| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
For those who fly United&US Airways(and American)watch out!
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 12:19 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> United is adding a $15 for the first bag checked, US Airways is adding $15 to its checked bag policy and US Airways is taking its nickel and dime tactics to a whole new level.
This can and will affect photogs who need to fly.
Additionally American Airlines is now doing random spot measuring and weighing of carry on bags at DFW. This random spot checking is often resulting in forced checking of carry on bags and the collection of $15 on the spot for the checked bags. It is not in full-swing yet,but I am sure it will be in the next few months.
.....watch out!
You can read up in the United and US Airways changes here:
http://flyingwithfish.blogspot.com/2008/06/united-airlines-adds-baggage-fee...
(warning the US Airways changes are horrendous!) |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
 |
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 12:28 AM on 06.13.08 |
| ->> United is $25 for the 2nd checked bag. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 12:32 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> Ian,
I know, I have that listed in the Blog entry. They're pretty much matching American Airlines. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:45 AM on 06.13.08 |
| ->> Don't forget that US Airways also announced today that they're cutting 1,700 jobs. What's the over/under for when they'll declare bankruptcy and ask the taxpayers for another multi billion dollar bailout? |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 12:59 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> Michael
US also announced the deferment of the launch of it's Philly-Shanghai route. It's canceling two Airbus A333 aircraft leases and the acceptance of a set of Airbus A340-500 aircraft it intended to operate on it's Philly-Shanghai route.
Odd move considering US-China routes are currently profitable for nearly all airlines flying the routes. It's not passengers who are bringing the profit, it's the cargo.
US's choice of aircraft, the A345, was a poor choice, but the deferring of the route bound to cost them more money than save them them money. |
|
Jason Watson, Photographer
 |
Charlottesville | VA | USA | Posted: 1:06 AM on 06.13.08 |
| ->> UA is exempting Premier and higher level passengers (and their companions) from 1st and 2nd bag fees (as long as it's not overweight or oversized)... for now. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
 |
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 1:06 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> Michael,
It won't be the taxpayers this time, it will be the shareholders and the passengers.
The airline industry hasn't been able to control it's tendency to deep discount until lately; it can't control the cost of jet fuel. This industry, more than any other large industry, has taken a terrible beating for the last 8 years. I truly feel sorry for many of the employees. Senior management is another story.
Only now have they seen the light and raised prices. Still, they can't seem to do enough to counter the effects of jet fuel price increases. If there was a Toyota Hybrid engine for a A330 or a Dreamliner, that would help. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 1:21 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> I posted something similar to this elsewhere online.....but here goes
How do you explain Southwest Airlines barely raising it's fares, not changing it's checked baggage policy, not charging massive fees for booking on the phone, still serving in-flight beverages and still turning a profit? Hell SWA's showing a GROWTH of 7% last month without a reduction in capacity?
Here is an idea. Airlines should move to a "common fleet." 'Legacy airlines' need to reduce their operating structure, which is often redundant. The airlines are so layered in a system that was created prior to deregulation and never changed their business practices.
Airlines need to reevaluate routes. Not reduce capacity , but reassess some 'vanity routes.'
Airlines can adjust flying speeds to save fuel.
Airlines should not piss off their loyal flying elite. These passengers tend to pay higher fares for shorter routes, instead many airlines are alienating these passengers first. US Airways has damn near shed all it's frequent flyers.
Airlines can pull grounded aircraft from the parking spaces and convert some to freight. Currently only Northwest Airlines operates it's own subfleet for cargo. Northwest's 747-200 cargo aircraft out pace their 747-400 passenger aircraft for profitability on nearly every flight they fly. Cargo earns more than 'self loading walking freight"(passengers) and generates higher revenue. The most profitable airline in the US is one you have never heard of ABX (http://www.abxair.com). ABX flies no passengers, it is pure freight.
