreds of aircraft out of their normal positions.
At the hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport yesterday, 236 flights were canceled. At Kennedy, it was 161. At O'Hare, 265.
So the system is not in good shape to handle even the weaker holiday travel demand this year (especially considering that there are at least 10 percent fewer seats in the air compared with last year's year-end holiday).
Obviously, anyone flying needs to check ahead and make sure the flight is operating as scheduled.
Also, airlines have been playing musical chairs with their fleets, and if the equipment suddenly changes to reflect lower demand or just plain airline convenience, that aisle or exit-row seat you thought you had prudently booked in advance may not be available. So check and make a phone call if you feel you've been capriciously relegated to 28-B from 8-D.
Even last week, with things running somewhat smoothly, the Continental flight my wife and I boarded at the hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport changed from a 767 to a 757. My wife's exit row seat disappeared and she ended up in a middle seat in a crappy row, you know, the one right in front of the exit rows.
And she's flown more than 50,000 miles this year on Continental, so elite status evidently didn't count for anything when they switched planes.
###
Ok, ok, I'll put a lid on it.
But lucky me (and my wife), we got to Tucson from the hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport last week (with a connection through the absurdly named George Bush Houston "Intercontinental" Airport), at a time when the weather across the country was just fine, and the flights were running on time.
Wotta mess the air-travel system has become in the last few days, though. Lazy reporters on TV and in the papers keep telling us that "dozens of flights" were canceled. They get this useless information from some guy at the local airport who answers a phone number that's been on metro-desk call lists since the Carter Administration, and who really doesn't have a clue about the actual numbers, as he just works for the city.
So let's make that "several thousand" flights have been canceled since the weekend. If you want a real-time tally, go to Flightstats.com (and click on airports, and then "airport scorecard" and enter the specific airport.)
If I weren't already where I wanted to be, I'd be considering staying home this holiday season rather than plunging into the air-travel system.
Right now, early on Monday, the biggest problems are in Seattle, where 537 of the 953 scheduled flights yesterday were canceled. And as of 6 a.m. Pacific time today, more than 200 flights have already been canceled at the cumbersomely named Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Today's a brief respite from snowy and icy weather in the Northwest (it returns tomorrow), so it's apparent that the large number of preemptive cancellations reflects tie-ups in the system -- as previous large numbers of cancellations in the Northeast and Northwest have put hundreds of aircraft out of their normal positions.
At the hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport yesterday, 236 flights were canceled. At Kennedy, it was 161. At O'Hare, 265.
So the system is not in good shape to handle even the weaker holiday travel demand this year (especially considering that there are at least 10 percent fewer seats in the air compared with last year's year-end holiday).
Obviously, anyone flying needs to check ahead and make sure the flight is operating as scheduled.
Also, airlines have been playing musical chairs with their fleets, and if the equipment suddenly changes to reflect lower demand or just plain airline convenience, that aisle or exit-row seat you thought you had prudently booked in advance may not be available. So check and make a phone call if you feel you've been capriciously relegated to 28-B from 8-D.
Even last week, with things running somewhat smoothly, the Continental flight my wife and I boarded at the hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport changed from a 767 to a 757. My wife's exit row seat disappeared and she ended up in a middle seat in a crappy row, you know, the one right in front of the exit rows.
And she's flown more than 50,000 miles this year on Continental, so elite status evidently didn't count for anything when they switched planes.
###
Sunday, December 21, 2008
38 Hurt As Continental Airlines 737 Veers Off Runway in Fiery Crash at Denver
A Continental Airlines 737-500 veered off the runway into a ravine on takeoff last night at Denver International Airport. The cabin was in flames as passengers were evacuated on emergency slides, and 38 of the 112 on board were reported injured.
Weather did not appear to be a factor, as conditions in Denver were normal. Firefighters said the fire on board melted overhead bins.
Here's the Denver Post report today. The plane, Flight 1404, was taking off shortly after its scheduled 6 p.m. departure, bound for Houston, when it went off the runway.
