Whoa, United.

For some reason, United Airlines just can't seem to do it right.

United flight cancellations continue into third day - Chicago Tribune

Despite being three days past a nasty snowstorm that put a big knot in United's nationwide domestic operations, they still weren't up to snuff today.

The Elk Grove Village based airline apparently did all they could on Sunday and Christmas Eve to fly passengers onto their Christmas destinations. But they did that in spite of their Christmas Day schedule (they basically ignored it) and flew their aircraft and crews to far flung destinations away from where they were supposed to be on Christmas morning.

Not a big deal though on Christmas day - not too many people flying then, so they could afford to cancel a bunch of flights and still fly 70% of their schedule.

Not so though, for the day after Christmas - a historically busy travel day. Because many of their flight crews were still not in position, many of their flights were cancelled for a third day in a row. Here's an example of how that might happen:

Crew A flies a 757 and is based out of DEN. On Christmas Eve, they started a trip and were supposed to fly (all times mountain):

DEN - DSM (1:15-2:30)
DSM - ORD (4:23-5:10)
ORD - LGA (6:37-8:19)

and time out in New York. The next day, our crew reports at 7:00 am for a 7:50 - 11:41 flight back to DEN, finishing the day at SNA around 5:15 p.m, so they can fly next day's 8:03 a.m. departure back to DEN.

Unfortunately, on Christmas Eve, the crew is delayed everywhere, and doesn't get into LGA until 1:25 a.m. on Christmas Day. Luckily, all those passengers going to New York eventually get there for Christmas, so things are good for them.

However, for the pilots, and the airline, things are a bit more complicated. The pilots don't start rest until 1:30 in the morning...meaning they only have 5.5 hours until they start their next day ... which is illegal. So unless United has a spare crew (unlikely, since this is Christmas Day), their morning flight is delayed and the crew is stranded in New York.

Because of airline work rules, the crew can't fly until they get a certain amount of rest (the actual amount escapes me at the moment - but it's generally between 8 and 14 hours, depending on the hours worked the previous day). That 757 is stuck in New York until the crew gets their rest.

To make it even more complicated, the crew and the aircraft go their separate ways after getting back to DEN. Our stuck LGA aircraft is supposed to go on to SEA, while our crew to SNA in a different aircraft. So both of those flights are screwed up and it's still 6 hours before they even have to depart.

The crew can't leave LGA until after 10:00 a.m. to make sure they get 8 hours rest. But that's only 2 hours or so - which isn't bad. Unfortunately, to make sure our airplane gets to SEA on time for the next day's flights, United operations cancels the DEN & SEA flights altogether and sends our aircraft and crew to ORD at 12:30 p.m. to sub for a different stuck airplane so it (our 757) can be in position for a totally different SEA flight to be ready for next day's ops.

The crew flies to Chicago, but because of LGA's delays, they don't get to ORD until 2:30 p.m. Ops has canceled the next two flights to SNA, so they sub the crew onto a different 757 that's missing it's crew to BOS from 4:10 to 6:00 p.m. The crew ends up in Boston, and are out of working hours until the next day - 3,000 miles from where they were supposed to end up in Southern California.

Because United's pilots are shorthanded, there are barely any reserve DEN, ORD or LAX crew members to make it to SNA for the 8:05 a.m. flight out to DEN (on the day after Christmas) - so even if somehow United managed to get an aircraft to the airport, there's no crew to fly it.

See what a cluster-**** this whole airline operations thing can be?

long time no post

And tonight's is going to be kind of a lame-oh. But at least I'm trying.

Here are four interesting aviation stories that have come out in the past few days:

U.S. Acts to Ease Crunch at New York Airports (NY Times)

The gist: Flight cap during peak hours makes for less delays.

Gulf Remains Between US Airways Pilots (TheStreet.com)

The gist: After more than a year of integrating US Airways and America West Airlines, pilot seniority lists are still not integrated. Pilot unions are also separate.

Smoke in Cockpit Sends Plane Back to LA (AP/NY Times)

The gist: A faulty oven sent smoke into the cockpit, which caused the pilots to immediately declare an emergency and head for the shore.