Delta Airlines for example has a number of grounded MD-11 aircraft. Conversion of MD-11 passenger aircraft to MD-11F (freight) aircraft is fairly easy and cost effective. MD-11F are the mainstay of main freight carriers. There is actually a demand,and shortage,of air freight capacity, especially in Asia. Legacy airlines do not move towards freight because of unions. No union ALPA passenger pilot want to move to cargo. Cargo is considered a 'down grade' It is a stigma, while some laid off pilots are making a run for slots with freight carriers who pay extremely well for long haul freight pilots.
There is a reason nearly all major Euro and Asian carriers operate entire separate cargo fleets and remain profitable, while not reducing passenger services, and US 'legacy carriers' are steadily failing.
There are other options, but 'legacy carriers' are so entrenched in image and the status quo that they are sinking under their own weight of internal bureaucracy. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 1:23 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> ......but this has nothing to do with photography.
I posted this info to inform photogs who have to travel. Some have Star Gold and will pay no fees, but many are not Star Gold and will be hit with $80 round trip baggage fees.
This is something that needs to be accounted for when you check your bags to head out to an assignments.
Knowing American Airlines' new more aggressive tactics at DFW is also important. This can mean being forced to check your normally carried on backpack. Refusal to check the bag can result in being denied boarding. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 8:08 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> Steven,
SWA has, in the past, used open book management to run the airline. Everyone, from the CEO on down, knew what the numbers were - payroll, overhead - the whole thing. They have always used their people to help find savings and then shared the savings with their people. They listened to their people and adapted things. Their business model was a competitive advantage.
I don't know if they continued to use it, but it certainly has worked. Add in the fact they bought futures in jet fuel,and still run a airline that goes for airports where the landing fees are less, run the same plane throughout their system, and you have the lowest breakeven in the industry.
Evidently, they treat their photographer customers ok, too.
Michael |
|
William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 8:18 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> "How do you explain Southwest Airlines barely raising it's fares"
Simple -- they hedged big-time on their future fuel delivery (i.e. they speculated) and that is paying off in huge ways. They are paying far less than market prices for their jet fuel. Eventually, though, they'll burn through that fuel and have to start paying higher prices like everyone else. |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
|
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 8:28 AM on 06.13.08 |
| ->> From what I have read, Southwest's fuel hedges run for many years into the future and while prices will creep up in that term, the company will still be paying WELL below market value for jet fuel. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
 |
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 8:32 AM on 06.13.08 |
| ->> FYI The fees are also waived for Star Alliance Silver, which is only 25K miles and also don't apply to international routes. |
|
Keith Simonian, Photographer
 |
Martinez | CA | USA | Posted: 10:19 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> Here's why Southwest is sitting pretty, while the others must raise prices.
"On average Southwest paid about $ 1. 98 for a gallon of gas while American, which
hedged about 27 percent of its fuel use, paid $ 2.74 a gallon."
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Business/227329/ |
|
Liane Rebeka Harrison, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Madison | WI | USA | Posted: 11:02 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> Spirit Air is charging $20.00 for a second bag each way!
1) 62" total dimension bag per person. The prefer cash too. Not all check in counters outside of the US have credit card machines.
I was bummed:( |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:13 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> This is a rather crazy PR blunder. If these airlines had all added $36 to the price of their tickets in $9 increments per week over the next four weeks, then very few people would have noticed or cared.
If $20 per bag is a reasonable estimate of the increased cost of fuel, then at $36 the airline would make an additional $16 profit per passenger and without creating any controversy.
Instead, the airlines look bad, the passengers are angry, and blogs and other media are in a feeding frenzy. I doubt that "Airline Ticket Prices Up $9 This Week" would have made a very interesting headline, and "Airline Ticet Prices Up $36 This Month" is not much more exciting. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 11:48 AM on 06.13.08 |
->> Michael,
Airline fares have gone up more than a dozen times across the board since Jan. This has been in the news,but not driving the travel news stories. Nickel & Dime tactics do make headlines in travel and business sections. They do piss off travelers.
I track airfares in some detail, but largely most travelers, even business travelers don't really pay attention. The $9 fare increase would have annoyed business travelers, but it would not have caused the shedding of frequent flyers in droves to competing airlines.
