US Airways Dividend Miles (Pre-2005 America West merger) - Power ports will be removed!!!

Here is an E mail I got from a friend of mine who works for US Airways.

*********An internal memo today also states that we are disconnecting and eventually removing the power ports on the Airbus 319/320/321 family starting this month. Guess mgmt feels that you businesspeople who fly all the time don't need to use those laptops as much. They will remain on the A330 family to Europe and SJU. Interesting......************


Let me tell you I am not a happy camper right now.

PLEASE EVERYONE EITHER CALL OR WRITE TO CONSUMER AFFAIRS ASAP! 866-523-5333

I know if we write or call they will (at least I hope) listen.

which email do you think would be best to send to? i love those ports.

What a bunch of *#&*(@%(! idiots. They're going to waste human labor to do something that degrades their product? I can't believe HP is jumping in bed with these fools.

:mad: Embarassing. I wonder who is calling the shots - first the transatlantic SA issue - now this......

What on earth are they SMOKING ?!?!?! Not only is that a maddening decision, it flies in the very face of current industry trends. For an airline looking to pull itself up by the bootstraps and offer reasonable fares with full service airline programming for higher yield consumers, this is one DUMB move.

I, for one, would rather tolerate the crappy first class (am I even allowed to call it that anymore?) on US for the powerports to remain on the a/c.

Frankly, I'm stunned at this news. Have there been significant servicability issues with these? None that I've been made aware of.

Ugh! :mad: :td:

which email do you think would be best to send to? i love those ports.

consumer_affairs@usairways.com (I think that is right) or go to the US Airways website and write from there. I am going to make a phone call tomorrow.

I just wrote from the website and voiced my concern. I said if you need to remove ports due to $$ issues then please leave the power ports in first class and maybe the first 8 rows of coach for the frequent fliers. I would rather they leave them all but let's hope they will at least reach out and not remove them all.

What a bunch of *#&*(@%(! idiots. They're going to waste human labor to do something that degrades their product? I can't believe HP is jumping in bed with these fools.


I'm sure that HP made and/or approved this decision. Do HP's Airbuses have powerports? My guess is that this decision has to do with fleet simplification/standardization.

consumer_affairs@usairways.com (I think that is right) or go to the US Airways website and write from there. I am going to make a phone call tomorrow.

I just wrote from the website and voiced my concern. I said if you need to remove ports due to $$ issues then please leave the power ports in first class and maybe the first 8 rows of coach for the frequent fliers. I would rather they leave them all but let's hope they will at least reach out and not remove them all.

I'll be joining you shortly on that e-mail and I encourage all others to do so too! I am going to bring up both this and the transatlantic upgrade issue (which is likely going to cost them more of my business - the power port thing is just stupid - rarely fly transcontinental though to need it)

I'm sure that HP made and/or approved this decision. Do HP's Airbuses have powerports? My guess is that this decision has to do with fleet simplification/standardization.

it's been my experience domestically that very few carriers offer this feature. it's a strong selection criteria for me.

I'm sure that HP made and/or approved this decision.

HP isn't in charge exactly yet. Besides I'd be highly surprised if a decision like this came down from Doug Parker. This reeks of the bone-headedness of US mgmt.

Do HP's Airbuses have powerports?

No HP's fleet doesn't have them, and I've ripped them a new one from time to time for not installing them.

My guess is that this decision has to do with fleet simplification/standardization.

I can't see this as a simplification issue. Firstly, it's way too petty to put in the fleet simplification process. Seat and galley config, yes. Power port removal, no.

Second, I don't think even HP would justify spending money to rip out a feature that's already there and benefits its customers.

I'm sure that HP made and/or approved this decision. . . My guess is that this decision has to do with fleet simplification/standardization.

Unfortunately, I think you are right on the money. The takeover is two weeks away. I don't suspect US is making any major decisions like this without HP's involvement and blessing. (Look at the changes in pet transport and unaccompanied minors -- those changes to US policy were made to bring US in line with HP.)

