AirportBusiness Blogs

… says a friend in response to last week’s attempted terrorist attack on a Northwest airliner at DTW. The conversation was about what an average traveler – in this case, someone who works in the banking industry who flew to Las Vegas recently – thinks about heightened security measures.

She doesn’t know what should be done, nor should she. But she wants to feel secure. Machines that do full body scans? Not a problem for her. The ACLU has a problem, but then they may not be flying that day.

I asked my senior-in-college (who has flown a bit) for his reaction, which was: “I don’t think anybody cares about it anymore, and ultimately it won’t change anything. We’ll ban the shampoo bottles, and then later on we’ll be able to have shampoo bottles.”  He, too, is right.

TSA right now is trying to position itself as the organization that is unpredictable, which gives them an advantage. Possibly right, to some degree. Personally, I don’t buy it. Sorry, I still haven’t gotten over the fact that airline pilots overflew MSP and the U.S. military wasn’t alerted until almost an hour later. (It took the general media a couple of days to figure out that angle.) A month ago, the debate around airport screening was about getting rid of all those all-intrusive body scanning machines; today, the clamor is for more of them – and fast.

There’s another problem here. It’s the U.S. Congress. They passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act in 2001, and then didn’t fund their directives. Then there’s the TSA, which continually looks like an organization trying to find its true direction. It doesn’t help that Congress and this Administration can’t seem to figure out how to find a new leader for TSA.

It’s about commitment.

World War II started for the U.S. on December 7, 1941. It ended four years later. World War I, or the “War to end all wars”, lasted from 1914 to 1918.  Not the same wars … though much more dedicated was the response. Thing about those wars was, most of the country was pretty much on board with who was the evil party and what was the objective. Problem today is, half our country doesn’t believe we’re in a war … that, and the fact that we have a U.S. President who seems to prefer to posture more as a high school counselor than a wartime President.

President Obama says he wants to convene a group to discuss/analyze what might be done. Great idea. However, check the history of aviation study groups in Washington and their lists of recommendations and you’ll find that little is often done.

Like my friend said, they need to do something.

Thanks for reading. jfi

The day before Christmas Eve, Hendersonville (NC) Tribune newspaper ran a story that will reach the heart of everyone who loves and values general aviation.

The story started when Tyler Kilpatrick, a University of North Carolina-Asheville student, went to Cuernavaca, Mexico, about 53 miles south of Mexico City on a student exchange program. Tyler loved Cuernavaca and her host family, but she was brutally stabbed by a taxi driver, suffering lung punctures and serious injuries to other major organs. Her father came down to help his daughter through several weeks of critical hospital care.

Now we switch to one Mike Summey of Asheville. Mike is a story in and of himself. I wrote part of his story myself and it was published earlier this year in AOPA Pilot magazine. Mike is a self-made multimillionaire who flies a recently rebuilt—new engines, avionics and more—King Air.

After Tyler’s plight became public, Mike’s 27 year old son—a pilot himself—said, “Dad, we could bring them home for Christmas.” Mike quickly agreed and damned if they didn’t do it!

The next few days involved whirlwind negotiations between Mike and two governments. Eventually, with the help of Mike’s senator, and with special cooperation from Mexico, and trip charts donated by Jeppesen, all the arrangements were made. Mike and Jason even took a North Carolina physician, Dr. Robert Wells, with them after Wells first discussed Tyler’s condition with the Mexican physicians.

Mike, Jason, and Dr. Wells flew some 1,100 miles the first day overnighting at Brownsville, TX. The next day they flew 500 miles to Cuernavaca, picked up Tyler and flew back to Asheville, stopping in Brownsboro again for paperwork. As Mike told me, “It made for a long day.”

Mike tells me this was one of the most rewarding experiences with which he has ever been involved, and I can tell you that he’s been involved in a lifetime of rewarding experiences.

What a story!

We’d loved to post your comments. Please click the comment tab at the top.