US Airways has not effectively cut all benefits for frequent flyers which in the travel community has cut off many people at the knees. |
|
Ian Halperin, Photographer
 |
Plano(Dallas) | TX | USA | Posted: 1:34 PM on 06.14.08 |
| ->> Southwest also has some of the lowest (maybe lowest) labor costs in the industry. Whenever possible they use airports with lower gates fees and they only operate one type of aircraft which saves costs on parts and maintainance. |
|
Tom Mayes, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 2:19 PM on 06.14.08 |
->> Steven,
Your view on what the airlines should do is a nice read, but it is incorrect.
As has been mentioned, Southwest is highly hedged, much to their credit. From their 1Q08 earning report:
"Even with $302 million in favorable cash settlements from derivative contracts, our first quarter 2008 economic jet fuel costs increased 20.7 percent to $1.98 per gallon."
They only earned $34 million AFTER saving $300 million thru fuel hedges. That would be over 1/4 BILLION dollar loss if they had to pay the going rate for fuel. This isn't the first quarter that SW the investment company made money while their extremely large flight department lost money.
While they have the upper hand, SW is wisely taking advantage of their competitors. As their hedges diminish over the next few years their costs will go up dramatically.
A common fleet type is a good idea as UAL is doing in parking their 737s in favor of newer A320 series aircraft. However, a single fleet type it isn't possible when you are a global airline. SW does not serve a single international destination. A 737 can easily serve their route structure. An airline that serves both Omaha and Osaka will need different aircraft to do so. Good luck getting to Hong Kong on Southwest.
I am not sure what a "vanity" route is, but airlines must continue to operate to certain destinations to preserve either a landing slot and/or route authority.
Adjusting flying speed is a great idea, but that has already been done, not that people sitting in the passenger cabin would know that.
A dedicated cargo operation sounds like a good idea, but there is much more to it than just converting your MD11s to freighters. Only Northwest (and United, via Pan Am) have "fifth freedom" rights to allow them to fly to any destination from Japan, just like a Japanese carrier. These rights date back to 1947. NWA has operated a dedicated cargo fleet dating back to the 707. They operate cargo hubs out of Tokyo and Anchorage and the fifth freedom rights allow them an advantage that other carriers do not have. Just read their SEC filings and you will see just how much NWA values those rights in regard to the freighter operation. UAL tried a Pacific freight operation with DC-10-30Fs back in the 1990s, but it didn't survive the effects of 911.
It is especially ironic that you mention ABX Air. The former Airborne Express now is a contract lift provider, primarily for DHL in the US. Just last month DHL announced that they can't make money in the US with their own fleet (ABX DC-9s and 767s, as well as Astar, a DC-8 operator), so they will terminate the contracts with ABX and Astar and are in talks with UPS, their competitor, to contract with them to provide the lift. DHL is currently 74% of ABX's business. If you click on the link you provided above, there is even a link to a statement regarding DHL's announcement.
Of all that you wrote, I find this the most outrageous:
"No union ALPA passenger pilot want to move to cargo. Cargo is considered a 'down grade' It is a stigma, while some laid off pilots are making a run for slots with freight carriers who pay extremely well for long haul freight pilots."
How many flights did you make before you felt qualified to make that statement? My company operated a dedicated 727 freight operation in Asia in the 1990s. We flew it under contract to DHL, as they had the route authority. Everyone that I know that flew out there loved it, and would do it again in a heart beat. Everyone I know wishes we would start our own dedicated freight outfit.
Passenger carriers carry quite a bit of air freight (for UPS and FedEx even) on their passenger flights today. The bottom line is if the legacies thought they could make money with pure freight, they would start it up and let all the new hire pilots fly it since the rest of us consider it a "down grade."
Right now, there are three airlines that everyone wants to work for, and two of them are pure freight (FedEx, USP). I know people that are employed as pilots at low cost AND legacy carrier that are hoping to get on with FedEx or UPS because they do pay the best. These people aren't on the street, either. There is no "down grade" in earning more money with a stable employer.