UPDATE: 8 pm Sunday, and the dopey AP story on the wire now goes on about how it was "a miracle" that no one was killed. Oh, miracle, schmiracle. There is good luck and there is bad luck (says a guy who had some extremely good luck in a plane crash not so long ago, and who cringed every time that word "miracle" was uttered, aware that for others no less deserving, the "miracle" did not apply).
On that Continental 737 in Denver last night, my hunch is that a bunch of very skilled, very heads-up flight attendants, combined with level-headed passengers who did not panic and an extremely good response from airport firefighters, and a big dose of good luck, created this alleged "miracle." (But of course, getting that story would require actual reporting from the scene, rather than prattling on about superstitious miracles.)
###
Weather did not appear to be a factor, as conditions in Denver were normal. Firefighters said the fire on board melted overhead bins.
Here's the Denver Post report today. The plane, Flight 1404, was taking off shortly after its scheduled 6 p.m. departure, bound for Houston, when it went off the runway.
UPDATE: 8 pm Sunday, and the dopey AP story on the wire now goes on about how it was "a miracle" that no one was killed. Oh, miracle, schmiracle. There is good luck and there is bad luck (says a guy who had some extremely good luck in a plane crash not so long ago, and who cringed every time that word "miracle" was uttered, aware that for others no less deserving, the "miracle" did not apply).
On that Continental 737 in Denver last night, my hunch is that a bunch of very skilled, very heads-up flight attendants, combined with level-headed passengers who did not panic and an extremely good response from airport firefighters, and a big dose of good luck, created this alleged "miracle." (But of course, getting that story would require actual reporting from the scene, rather than prattling on about superstitious miracles.)
###
Saturday, December 20, 2008
5 Airports=1838 Flight Cancellations Yesterday
Heads up (again) if you are flying today. Confirm your flight and its departure time in advance. The logistics of the system are a mess.
That's primarily because yesterday's snowstorm whacked operations at the three New York airports, and the two closest major airports, Philly and Boston.
In all, 1838 flights were canceled yesterday at those five airports, according to Flightstats.com.
The hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport racked up 547 canceled flights. At LaGuardia, it was 456. Kennedy had 266. The rest were about evenly divided between Philadelphia and Boston.
###
That's primarily because yesterday's snowstorm whacked operations at the three New York airports, and the two closest major airports, Philly and Boston.
In all, 1838 flights were canceled yesterday at those five airports, according to Flightstats.com.
The hilariously named Newark Liberty International Airport racked up 547 canceled flights. At LaGuardia, it was 456. Kennedy had 266. The rest were about evenly divided between Philadelphia and Boston.
###
Friday, December 19, 2008
NYC's Hammered Luxury Hotels: What? Us? Discount?
As I've been saying, luxury hotels have really been hammered since the Wall Street collapse. It isn't just business and leisure-travel spending cutbacks, though those are major factors.
It's also appearances or "optics," as they say. In this day and age, there is a grave reluctance to be seen spending lavishly, or to be seen listing those $750-a-night 5-star hotel rooms on the corporate expense account.
The highest-flying of the luxury hotels have been in New York City, where business was firm till mid-September -- when it tumbled off a cliff.
There is a core principle in the luxury hotel business: Avoid discounting. If you cut your public rack rates to gin up business in bad times, you may well have a very hard time raising those rates again when good times return.
That wall is starting to crack. Meanwhile, as I have said here and elsewhere, including in the current Institutional Investor magazine, you can cut very good deals right now with luxury hotels in the U.S. and abroad. They will be only too glad to hear from you.
Now some expensive hotels in Manhattan are putting a happy face on discounting.
NYC & Company, the city’s tourism PR outfit, said today that nine luxury hotels are launching a so-called Third Night promotion. The hotels are not cutting their rates, see, but ... well, you get a third night free if you stay for two consecutive nights. The promotion runs from January 9 to February 27.
The participating hotels are: Jumeirah Essex House, Loews Regency, the London NYC, the New York Palace, the Sherry-Netherland Hotel, Trump International Hotel & Tower, the Plaza, the Waldorf Towers and the Carlyle, A Rosewood Hotel.