As none of HP's planes have power, I suspect they thought it was better to eliminate it across the board, in the interest of standardization, rather than face the wrath of the business travelers who have no way of knowing whether a particular flight will have power or not.

This is a poor decision. Even if they're not going to add it to the current HP planes for the foreseeable future, the largest percentage of the combined fleet will have power. Taking it away is moving in the wrong direction.

Since HP is taking over in about two weeks, do you think it would help to complain to HP customer service now to complain.

If so who does one write to?

When I go transcon, that is one of the reason I choose the carrier, so I can work and not worry about my battery dying. Flew recently in F on UA to KOA, and half the ports didn't work. You could tell the US FF, since they started talking about having empower even in coach that worked. :)

Now they want to remove something that gives them positive buzz? CCY never ceases to amze me with anything that they do.

Technically, I'd think that all they'd have to do is remove a fuse or circuit breaker somewhere to cut power to the seat-mounted power ports.

Most likely they are doing this because it will reduce their insurance premiums. Any reduction in the risk of fire or malfunction of an internal system should result in a commesurate reduction in their insurance. That would presumably happen immediately. You might have noticed that many airlines are going to increasingly extreme measures to reduce operating costs.

Longer term, they would realize some maintenance savings, and arguably some fuel savings.

Another possibility is that a power port could be used to spark a shoe-bomb and their decision to remove or deactivate the power ports are actually coming from somewhere else ...

Another possibility is that a power port could be used to spark a shoe-bomb and their decision to remove or deactivate the power ports are actually coming from somewhere else ...

Yeah, that's a laugh.

Your laptop or even your ipod will provide more than enough voltage to detonate the blasting cap needed to use many forms of plastic explosives.

If that was the real reason for this decision, I'd leave this airline in a heartbeat. We'd have gone from thoughtlessness/bad decision making to abject stupidity/rampant drug abuse.

Second, I don't think even HP would justify spending money to rip out a feature that's already there and benefits its customers.
The only reason I could see HP being on board with this decision is if the maintenance of power ports (to keep them all working) is costly and in the long run the cost to disable/remove them would be outweighed by the cost of maintaining them.

I hate this decision as I like the power ports myself. I was trying to avoid the 767 over to VCE monday because of lack of power ports. I hope a campaign will reverse the decision no matter who made it.

Lance

Paging EnvoyBoy!!! Or maybe he read the first post on this thread and hasn't stopped retching yet long enough to post.

Here's a question... will this be a deciding factor for anyone to take business elsewhere?? I can see where it might be for some of you.

All I can say is that CCY had better have a good reason for this. Speculation on the other boards are that this is being done because of high maintenance costs. They will be capped immediately and removed from A/C during the next C check.

I think we all need to start writing and calling both US Consumer Affairs and HP management. Maybe we all can have some kind of stand if we all work together and get a lot of customers on board.

T

Here's a question... will this be a deciding factor for anyone to take business elsewhere?? I can see where it might be for some of you.


Hmm... Can't say that it would be a deciding factor, per se, for me. BUT... it goes a long way towards annoying me in the extreme to have it in place and then removed when it is becoming increasingly needed.

What this forces me to do is to break down and get a battery backup kit and lug that with me for travel days. Frankly, with all the junk I already have to lug everyplace, I could do without the hassle.

Bottom line: I'll keep flying US or HP or whatever, but when I see those disembodied, non-functional outlets, it'll always burn me.


edited to add: It WOULD be a deciding factor if carriers continue to add ports to their a/c and US opts not to. For example, UA F and DL's SONG.....if that trend continues, and all other things being equal....that'd be a valid reason to hop.