When you close the cockpit door, the view out the front window is the same. The boxes don't complain.
The best part about flying freight is not having to deal with know-it-all passengers. |
|
Tom Mayes, Photographer, Assistant
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 2:35 PM on 06.14.08 |
->> Ian,
Southwest is the most heavily unionized airline in this country. Their top 737s pilots are only out-payed by American's top long haul 777 pilots.
SW's big advantage is in the fact that they don't have large banks of flights to connect to, so the employees are more productive working a constant stream of flights with quick turns. They also have hired as they continued to expand which effectively keeps your a large portion of your workforce on the bottom end of the payscale.
Your are correct about using smaller airports and a simplified fleet. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 3:38 PM on 06.14.08 |
->> It's very interesting to see the random panic moves the airlines are making right now in lieu of a rapidly changing business climate.
There are a lot of parallels to the newspaper industry. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 4:28 PM on 06.14.08 |
->> Tom,
Southwest's fuel does rise annually, but at a much more reduced and regulated rated as compared to it's competitors. Southwest's hedging of fuel has their costs at roughly half-that of the competitors which gives them a strong edge. As they continue to buy fuel futures, while the costs go up, they will still be ahead of the competition. While airfares rise, theirs will rise, but will still be lower than the competition.
Airlines running a 'common fleet' does work for global carriers. Boeing cockpits are not universal, and thus require pilots to have more lost time in the air, and a more expensive, change in certification from say a 737 to a 777. Airbus cockpits are a common cockpit. The A318 and A380 have roughly the same layout and design so a pilot can fairly easily switch from one aircraft to another. Pilots who fly the A318, 319, 320, 321 are able to fly anyone of these aircraft without a change in certification on the aircraft. A move to an A330 or A340 is easy, minimal downtime and more cost effective.
Airlines who fly the A318, 319, 320, 321 are also able to swap certain parts from one aircraft to another, while there are virtually no swappable parts between the 737 and 757, which ads to costs.
ABX operates around the world, while based in the US. It is still very profitable and services contracts for a wide range of companies,not just DHL (who bought out Airborne, although some aircraft are still designated airborne while others are designated DHL). ABX operates an extensive fleet for both medium haul and long haul traffic.
You don't need to have 'fifth freedom' to operate freight. You do need it to operate a freight system that deals with Japan. Airlines can operate out of Japan on a 'charter basis' , just not scheduled service. Airlines can also operated throughout......I dunno the rest of the world,looking for opportunities. Some airlines, such as Lufthansa,set up a sub-corporation in China simply to be able to operate its own carrier out of China. Other carriers are doing similar operations at the moment, including some North American based carriers.
Where did I get info that pilots feel 'down graded' when they move to Cargo? From speaking with pilots. I have met some who fly for NWA who feel that getting moved to NWA Cargo is a downgrade. I have spoken with more than one Delta pilot when DL was considering setting up MD-11DF freight operations who saw it as a down-grade within their seniority. I recently chatted with Lufthansa Cargo pilot who was eagerly awaiting his move up to Lufthansa passenger operations. While researching some info on Korean Airlines I was contacted by a KAL pilot and along the way he mentioned he went from 744 passenger operations to cargo operations and it was seen among his peers as a step down in position within the company, until he returned to passenger operations.
So, while I am not a pilot, I have spoken to enough who have expressed this opinion. I also have spoken to quite a few UPS and Fedex pilots who love their jobs.
I am strictly speaking from the point of view of those pilots who are currently in a passenger airline.
Many pilots want positions with cargo haulers because they are stable, Cargo haulers don't have the same negative cash flow problems (in general) that passenger carriers have. Passengers can skip flights, freight has to move no matter what. Again, I was speaking from my conversations with passengers pilots faced with moving cargo only, within the current existing passenger airline.
United's Pacific cargo operations were limited to SFO-ICN and SFO-NRT. There is a whole world of cargo out there. Many sources state the demand for air cargo has well out paced that of the available capacity. You are discussing US cargo operations and fifth-freedom. This is only one market and one limited operations restrictions. Look ona global market and these carriers can tap the markets in a variety of ways and some are looking into these viable options. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 4:30 PM on 06.14.08 |
->> Ian,
SWA runs a very streamlined operations. SWA's aircraft have minimal downtime, which turns into revenue. Planes make no money on the ground.