Airline descends to a new low: a death fee (LA Times)

The gist: Daughters plan vacation in Hawaii with mom. Mom dies. Everyone else offers a hassle fee trip refund ... except for Hawaiian Airlines, who charge them a $75 cancellation fee, per ticket (3 of them). Luckily, American Express steps in and refunds the customers money (and likely demands their own refund from Hawaiian).

It's called "mandatory retirement..."

...and not many other jobs have one.

But pilots do.

For years, airline captains and first officers bemoaned this ancient and unnecessary law as they're forced to hang up their pilot goggles and scarfs as they turned the dreaded age (although, some pilots relished the fact that they were "forced" to retire).

However, it looks like that's all about to change after both the Senate and the House passed a bill that would increase that age by five years.

Senate votes to up pilot retirement age - NY Times/AP

The purpose of the bill is threefold:

First, to get rid of an antiquated law that's about 40 years too old. Really - there's no medical reason a 60 year old pilot can't perform in the cockpit, especially with a second able bodied person in the right seat next to him. All airline pilots get a medical checkup every six months, and after the age of 40 you get an EKG at the same time.

Second, to let airline pilots who are now making a lot less than they used to have a chance to earn more money - and work until social security payout age.

And Third, to give airlines a little more time from the pilots they've spent so much money on training over the years. There really is going to be a pilot shortage. My Uncle Doug was in the first round of Vietnam era pilots to retire in 2005, and lots of now-60 year old Captains are following him out the door at the moment. Which means lots of First Officers are moving up to Captain, which means lots more pilots are moving into those mainline slots from regional and corporate gigs. And when those regional Captains move up, regional F/Os take their spots - which means that flight instructors and other non airline pilots have to get hired - which takes time. I've heard from my pilot buddies that a lot of regionals are already hard up for able bodies to sit in the cockpit.

Best airports to make a love connection

The city of brotherly love is now the city of airport love:

Survey: Love is in the air at Philly Airport - USA Today

The fantasy of every single man flying around the United States: Finding a woman at an airport.

Not my fantasy of course, but that was a pretty fun scenario when I was single and flying around the United States. I never found that perfect airport bound woman, but if you're game - I spose you can try out PHL.

Or maybe you don't - the "Airport Love Experts" made their ratings based partly on the amount of time people spend at an individual airport ... meaning what airports are the most delay prone. Philly is definitely near the top of that list. So unlike most airport ratings, this one deemed Philly's delays a positive factor, because you can spend that much more time wooing your newly beloved airport maiden to share a taxi with you when you finally reach your destination, whenever that might be.

too tired to post

But I'm doing it anyway!

To give you a quick insight into the life an airline pilot, here goes.

I had dinner with my buddy Andy tonight - he flies the Embraer 135/140/145 for American Eagle. He's based out of Chicago but lives in Des Moines, so he's a commuter. He commuted into work today on the 6:00 am flight and then went to work, flying to White Plains, NY and back in the late morning and early afternoon. He was scheduled to fly into Bloomington, Ill. tonight and overnight there (OVN), but because of scheduling and operations issues, Eagle "canceled" his overnight.

What does this mean? Well, Andy was on his own until his call in time at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. Too much time to just hang out at the airport, and not enough time to fly home and get back - especially with the impending ice storm.

So Andy had to pay $50 to rent a hotel room. That's tough on Andy, who has to report at 9:00 tomorrow to deadhead to Bloomington and fly the airplane back to O'Hare. From there, he's taking an airplane out to Rochester, then to LaGuarida, then to Syracuse, where he'll spend the overnight before trucking it all back to ORD on Wednesday morning.

The impending Midwest ice storm is really wreaking havoc with airline flight schedules, and I'm betting that Andy will be spending lots of time at ORD tomorrow waiting around for dispatch and ATC to give him a time to start go. It'll be a busy day...we'll see what happens.

Meet Lynx

There's a new regional airline on the block - Lynx.

Lynx to begin flying Friday - Denver Post

Lynx is owned by Frontier Airlines, but it's your typical subsidiary owned regional arm - using Frontier Airlines money to buy and fly smaller airplanes and pay non-union pilots less money than their mainline union counterparts.