HP is an airline centered around 2 smaller cities (LAS and PHX), with predominantly leisure traffic. They are only a third the size of USAirways, and have no real history of chasing business travelers. While people like Parker have worked elsewhere, I suspect there is a fairly parochial bunch doing things at the top. As indicated, they have blown off pets, unacompanied kids, now power ports. I am fond of saying they must have Vampires for customers, given the disproportionate number of redeyes they fly. What we are seeing is naivete replacing stupidity. It ends up about the same. They appear to be striving for a low cost product, matching some of the LCC's. Two things they are forgetting. People like Southwest and JetBlue have been able to exist thanks to dopes who ran crappy companies. It's kind of like standing next to a fat guy, so you look thinner....only we fly with the fat guy. Secondly, before you take on JetBlue, make sure you have free TV sets in the back of every seat. :rolleyes:

This might be one of my worst nightmares as a CP-lite (and soon to be full fledged-EXP) based in PHL. AA has already cut service to the bone by removing the ORD flights before 8:30 (killing access to the first bank of connections at ORD). I am likely to spend the better part of next year flying to Cali. AA has ports, but connections in DFW. US has no ports and directs. UA = E+, no ports. What is a high fare traveller to do? :confused:

Easy way for US to take my full fare business to the bank with ports so the time I fly is billable. Now, it looks like it won't be.

... but at least I can hope for a misconnect in vegas ;)

My letter is already sent to Deb Thompson (who knows if she is even reading correspondence anymore). I agree with Abeflyer. This is just another misstep that leans me toward taking my business elsewhere. This weekend I'm actually going to buy the other adapter to start using on AA (where I have already earned Platinum). I was so loyal to US for so long, but it's clear they are forgetting their most loyal customers on this one.

HP isn't in charge exactly yet. Besides I'd be highly surprised if a decision like this came down from Doug Parker. This reeks of the bone-headedness of US mgmt..

Sorry but I DO THINK HP had a say in this. No broken power ports? Less cost to the airline. US Airways has had the power ports for years and now that US and HP are coming together they want to clone all the planes to be the same (except for the A330 which will be keeping theirs). Less maintenance issues.

I hope many of you write or call the toll free number of US. I wish I knew what the number was for HP. Guys make sure you tell your friends to get on the ball and write or call. Maybe they will listen. I certainly hope so.

Take Action!

I'll be writing to the US3 direct email. I've always gotten an honest and prompt response from that address. I would recommend that everyone contact their own respective preferred correspondence, too.

I'm sure that HP made and/or approved this decision. Do HP's Airbuses have powerports? My guess is that this decision has to do with fleet simplification/standardization.-----no they dont have power ports.i have asked for them and been told they dont have them hp

I think part of the rationale driving this, too, is that newer laptops no longer work with the power ports. My new Dell laptop, for example, requires more juice than the power ports deliver, rendering the ports useless. In fact, I searched high and low for a power adapter for on board use until I was finally told none exist since the planes don't output enough voltage.

I think part of the rationale driving this, too, is that newer laptops no longer work with the power ports.

I thought some of the newer laptop power adapters will only power the notebook without charging the batteries. I also thought there were some models that throttled down the processor to reduce power consumption.


My new Dell laptop, for example, requires more juice than the power ports deliver, rendering the ports useless. In fact, I searched high and low for a power adapter for on board use until I was finally told none exist since the planes don't output enough voltage.

What model Dell do you have? Dell has a 12V DC adapter.

What on earth are they SMOKING ?!?!?! Not only is that a maddening decision, it flies in the very face of current industry trends. For an airline looking to pull itself up by the bootstraps and offer reasonable fares with full service airline programming for higher yield consumers, this is one DUMB move.

I, for one, would rather tolerate the crappy first class (am I even allowed to call it that anymore?) on US for the powerports to remain on the a/c.

Frankly, I'm stunned at this news. Have there been significant servicability issues with these? None that I've been made aware of.

Ugh! :mad: :td:

I totally agree. A bad move.

I think part of the rationale driving this, too, is that newer laptops no longer work with the power ports. My new Dell laptop, for example, requires more juice than the power ports deliver, rendering the ports useless. In fact, I searched high and low for a power adapter for on board use until I was finally told none exist since the planes don't output enough voltage.