And by the way, the Trump International Hotel is not considered a top-luxury hotel in New York. It's generally rated as a four-star hotel. And I got that assessment from one of the anonymous inspectors for the Mobil guides.
Meanwhile, it isn't just the hotels that are willing to break the no-discount rule in the luxury racket. NYC & Company said that Saks Fifth Avenue is participating in the promotion by offering a "shopping package" at its Manhattan flagship store.
In the desperate obfuscation of distress-PR, NYC& Company says mysteriously that the Saks deal "includes an exclusive personal shopping experience in the Fifth Avenue Club, a special offer to save a percentage on any regularly priced purchases made, and complimentary coffee and dessert in Saks Fifth Avenue’s Café SFA."
I understand the free coffee and cake part, but hey: What's the percent off the purchases? Is it a secret from the rest of us? Why?
###
It's also appearances or "optics," as they say. In this day and age, there is a grave reluctance to be seen spending lavishly, or to be seen listing those $750-a-night 5-star hotel rooms on the corporate expense account.
The highest-flying of the luxury hotels have been in New York City, where business was firm till mid-September -- when it tumbled off a cliff.
There is a core principle in the luxury hotel business: Avoid discounting. If you cut your public rack rates to gin up business in bad times, you may well have a very hard time raising those rates again when good times return.
That wall is starting to crack. Meanwhile, as I have said here and elsewhere, including in the current Institutional Investor magazine, you can cut very good deals right now with luxury hotels in the U.S. and abroad. They will be only too glad to hear from you.
Now some expensive hotels in Manhattan are putting a happy face on discounting.
NYC & Company, the city’s tourism PR outfit, said today that nine luxury hotels are launching a so-called Third Night promotion. The hotels are not cutting their rates, see, but ... well, you get a third night free if you stay for two consecutive nights. The promotion runs from January 9 to February 27.
The participating hotels are: Jumeirah Essex House, Loews Regency, the London NYC, the New York Palace, the Sherry-Netherland Hotel, Trump International Hotel & Tower, the Plaza, the Waldorf Towers and the Carlyle, A Rosewood Hotel.
And by the way, the Trump International Hotel is not considered a top-luxury hotel in New York. It's generally rated as a four-star hotel. And I got that assessment from one of the anonymous inspectors for the Mobil guides.
Meanwhile, it isn't just the hotels that are willing to break the no-discount rule in the luxury racket. NYC & Company said that Saks Fifth Avenue is participating in the promotion by offering a "shopping package" at its Manhattan flagship store.
In the desperate obfuscation of distress-PR, NYC& Company says mysteriously that the Saks deal "includes an exclusive personal shopping experience in the Fifth Avenue Club, a special offer to save a percentage on any regularly priced purchases made, and complimentary coffee and dessert in Saks Fifth Avenue’s Café SFA."
I understand the free coffee and cake part, but hey: What's the percent off the purchases? Is it a secret from the rest of us? Why?
###
Brazil Crash: Ignoring the NTSB Report
I'm amazed (why???) at how some in the media, including some in the aviation trade press, who really ought to know better, have followed the official Brazilian Air Force line on the crash investigation.
It's as if key findings of the 266-page Brazilian investigation -- the product of the very organization that was in charge of the air-traffic control system that created the collision -- have not been flatly contradicted by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB, which does not have an ax to grind in this matter, is a professional, internationally respected investigative agency whose report on the Brazil crash said that the probable causes were specific mistakes and systemic faults in Brazilian air traffic control, which is maintained and operated by the Brazilian Air Force.
But lookit Aviation Week's report on the matter, which doesn't even allude to (let alone link to) the NTSB report but rather gives credence to the report by Brazilian military authorities who have been determined since day one to scapegoat the Americans. (Brazilian judges, on the other hand, have largely maintained perspective, and may yet redeem Brazil's honor in this terrible matter.)
And just in case Aviation Week hasn't seen it, here is the NTSB report. One should read it before writing anything about this case.