SWA is careful about the airports it flies into which also increases it's revenue.
.....and as for unions at SWA , SWA has a massive union, the Soutwest Airlines Pilots Association, http://www.swapa.org
SWA's Flight Attendants, Ops Agents and Ramp Agents are part of the Transport Workers Union; CSAs and Reservations Agents are members of the Int'l Assoc of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union; Flight Dispatchers and members of the Southwest Airlines Employee Assoc; Aircraft Mechanics and Maintenance Techs are members of the Aircraft Fraternal Association and
All in all, around close to 90% of SWA's employees are members of a Union and work in collective bargaining. |
|
Tom Mayes, Photographer, Assistant
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 11:51 PM on 06.15.08 |
->> Steven,
YOU WROTE:
"How do you explain Southwest Airlines barely raising it's fares, not changing it's checked baggage policy, not charging massive fees for booking on the phone, still serving in-flight beverages and still turning a profit? Hell SWA's showing a GROWTH of 7% last month without a reduction in capacity?"
I WROTE:
"They only earned $34 million AFTER saving $300 million thru fuel hedges. That would be over 1/4 BILLION dollar loss if they had to pay the going rate for fuel....As their hedges diminish over the next few years their costs will go up dramatically."
YOU WROTE:
"Southwest's fuel does rise annually, but at a much more reduced and regulated rated as compared to it's competitors. Southwest's hedging of fuel has their costs at roughly half-that of the competitors which gives them a strong edge. As they continue to buy fuel futures, while the costs go up, they will still be ahead of the competition. While airfares rise, theirs will rise, but will still be lower than the competition."
MY RESPONSE:
You listed some things airlines should do. You never answered your question about how to explain why Sothwest is barely raising fares. The answer is fuel hedging.
YOU WROTE:
"Here is an idea. Airlines should move to a "common fleet." 'Legacy airlines' need to reduce their operating structure, which is often redundant."
MY RESONSE:
In the context of Southwest (since you specifically asked about Southwest's fares), they fly a common fleet type in the 737 series only, so your comparison to the Airbus family doesn't apply to Southwest. A large airline operating many different fleet types in roughly the same seating capacity would be smart to only operate one. Such as UAL is doing in parking the 737 in favor of the A320.
YOU WROTE:
"Pilots who fly the A318, 319, 320, 321 are able to fly anyone of these aircraft without a change in certification on the aircraft."
MY RESPONSE:
Same is true for the 737-600, -700, -800, -900, the direct competitor to the A320 family.
YOU WROTE:
"Airlines who fly the A318, 319, 320, 321 are also able to swap certain parts from one aircraft to another, while there are virtually no swappable parts between the 737 and 757, which ads to costs."
MY RESPONSE:
See my response above regarding the 737. The 757 has no equal in the Airbus family. While the A321 is close in size (as is the 737-900), try filling up a 757 and an A321 (or 737-900) and see how far they can fly out of a high altitude city like Quito, Equador. Or try flying them across the North Atlantic and see which one runs out of gas first.
You can't swap parts between an A320 and the A330, either. They serve different missions. Having the right airplane for the mission is far more important. Things like delivery positions and payload/range capabilities play a huge role in what the airlines buy. Plus, very few airlines have money to buy gas not to mention deposits on new airplanes. And lets not forget that new airplanes take years to deliver.
But yes, you will save a few bucks on flight training with Airbus.
YOU WROTE:
"ABX operates around the world, while based in the US. It is still very profitable and services contracts for a wide range of companies,not just DHL (who bought out Airborne, although some aircraft are still designated airborne while others are designated DHL)."
MY RESPONSE:
ABX operates 55 DC-9s and 31 767s for DHL. It operates 16 767s for other carriers, which is why I stated before that DHL is currently 74% of ABX's business.