But that's an old story. Personally I'm not a huge non-union or union guy - but my pilot buds all join the unions and feel pretty strongly about them. If I was an airline pilot, I'd probably be the same way. Anywho, that's not relevant to this blog entry, exactly.

The point is, Lynx is doing something most regional airlines don't do - fly turboprops. The majority of all the regional airlines in the United States have been flying CRJs and ERJs , mainly because most passengers don't like airplanes with big spinning meateaters out there on the wing. It's been like this ever since the 1950s when the turbofan was introduced.

But there are many advantages to flying turboprops - mainly in fuel efficiency, which is pretty much paramount for airlines nowadays. Frontier is flying 74 seat Bombardier Q400s from Denver to four destinations: Wichita, Kansas; Rapid City, SD; Sioux City, Iowa, and Albuquerque, NM.

The flights are all between 300 and 466 miles, which means passengers will have to spend about one to two hours each flight, which are a bit easier to deal with on the Q400 than the CRJ or the ERJ. In fact, other than the slight comfort gain, there won't be much noticeable difference between a jet and a turboprop for passengers sitting on the Q400 (Btw, the "Q" stands for "quiet").

Lynx has had some issues getting certified (just random DOT delays from what I've heard), and they've been flying the routes since October using RJ metal leased from other regional airlines. The loads have apparently been good so far, considering most of these airports (save ABQ) see little in the way of competition from the mainstay airlines (NW at SUX and RAP, for instance). Lynx has already upgraded SUX from two flights a day to three flights, so that's a definite plus.

Not everyone flying from these communities will be using Lynx (except for ABQ, there are virtually no convenient ways to get to any east coast or Midwest city using the airline), but there are a myriad of west coast, mountain and even Caribbean destinations that would be useful using the turboprop to get to Frontier's main operation at DEN. Lynx is good for Frontier and good for passengers (but pilots will say it's bad for them - which it is - further dragging down pilot base pay for new hires).

But we can't have everything.

What does the falling dollar mean for aircraft manufacturers?

A few things.

It depends on whom you ask though.

For airplane builders, like Airbus, it means that their planes cost more than Boeing's, because Airbus deals in Euros but sells in dollars. So as their costs pile up from suppliers, workers wages and other expenses in Es, their profit margin goes down more and more because they sell in $.

For example (purely theoretical)

Labor: 50 E
Parts: 50 E
Other: 50 E
Total: 150 E

150 E = $219.90 (E 1 = $ 1.466)

But Boeing might have:

Labor: $ 60
Parts: $60
Other: $60
Total: $180

For the unmathed - that's $39.90 more for an Airbus aircraft even with cheaper base prices.

With a lower exchange rate, profit margins go down because they have to price down. Boeing could feasibly sell their airplane for $200 and still make a $20 profit. If Airbus sells at $210, they still lose $9.90. See why Boeing has an advantage?

So what can Airbus do?

For starters, they can start building airplanes paying US $ - and that's just what they're fixin' to do:

Airbus Seeks a Welcome in Alabama - New York Times

Yeehaww. I liked their lede:

"Louis Gallois, the co-chief executive of EADS, the parent company of Airbus, could have his pick of invitations among dozens of parties during the Paris air show, the giant industry gathering this week.

But on Saturday night, Mr. Gallois went to pay his respects at a gathering held by members of the Mobile City Council of Alabama and the Mobile Airport Authority."

Only a $9 trillion debt, vanishing currency value, towering oil prices and a huge military contract for refueling tankers could cause the CEO of EADS to hobnob with the who's who of the Mobile, Ala. jetset. But he sure is doing it.

You see, EADS is pinning it's hopes of overcoming the American Congress' silly "Buy-American" tendencies on the folks of Mobile, who hope to attract an Airbus plant in the near future. Operating in the United States would give Airbus the ability to buy American parts at literally bottom-dollar American prices, and pay non-union American workers respectable union wages and give them lots of benefits for far cheaper than they would be paying in a similar factory in France or Germany.

Also, an American plant would give Airbus the credibility it needs to get that big fat American government contract to build it's European airplanes in the United States for the American military to operate.