The NTSB report, by the way, does not whitewash possible, emphasize possible, mistakes by the American pilots that might have contributed to the chain of awful events that led to this hideous accident. It puts them in perspective.
And by the way, the American pilots are already on trial in Brazil and have been for months. The proceedings move very slowly and -- I would hope -- deliberately.
###
It's as if key findings of the 266-page Brazilian investigation -- the product of the very organization that was in charge of the air-traffic control system that created the collision -- have not been flatly contradicted by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB, which does not have an ax to grind in this matter, is a professional, internationally respected investigative agency whose report on the Brazil crash said that the probable causes were specific mistakes and systemic faults in Brazilian air traffic control, which is maintained and operated by the Brazilian Air Force.
But lookit Aviation Week's report on the matter, which doesn't even allude to (let alone link to) the NTSB report but rather gives credence to the report by Brazilian military authorities who have been determined since day one to scapegoat the Americans. (Brazilian judges, on the other hand, have largely maintained perspective, and may yet redeem Brazil's honor in this terrible matter.)
And just in case Aviation Week hasn't seen it, here is the NTSB report. One should read it before writing anything about this case.
The NTSB report, by the way, does not whitewash possible, emphasize possible, mistakes by the American pilots that might have contributed to the chain of awful events that led to this hideous accident. It puts them in perspective.
And by the way, the American pilots are already on trial in Brazil and have been for months. The proceedings move very slowly and -- I would hope -- deliberately.
###
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
British Airways Reduces Fuel Surcharges
British Airways lowered its fuel surcharge by as much as a third on long-haul flights. U.S. airlines haven't yet followed in lowering the surcharges, which reached $300 and even higher during the days of $147 a barrel oil last summer, and remain there still, even with oil hovering in the low $40s.
On coach fares for flights over nine hours, British Airways reduced the surcharge by $45 to $141 per flight. For first class and business class service on flights over nine hours, the surcharge was reduced by $52 to $205.
So far, there has been no indication that U.S. airlines will drop the surcharges, which can significantly add to the cost of an international fare. The charges especially irk corporate travel managers because they are generally applied on top of negotiated fares for volume corporate business, with no discounts.
U.S. passengers sometimes find it difficult to sort through the fine print on fees and taxes in airline fare contracts to identify the fuel surcharge.
In Washington yesterday, Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, introduced a bill that would require carriers and ticket brokers to provide more clear and more timely information to passengers about taxes, fees, charges, fuel surcharges, and fees for services.
The bill states in part, "... it shall be an unfair or deceptive practice ... for any air carrier ... or ticket broker--`(A) to display the price of a ticket for air transportation without simultaneously displaying all taxes, fees, charges, and fuel surcharges ... or (B) to fail to provide an online purchaser of a ticket for air transportation with information, including the amount and description, of each tax, fee, charge, and fuel surcharge applicable to such ticket before requiring such purchaser to provide any personal information, including name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and credit card information."
It adds that " ... it shall be an unfair or deceptive practice ... for any air carrier ... (A) to fail to provide an online purchaser of a ticket for air transportation with information regarding fees for checked baggage, seating assignments, and optional in-flight goods and services; or (B) to increase the price of a ticket for air transportation through a fuel surcharge that is not correlated to the price of fuel paid by the air carrier or the amount of fuel used by such air carrier for such air transportation.' ..."
Any day now, we'll be hearing from the airline industry squealing about that.
###
On coach fares for flights over nine hours, British Airways reduced the surcharge by $45 to $141 per flight. For first class and business class service on flights over nine hours, the surcharge was reduced by $52 to $205.
So far, there has been no indication that U.S. airlines will drop the surcharges, which can significantly add to the cost of an international fare. The charges especially irk corporate travel managers because they are generally applied on top of negotiated fares for volume corporate business, with no discounts.
U.S. passengers sometimes find it difficult to sort through the fine print on fees and taxes in airline fare contracts to identify the fuel surcharge.
In Washington yesterday, Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, introduced a bill that would require carriers and ticket brokers to provide more clear and more timely information to passengers about taxes, fees, charges, fuel surcharges, and fees for services.