YOU WROTE:
"You don't need to have 'fifth freedom' to operate freight. You do need it to operate a freight system that deals with Japan."
MY RESPONSE:
True, but those fifth freedom rights are what make NW Cargo as successful as it is. You were the one touting the success of NW Cargo, not me.
BTW, did you know that AA doesn't operate a single freighter (they used to years ago), but they carry more freight than all of NW, including their 14 747 freighters?
YOU WROTE:
"Some airlines, such as Lufthansa,set up a sub-corporation in China simply to be able to operate its own carrier out of China. Other carriers are doing similar operations at the moment, including some North American based carriers."
MY RESPONSE:
Airlines set up subsidiaries like KLM/KLM Asia or used existing subsidiaries like Continental/Continental Micronesia to be able to serve both Taiwan and Mainland China. Remember, Taiwan is the breakaway republic, and truthfully, I not even sure if this is still a problem with the Chinese.
YOU WROTE:
"Where did I get info that pilots feel 'down graded' when they move to Cargo? From speaking with pilots. I have met some who fly for NWA who feel that getting moved to NWA Cargo is a downgrade."
MY RESPONSE:
I know several NWA pilots personally that have flown the cargo and they loved it. The problem was they could get better seniority (quality of life) in a different part of the operation. It had nothing to do with what was behind (or on a 747, below) the cockpit.
YOU WROTE:
"I have spoken with more than one Delta pilot when DL was considering setting up MD-11DF freight operations who saw it as a down-grade within their seniority."
MY RESPONSE:
Seniority is everything in the airline business. If you worked for an airline, you would know what I mean.
YOU WROTE:
"I recently chatted with Lufthansa Cargo pilot who was eagerly awaiting his move up to Lufthansa passenger operations."
MY RESPONSE:
The kind of trips that are flown on cargo routes can be very different in terms of layover, time away from home, etc. That doesn't mean flying freight is a "lower class."
YOU WROTE:
"While researching some info on Korean Airlines I was contacted by a KAL pilot and along the way he mentioned he went from 744 passenger operations to cargo operations and it was seen among his peers as a step down in position within the company, until he returned to passenger operations."
MY RESONSE:
Knowing the Asian culture, and Korean Airlines in particular, this doesn't surprise me.
YOU ORIGINALLY WROTE:
"Legacy airlines do not move towards freight because of unions."
MY RESPONSE:
THAT, my friend, is simply not true.
It does sound nice in a blog, though.
The airlines don't ask "passenger pilots" what they want to fly. Just like ordering one aircraft type over another, the company does what it feels is best overall for the company.
No doubt about it, there are some pilots that feel they are above freight. However, for everyone of those there are several that love it, or would chose a particular base/aircraft type for quality of life reasons, not what because of what's on the manifest. You painted with a very broad brush when you made your statement.
Steven, the problem I have with what you wrote is that you started out asking WHY Southwest hasn't raised fares much, then you go on to extol the virtues of things that Southwest doesn't even do.
Your "if you build it, they will come" line of thought is way over-simplified. You may have made a lot of trips through the TSA checkpoints and flown around the world, but operating an airline is a whole lot more complex than you realize. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 6:09 AM on 06.16.08 |
->> Freight flying
Since Louisville is a big UPS hub and I do a little flying, I know several UPS pilots. Many of them worked flying passengers before they made the jump to UPS. None of the pilots in my circle of friends would ever consider going back to passenger. They like the routes, the time at home, and the fact that "boxes don't bit**" as I've heard them say numerous times. They have their gripes about the company and other things (like most pilots). But I've never heard any of them say that they want to go back to flying passengers to fix everything. |
|
Thom Kendall, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Sunderland | MA | USA | Posted: 8:41 AM on 06.16.08 |
->> Steven/Tom,
If you had kept this post on point, with info that is truly pertinent to flying/working photographers, you wouldn't have wasted tons of precious bandwidth.
Steven,
Thanks for keeping us up-to-date on the baggage changes. However, that info, plus the responses of those who had additional supplemental info DIRECTLY relating to the original post would certainly have been sufficient.