Got me?

With the dollar being so low - this contract becomes even more important for EADS. We'll see what happens - but it really is unlikely that they'll get a contract. It might have the backing of Mobile, along with Alabama's senators and reps - but Alabama doesn't exactly have the Congressional clout it needs to bring other members (and it would need lots) on board to make an Airbus bid successful over an American product.

But that's no knock to the state of Alabama. They do have that awesome song...

"Save the Small Airports"

Good headline, great article:

Save the Small Airports - New York Times

Save the small airports indeed. Such is the battle cry for general aviation in the United States these days. As I previously posted, there are many reasons why people around the country don't like smaller airports - whether it be noise, perceived safety issues, financial reasons or whatever - small airports are really a dying breed.

The article states that 57 general aviation airports have closed in the state of New Jersey since the end of World War II. While some of those were likely small grass airfields and unused Army Air Corps training fields, some of them were viable landing airstrips. With all the congestion in and around the New York/New Jersey area, it sounds like New Jersey needs all the airports it can get.

One of the driving debates in the article is the prospect of "very light jets," or VLJs.

For the uninformed, VLJs are often considered to be the future of general aviation. They're small, 4-6 seat jets (including the pilot) built by companies like Eclipse, Adam and Diamond (along with reputable, historic aviation names like Cessna and Piper) that people say will transform aviation. The key to light jets is that they will not only be safe but also cheap as hell to operate (low fuel consumption, one pilot and low operating costs). That is the main question in whether or not they will "transform" aviation like some people say.

But I am skeptical. VLJs will certainly be a viable option at some point in the near future - how near (or far) that is is still in question.

Re: Winter Storm 1

So,

It turns out my friend Ryan Stuart was on that Mesa Airlines/United Express aircraft that got stuck in Des Moines.

On top of that, he was in the exact picture that the Des Moines Register used for its web-front to illustrate said stuck aircraft:


That's him, in the left corner, the only dude who was not, as he put it, an "astronaut." Talking on his cell phone.

Hollywood.

Anywho, I talked to Ryan - who was jumpseating to ORD to commute to his base in Columbus, Ohio (CMH), where he flies the E-135/40/45 for Republic Airlines . He obviously had no luck getting through ORD, but was able to get there through the back door (St. Louis).

He did say, however, that because he is obviously dressed up in his pilot garb, most people logically thought he was the pilot of the plane. Apparently the picture is all over the pilot message boards and many regional pilots across the country are making fun of little Ryan Stuart for jumpseating on an inopportune flight.

In other news - the New England Patriots are trying to score to go up on the Baltimore Ravens and stay undefeated, and I need to watch it.

Winter storm 1

It's been precipitating in Chicagoland for about 8 hours now, but at the moment there are no big delays or problems at any of the airports around here. So far, it seems like the only casualties were about 400 flights at O'Hare and a poor Mesa CRJ that slid off a taxiway in Des Moines:

Airplane slides off Des Moines airport runway (Des Moines Register)




I feel bad for those pilots and passengers, because it's unlikely any of them were able to get to their final destination today. With 400 flights canceled and quite a few afternoon delays in and out of ORD, they're all probably still stuck in Des Moines. And while that wouldn't be so bad for me, for other people it's probably a drag (no offense Des Moines).

In other news, California NIMBYs are at it again:

California City votes to ban fastest jets (NY Times)

The issue, apparently, is "fast jets" - an incredibly vague descriptor. The airport has been around since 1924 - a whole hell of a long time before anyone was retarded enough to build houses 250 feet away from the runways. You can pretty much see this anywhere across the country where upscale neighborhoods are built closer and closer to general aviation airports.

Cheap land is inherently easy to find if it exists close to airports. Because we don't have infinite land anywhere, urban and suburban sprawl will continually press city councils and county boards to rezone land around airports and other areas for residential purposes instead of the industrial space it is more suitable for. That's why airport land is so cheap - to attract business instead of home buyers. The fact that most buyers probably don't want to live next to airports escapes those homebuyers until they have been on the land for 5-10 years and realize they hate the airport that's next to them. It happens mostly anywhere land is more scarce than others - like California.