The bill states in part, "... it shall be an unfair or deceptive practice ... for any air carrier ... or ticket broker--`(A) to display the price of a ticket for air transportation without simultaneously displaying all taxes, fees, charges, and fuel surcharges ... or (B) to fail to provide an online purchaser of a ticket for air transportation with information, including the amount and description, of each tax, fee, charge, and fuel surcharge applicable to such ticket before requiring such purchaser to provide any personal information, including name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and credit card information."
It adds that " ... it shall be an unfair or deceptive practice ... for any air carrier ... (A) to fail to provide an online purchaser of a ticket for air transportation with information regarding fees for checked baggage, seating assignments, and optional in-flight goods and services; or (B) to increase the price of a ticket for air transportation through a fuel surcharge that is not correlated to the price of fuel paid by the air carrier or the amount of fuel used by such air carrier for such air transportation.' ..."
Any day now, we'll be hearing from the airline industry squealing about that.
###
Hands-Free Cell Phones Kill, and Other Media Blather
Want to see an example of media innumeracy at its schoolmarmish best?
Look at this alarmist report relayed today by the Poynter Institute, misstating the findings of an already flawed "study" on cell-phone use by people driving cars.
Is it dangerous to drive (or, more dangerous) while using a hands-free cell-phone to hold a conversation? Well, as you can see, the study carelessly flips among hand-held cell-phone use, text messaging and hands-free cell-phone talking. And the journalist "expert" blithely states something that simply is not documented in the badly written report, or its sloppy methodology. The report is by the AAA, an organization that loves to make guesses and is accustomed to credulous media attention, especially around the holidays.
Come on, how is hands-free cell-phone talking any different than holding a conversation with another person in the car? Or listening to the radio? Or singing the Star Spangled Banner, or "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall," really loud, for chrissakes? If it is different in kind, I'd like to see evidence.
But all the schoolmarms want you to know that something, uh, might be dangerous if you don;t watch out. Like driving in the first place.
The Institute -- the Ding Dong School of journalism academe -- tells us that the "two thirds of drivers" who believe that using hands-free cell-phones is safer than using hand-held ones "could be wrong."
Yeah and I say tomorrow "could be Friday."
But it ain't.
More phony-baloney alarms to further buzz-kill the holiday season. And it's only Dec. 17!
By the way, did you know that Christmas trees can catch fire if you're careless with matches, candles, or frayed wiring on lights? (Don't laugh. Right now, there's probably some poor schnook in some unhappy newsroom somewhere working on that holiday perennial.)
UPDATE: Oops, too late. Newsday already has the tree-fire scoop.
###
Look at this alarmist report relayed today by the Poynter Institute, misstating the findings of an already flawed "study" on cell-phone use by people driving cars.
Is it dangerous to drive (or, more dangerous) while using a hands-free cell-phone to hold a conversation? Well, as you can see, the study carelessly flips among hand-held cell-phone use, text messaging and hands-free cell-phone talking. And the journalist "expert" blithely states something that simply is not documented in the badly written report, or its sloppy methodology. The report is by the AAA, an organization that loves to make guesses and is accustomed to credulous media attention, especially around the holidays.
Come on, how is hands-free cell-phone talking any different than holding a conversation with another person in the car? Or listening to the radio? Or singing the Star Spangled Banner, or "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall," really loud, for chrissakes? If it is different in kind, I'd like to see evidence.
But all the schoolmarms want you to know that something, uh, might be dangerous if you don;t watch out. Like driving in the first place.
The Institute -- the Ding Dong School of journalism academe -- tells us that the "two thirds of drivers" who believe that using hands-free cell-phones is safer than using hand-held ones "could be wrong."
Yeah and I say tomorrow "could be Friday."
But it ain't.
More phony-baloney alarms to further buzz-kill the holiday season. And it's only Dec. 17!
By the way, did you know that Christmas trees can catch fire if you're careless with matches, candles, or frayed wiring on lights? (Don't laugh. Right now, there's probably some poor schnook in some unhappy newsroom somewhere working on that holiday perennial.)