It does appear that if one keeps one's carry on bags within the airline's stated weight/dimensions (in other words, follows the rules), one will be able to avoid checking one's bag. All your sage advice about how to pack light should come in handy there, yes? Also, if you are indeed flying while working for a client, can you not pass the cost along to the client, as is common practice in nearly all aspects of modern commerce? Troublesome? Yes. Necessary? Yes.
Tom,
Is it really necessary to give a blow-by-blow recap of statement and response when the difference of opinion relates to the off-topic, nuts-and-bolts inner workings of the airline industry?
What's the saying?..."Give me something I can use" |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 10:42 AM on 06.16.08 |
->> Thom,
I stress the information regarding American Airlines because they are making up the rules as they go, in an unofficial test policy, at their major hub in Dallas-Ft. Worth.
As American Airlines's current carry on weight policy is 40lbs there are rumours of them seeking to adopt a "European Weight Policy" which may being the weight down to closer to 15lbs. Currently airlines, such as Air China, has a carry on weight policy of only 11lbs and limited you to one carry on only (although I just flew four flights on them a few weeks ago with a carry-on + personal item and my carry on was 35lbs).
With many photographers hauling carry on bags that are over 40lbs, and AA being one of the dominant airlines in the United States the 'forced checked' policy can be a considerably problem. While DFW has long since been a problem spot for forced checked bags (I have experienced it 3 times personally there and no where else) with the new $15 checked bag fee this 'test policy' may go into affect at other airports, or connection hubs such as Chicago O'Hare, Miami, Los Angeles, St. Louis and JFK.
At this time neither United or US Airways claim to have any interest in changing their carry on enforcement policy. The carry-on enforcement policy at the gate could delay flights which would increase the cost of operating the flight and thus negate the maybe $120 gained at the gate in baggage fees.
........and Tom Mayes, if you wish to discuss the inner workings of the Fifth Freedom and Eighth Freedom of airlines (or even the currently unused 9th freedom) drop me an e-mail. I'd be happy to discuss how cargo haulers routinely work around the systems in place that are primarily directed at passenger traffic. I'm sure you're aware of this structure, but if you feel like debating , my e-mail is not hard to find. |
|
Tom Mayes, Photographer, Assistant
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 4:41 AM on 06.17.08 |
->> Thom, sorry if my plain text posts have "wasted tons of precious bandwidth." Please indulge me a couple pounds more for this post and then I will be done with this thread. My "blow-by-blow" was simply answering Steven point-by-point addressing each issue he brought up. I guess I could have made some generalizations with a few facts thrown in here or there, but that was what started all of this. If these boards had a quote function, it would have looked a lot smoother, but then it would have wasted even more bandwidth. Steven provides a lot of good information on here, including his most recent post to this thread, but his "here is an idea" for airlines post contained missing information and inaccuracies that needed rebuttal.
Steven, whether or not an airline can get around "the systems in place" to fly freight is not the point--doing things that make financial sense is. There is a large time factor involved with the conversion, as well as the cost. Remember, cash is king right now as fuel is in uncharted territory. Laying out millions to set this all up hoping to turn a profit isn't the smartest idea. Just because someone else can make money doing something doesn't guarantee that you too will make money doing it. Consider this: over the last 15 or so years, several of the major airlines decided that they needed to start "an airline within an airline" so they could compete with the no-frills low cost carriers. After all, the LCC were making money and taking over the domestic market. If you read all the newspaper reports and analyst comments from those days, that was the wave of the future. The carriers that didn't follow suite would be forced to do so or lose market share. It was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Today, all of them have been closed down and folded back into their mainline carriers. United and Delta even had to try the concept twice, just to make sure it was a failure. UPS used to fly passengers too, for a while. They finally decided that wasn't a good idea in their business plan. The cost of acquiring freighters and setting up a freight operation doesn't guarantee that it will add enough revenue to make it worth the expense, but it does look good on paper.