… it must be time for the air carriers and airports to hold a confab. Among all the ink given to the DOT’s decision to fine airlines for stranding passengers on airport ramps for more than three hours, there has been little discussion of the impact on airports.

Personally, as someone who hates sitting on airport ramps, I applaud the DOT decision. There are critics of the decision, most notably the Air Transport Association, which warns of “unintended consequences” such as more delays or cancellations. ATA rightly expresses a concern about flight and duty time issues. Yet, forcing passengers to be held captive in a fuselage is not only unreasonable, it’s bad customer service. And lest we forget, it is the customers who give the airlines their reason for being.

Which leads to the role of airports, which have in essence been taking on more and more of the responsibility of the customer service ‘experience’ for years. The American Association of Airport Executives and Fordham University have even teamed up to provide customer service training for airports nationwide – an idea whose time has come.

This will have an impact on airports, and it seems appropriate that airlines and airports get together in a forum to discuss how to better meet the needs of customers stuck at airports, and how the two groups can better coordinate these activities. DOT has forced the airlines’ hand and taken away the luxury of being in denial; airlines and airports now need to discuss how best to meet the needs of their customers.

Happy holidays … and thanks for reading. jfi

… and scratching one’s head over airline add-on fees. On Monday, USA Today’s lead front page story touted “FAA low priorities get $3.5 billion in grants”. It was another in a series of installments of late by the newspaper to challenge how FAA disseminates grants for airport infrastructure.

If there is a commonality among these recent articles it is that the newspaper appears to swallow the party line of the Air Transport Association, whether it’s on where FAA directs Airport Improvement Program monies to the group’s opposition to an increase in the passenger facility charge (PFC) cap, now at $4.50.

In Monday’s article, USA Today charges that FAA has directed some $3.5 billion since 1998 to “low priority” airports which “do little to improve the most pressing needs in the nation’s aviation system.” In the article Kate Lang, the FAA’s top airport official, defends the spending, noting “they’re all good projects.” Former DOT Inspector General Ken Mead is quoted as saying that FAA should revise its rating system and that the process should be transparent. He may be right, and reevaluating processes in place at any government agency is never a bad idea.

Yet, USA Today needs to send one of its experienced aviation writers out to a number of business aviation airports around the nation and see what benefits they bring to local communities and commerce. Commercial air carrier airports aren’t the only cogs in the U.S. air transportation system. It could be helpful to USA Today readers if the newspaper shared some of the benefits of non-airline airports.

On the subject of fees, the latest stats from the DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics show that U.S. carriers in the third quarter charged passengers at least $2 billion in fees to transport baggage, change reservations, or carry pets, up 36 percent over the prior year. Now, these revenues are certainly helping the airlines in their effort to turn a profit, which is a good thing. And of course, in the case of baggage fees, these are new sources of revenue that have emerged only in recent years.

The rub lies in the fact that whenever airports propose increasing the PFC cap, it is ATA which raises the biggest fuss. ATA president James May continually campaigns against the PFC increase, charging that a raise in the fee will turn customers away, further frustrating the airlines’ ability to be profitable.

Twice this week I paid United Airlines $20 to handle my bag. Didn’t think twice about it … I recognize it’s the cost of doing business in the new airline world. With a PFC of $7.50, my ticket at most would have had another $6 tacked onto the fare. Let’s see — $6 versus $20 … whose fees are discouraging the passengers?

Time for ATA to get on board with the PFC increase; after all, it is the airlines which are the greatest beneficiaries of the airport improvements that they provide. And it’s time for USA Today to get a handle on the bigger picture of aviation infrastructure funding.

Thanks for reading. jfi

Remember all of the advance public relations propaganda about how wonderful the Delta/NWA merger would be for the public and how smoothly the operations would be blended? (It’s still going on, of course. Call either airline today and listen to the recording that goes on and on while you wait interminably. First it relates how your call is “important to us.” Then it drones on about all the wonderful advantages of the merger and how much it will benefit you, the customer.)