UPDATE: Oops, too late. Newsday already has the tree-fire scoop.
###
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Airlines Scrambling to Fill Seats
Don't believe any media palaver you hear about the annual holiday travel crush and high fares. Airline executives are stunned by the extent of falloff in travel demand as the Christmas-New year's holidays loom. And they're discounting like crazy on select routes.
This is being written from San Francisco, where I flew nonstop from Newark on Saturday for less than $300 round-trip, in a 737 that was about half empty in coach. I looked online to change seats for my return home today, and that plane also appears to have about a third of its coach seats unsold. Even at the last minute, I easily snagged an exit-row aisle seat.
For travelers in a grim economy, there is good news. Sales are everywhere, but you have to seek them out with some sleuthing on the supplier sites and also on the third-party sites like Kayak, Farecompare, Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline, and others.
The key words are "select routes" because airlines have slashed capacity on so many routes that some planes to some destinations are still packed full.
But have a look at Southwest's current fare sale (through Dec. 21, for travel in the traditionally slow period of Jan. 6-March 11)) of $49 to $159 one-way on "select routes."
AirTran also has a new sale, with 14 days advance purchase. An example: Chicago-Orlando, $83 one-way, off-peak, with travel through March 11.
Yeah, I know airlines usually run fare sales for the slow season after New Year, but the extent of the discounting right now -- again, on on select routes -- is amazing.
It's especially true, by the way, for transatlantic travel, and particularly travel in business class. That risible $9,800 round-trip business-class fare between New York and London may still be posted, but it's a fiction. Business-class fares across the Atlantic are now being offered, with only small restrictions, at discounts below the levels even the more hard-nosed corporate travel managers used to be able to negotiate. That means in the $3,500 round-trip range and often significantly lower.
I've always argued that the best use of frequent-flier miles if you have a ton of them is upgrading to international business class, assuming the seat is available. Right now, the seat is probably available.
United Airlines, meanwhile, is now discounting its "economy plus" seats -- the ones up front in coach with 5 inches of extra legroom. They're 30 percent off when purchased through Thursday. (examples, $37 extra Los Angeles-Philadelpia, rather than $54. Or $104 extra Los Angeles-Sydney instead of $149).
I recently flew in United economy plus, and I have to say that the extra price (I think it was about $30 on a San Francisco-Tucson trip) was well worth it. I like getting the better seat without having to go through the craziness of the annual elite-status one-legged footrace to qualify for priority seating.
All I want in a coach seat is a little extra legroom, and the extra five inches that United offers effectively turns a cramped coach seat into something close enough to a domestic first-class seat. I don't need the food and free drinks. All I want it a little comfort without having to pay an extra $1,000 to get it.
###
This is being written from San Francisco, where I flew nonstop from Newark on Saturday for less than $300 round-trip, in a 737 that was about half empty in coach. I looked online to change seats for my return home today, and that plane also appears to have about a third of its coach seats unsold. Even at the last minute, I easily snagged an exit-row aisle seat.
For travelers in a grim economy, there is good news. Sales are everywhere, but you have to seek them out with some sleuthing on the supplier sites and also on the third-party sites like Kayak, Farecompare, Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline, and others.
The key words are "select routes" because airlines have slashed capacity on so many routes that some planes to some destinations are still packed full.
But have a look at Southwest's current fare sale (through Dec. 21, for travel in the traditionally slow period of Jan. 6-March 11)) of $49 to $159 one-way on "select routes."
AirTran also has a new sale, with 14 days advance purchase. An example: Chicago-Orlando, $83 one-way, off-peak, with travel through March 11.
Yeah, I know airlines usually run fare sales for the slow season after New Year, but the extent of the discounting right now -- again, on on select routes -- is amazing.
It's especially true, by the way, for transatlantic travel, and particularly travel in business class. That risible $9,800 round-trip business-class fare between New York and London may still be posted, but it's a fiction. Business-class fares across the Atlantic are now being offered, with only small restrictions, at discounts below the levels even the more hard-nosed corporate travel managers used to be able to negotiate. That means in the $3,500 round-trip range and often significantly lower.