I want to leave this thread on topic and add something constructive to the discussion, so here goes. Is the bag fee a bad idea? Probably. However, IMO it is the (unintended) consequence of our never ending quest for lower fares. Why pay for a service you don't necessarily need? If you don't have a bag to check, why should you have to pay the same as the guy next to you that does have a bag to check. After all, his bag is going to require the use of a tug and baggage cart, not to mention the people that load it. Why should you, without a checked bag, have to fund that equipment and manpower. Think of it this way: if you DO have a bag to check, then you don't qualify for the $15 discount. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 7:38 AM on 06.17.08 |
->> Tom,
This thread has gone way off topic. I posted about baggage policies, then answered a question with a simplified answer to an extremely complex question.
I am not here to debate my knowledge of airlines and the system in place. I make my replies simplistic here because this discussion has nothing to do with sports photography.
I will continue to post about changes in airline, and travel, policies, that directly affect photographers who fly.
If you wish to debate the finer points of the commercial aviation industry, e-mail me.
-Fish |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 7:50 AM on 06.17.08 |
| ->> It's about time!!! Thanks for taking this off board. |
|
Rainier Ehrhardt, Photographer
 |
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 9:18 AM on 06.17.08 |
| ->> This is starting to look like a thread on Airliners.net |
|
Vincent Johnson, Photographer
 |
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 10:13 AM on 06.17.08 |
->> Steve, I have to say this thread may have started as with good intentions, but given the fact that you'd have to live under a rock to not know that the airline industry is starting to charge for checked bags across the board.
The beginning post just looks off topic for SS.com and more like a plug for your air travel blog. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 11:45 AM on 06.17.08 |
->> Vincent,
If you'll notice, my travel blog has NO ads and NO sponsors. My blog generates ZERO revenue.
If I was seeking to generate traffic to build a revenue base that would be one thing, but I am not. The blog is not used as a revenue generator. It is used as a free and open source to provide information.
Also, you'd be amazed at how many people do not know that airlines are charging for baggage. Also the airline industry is not charging for baggage across the board. Some 'legacy carriers' are charging for baggage, while the majority of the 'non-legacy' carriers are not charging for baggage. Additionally outside of North America the majority of airlines are not charging for baggage as well.
As I receive quite a lot of e-mail with questions about flying on specific airlines on a daily basis, I am know many people (who are SS members) were not aware that American Airlines was charging for baggage. It seems many did not know that United charged for two bags rather than just one. I've also receive a common question of who do airlines not adhere to the TSA allowance of 3 carry on bags (2 carry on + 1 personal item) for photographers traveling without photographic equipment.
So while you might know this, many people do not.
.......and I also use my Blog (which again generates ZERO revenue) to help photogs aside from info. Hell in the last two week alone I gave away two $100 flight credits that I had for Southwest Airlines to two photogs on the blog. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
 |
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 11:54 AM on 06.17.08 |
| ->> Time to buy a horse for continental travel and learn how to sail if I want to go over seas. |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photo Editor
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 06.17.08 |
->> I don't know...I found Tom Mayes's punking down of Fish entertaining over lunch - and I even learned a few things about the airline industry.
Seriously, there is a wonderful lesson in this thread. Fish and Tom both made statements based on their own life experiences.
Then, they disagreed.
What happened next was of rare occurrence these days...
Both sides continued to run point-counterpoint in a respectful, intelligent, non-personal exchange. They focused on the points being made and not the person making them.
Both then realized that enough was enough and agreed to take the discussion offline for the good of the entire group.
Two pros, keeping things respectful, yet disagreeing often.
Who took notes? |
|
Vincent Johnson, Photographer
|
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 8:28 PM on 06.17.08 |
->> My public apologies Steve. It's hard for me to hold someone in contempt of message board on-topicness, when they aren't making money from pseudo off-topic posts with links.
On a side not it's sad for me to hear that apparently some SS.com members are currently living under rocks. Or maybe it's because before they started complaining about media job cuts, they stopped subscribing to their local paper and read all their news online. Hey, but now look who's getting off topic. Sorry. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
We BUY & TRADE you OLD Gear
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