Well, I just called and acquired a ticket from Delta. I will be riding on NWA with flights operated by two different smaller airlines. After all was said and done, Delta emailed me the schedule, but it had no seat assignments. That could have been my fault. This whole process took three days—Einstein and a dozen rocket scientists couldn’t have fully understood it, much less remembered it.

I called Delta back; they assigned seats and promised—remember that word, promised—to have NWA send me another email with the seat assignments. Don’t ask me why Delta, couldn’t email me. They had just assigned the seats to me, but the lady said they couldn’t email them. What kind of seamless is that?

NWA didn’t send them. I called Delta back and they made the same promise again. NWA didn’t send them again.

Finally, an airline pilot friend told me how to get them myself. I did and it worked fine.

Once more, the airlines failed to deliver the promise and the customer is expected to handle their merger problems. Remember that great song line from Peter, Paul and Mary—“When Will They Ever Learn?”

We’d love to post your comments. Please click the comment tab at the top.

… in an upcoming webinar, tackling a topic which is frequently misunderstood by many. Mike France, recently promoted to director of regulatory affairs for the National Air Transportation Association, will conduct the free webinar. According to NATA, “The FAA recommends that all federally obligated airports create, implement, and maintain comprehensive minimum standards for aeronautical service providers to ensure compliance with federal grant assurances.”

Explains France, “We want to give a basic overview of the Airport Improvement Program, the grant assurances, and minimum standards. It will cover basic information for airport sponsors and tenants, and anyone interested in learning more on what should and should not be contained in minimum standards.”

An interesting thing with minimum standards is that the intent of the document is often misunderstood by tenants, an assessment with which France agrees. The concept is to provide a level playing field, and to protect those tenants who have already made a significant investment on an airfield. “Absolutely it is often misunderstood by tenants,” comments France.

“Minimum standards are a tool to help airports meet their grant assurances. The webinar will look at how to properly construct a minimum standards document to protect the airport and current tenants, and those interested in developing in the future. The development of minimum standards needs to have proper input from all the stakeholders and be enforced over time. Enforcement is the key issue, whether they are published by the airport or codified by a city. That enforcement provides benefits to the current tenants and to their airports.”

The webinar will be conducted December 16; visit www.nata.aero for information or contact France directly at mfrance@nata.aero.

Thanks for reading. jfi

… while the Obama Administration seeks to curtail lobbying. The word from Congressional Quarterly Today is that proposed health care legislation continues to have the Senate so absorbed that it can’t address long-term aviation funding. Of course, there is also a dark cloud hanging overhead, the one that suggests that the Obama Administration will propose new ways to fund the system down the road — which, in turn, suggests we won’t see “long-term” reauthorization anytime soon.

Comments one aviation trade association VP, “It’s a foregone conclusion on another extension.” According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “A senior Democratic Senate aide agreed that a three-month extension was likely. He said that would give senators enough time to gear up next year and that they are pressing for the full reauthorization to be first out of the gate in 2010.”

Don’t bet on it. Perhaps the end game for all of this is to have the feds take over aviation completely … have them own Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft, United Airlines, etc. Hey, the feds think they can run the automotive industry and health care … why not aviation?

Which leads to point number two. A recent Washington Post article suggests that “hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street’s influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts. The new policy — issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel — may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.”

“The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don’t have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people.”

In the aviation biz, aviation rulemaking advisory committees are an integral part of setting policy and safety standards, as it should be. I contacted several aviation/airport trade associations on this proposal and nobody seems to have a clue what this new policy will mean to the industry. That’s not a good thing.

Consider this from the Post article: “Under the policy, which is being phased in over the coming months, none of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington would be able to hold seats on the committees, which advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections, and thousands of other government policies. ‘It’s taken me years to learn what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is," said Robert Vastine, a lobbyist for the Coalition of Service Industries who also serves as chairman of a trade advisory board. ‘It’s a whole different and specialized world. It is not easily obtained knowledge, and they are crippling themselves terribly by ruling out all registered lobbyists.’”

Crippling themselves, and industry. What’s happening in Washington is getting ugly.

Thanks for reading. jfi