I've always argued that the best use of frequent-flier miles if you have a ton of them is upgrading to international business class, assuming the seat is available. Right now, the seat is probably available.
United Airlines, meanwhile, is now discounting its "economy plus" seats -- the ones up front in coach with 5 inches of extra legroom. They're 30 percent off when purchased through Thursday. (examples, $37 extra Los Angeles-Philadelpia, rather than $54. Or $104 extra Los Angeles-Sydney instead of $149).
I recently flew in United economy plus, and I have to say that the extra price (I think it was about $30 on a San Francisco-Tucson trip) was well worth it. I like getting the better seat without having to go through the craziness of the annual elite-status one-legged footrace to qualify for priority seating.
All I want in a coach seat is a little extra legroom, and the extra five inches that United offers effectively turns a cramped coach seat into something close enough to a domestic first-class seat. I don't need the food and free drinks. All I want it a little comfort without having to pay an extra $1,000 to get it.
###
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Hotel Slump Worsens; Luxury Properties Hardest Hit
Hotels, which first felt the effects of a decline in travel in late summer, are facing business conditions that continue to deteriorate. And luxury hotels, which got severely hammered as Wall Street tanked this fall, are feeling the slump most of all, according to Smith Travel Research.
During the week of Nov. 30 through Dec. 6, compared with the similar week in 2007, U.S. hotel occupancy fell 9.8 percent; revenue per available room (RevPAR) dropped 12.7 percent and average daily room rates dropped 3.2 percent, Smith, the world's leading hotel research firm, said today.
Jan Freitag, the vice president of global development for SMith, said: "This is now four out of the past five weeks that we’ve seen double-digit RevPAR declines, which are driven by double-digit occupancy declines" in most chain hotel segments.
The luxury hotel segment had the biggest drops across the board, including a 13.0-percent decrease in occupancy, a 7.6-percent drop in average daily room rate and a 19.7-percent fall in RevPAR. The segment called "midscale without food and beverage" -- hotels such as Hampton Inn and Marriott Courtyard -- was the only segment to have an increase in any of the three key performance measurements. Its average daily room rate rose 0.3 percent.
The markets that saw the greatest drop in occupancy were Phoenix (where it dropped 22.2 percent); Seattle (-19.7 percent) and San Diego (-18.1).
The markets that saw the largest decreases in RevPAR were Phoenix (-25.4 percent); Atlanta (-24.5 percent) and New York (-22.8 percent).
The markets that experienced the greatest increase in RevPAR were New Orleans (+18.7 percent) Chicago (+18.4 percent) and San Francisco/San Mateo (+10.6 percent).
###
During the week of Nov. 30 through Dec. 6, compared with the similar week in 2007, U.S. hotel occupancy fell 9.8 percent; revenue per available room (RevPAR) dropped 12.7 percent and average daily room rates dropped 3.2 percent, Smith, the world's leading hotel research firm, said today.
Jan Freitag, the vice president of global development for SMith, said: "This is now four out of the past five weeks that we’ve seen double-digit RevPAR declines, which are driven by double-digit occupancy declines" in most chain hotel segments.
The luxury hotel segment had the biggest drops across the board, including a 13.0-percent decrease in occupancy, a 7.6-percent drop in average daily room rate and a 19.7-percent fall in RevPAR. The segment called "midscale without food and beverage" -- hotels such as Hampton Inn and Marriott Courtyard -- was the only segment to have an increase in any of the three key performance measurements. Its average daily room rate rose 0.3 percent.
The markets that saw the greatest drop in occupancy were Phoenix (where it dropped 22.2 percent); Seattle (-19.7 percent) and San Diego (-18.1).
The markets that saw the largest decreases in RevPAR were Phoenix (-25.4 percent); Atlanta (-24.5 percent) and New York (-22.8 percent).
The markets that experienced the greatest increase in RevPAR were New Orleans (+18.7 percent) Chicago (+18.4 percent) and San Francisco/San Mateo (+10.6 percent).
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