Same problem here USFlyer. I've got a Dell 5150, and while fast, it sucks up the juice. Dell tried to send me an AC inverter that they said would work with the cigarette lighter type ports on AA. The things was the size of a Volkswagon. I'd be surprised if TSA would've let me take the thing on. I sent it back, and bought a 2nd battery. :D

I don't know that this will be a negative deciding factor for me, but I can say I have shifted flight schedules, rejected UA codeshares, etc to make sure I was on a plane that had a power port.

This is an awful decision based on the limited info we have... going to the least common denominator, while a hallmark of the LCC approach, doesnt make sense when you are removing functionality that has limited expense and great value to your highest margin customers.

Talk about a stupid move!! Calling the Chairmans desk now. Also....I noticed that on the US Airways web site only the A330 is listed as having in-seat laptop power ports.....so it looks like this really will be happening. :(

I just got off the phone with Consumer Affairs 866.523.5333 option 2 then option 3. I said well if they have to remove them to align them with the HP fleet why don't they do this. Do not remove first class and the first 5 to 8 rows and taken the power ports from the left over rows and install them on the HP fleet airbuses. That will save money right there instead of buying new power ports. I told them many people are already thinking of jumping ship to AA or other carriers.

The Consumer Affair rep that I talked to said this was the first she had heard of this. I told her to go read the HUB and she said she was going to as soon as she got off the phone. She said this was a bad move on part of CCY.

T

Just talked to the Chairmans desk. While the memo has not officially hit the reservation department yet - she did make a few calls and verified that the power ports are being removed. She was very concerned as to why this was being done...but offered no help other then for me to call or e-mail consumer affairs. Looks like this will be another DUMB move on the part of US Airways. :mad: :mad: :confused:

I can't believe HP is jumping in bed with these fools.
So what makes you think that this is not an HP decision?? After all, HP is calling the shots these days....

Perhaps this "memo" needs to be leaked to some of the business traveler reporters. Get this in the WSJ and the wrath will be felt quickly.

just spoke with gold reservations, the reservations agent I spoke with (based in Winston-Salem) said they got the bulletin about this today, and the bulletin says what the OP said, with an effective date of 09/13/05. I inquired about a specific reservation/flight, indicated concern about my ability to work during the flight, be billable, and stated that this change would negatively affect my profitability, etc... The agent genuinely shared my concern, spoke with a supervisor, and said that they were going to tally the calls from customers.

*** warning: speculative rant follows ***
The only thing that could make sense is that this is a TSA mandate for *safety* reasons, but only for domestic flights, however the safety angle doesn't make sense if passengers have laptops & cellphones. So here's a disconcerting thought, maybe the TSA is going to ban laptops & cell phones in carry-on luggage. I feel safer already. :rolleyes:

Well, they sure are moving quickly and under the radar to complete this project before the merger. Something smells fishy. :td:

I suggest you call Consumer Affairs as well. Consumer Affairs will take your Dividend Miles Number (which will have your status) and forward it to the correct department. Spread the word. You might want to mention this to other FTers on here on the HP boards and maybe UA boards who fly US as well. Some of them might not frequent these boards as often as we do. If we all ban together maybe we can do something before the "New US" takes action.

T

just spoke with gold reservations, the reservations agent I spoke with (based in Winston-Salem) said they got the bulletin about this today, and the bulletin says what the OP said, with an effective date of 09/13/05. I inquired about a specific reservation/flight, indicated concern about my ability to work during the flight, be billable, and stated that this change would negatively affect my profitability, etc... The agent genuinely shared my concern, spoke with a supervisor, and said that they were going to tally the calls from customers.

*** warning: speculative rant follows ***
The only thing that could make sense is that this is a TSA mandate for *safety* reasons, but only for domestic flights, however the safety angle doesn't make sense if passengers have laptops & cellphones. So here's a disconcerting thought, maybe the TSA is going to ban laptops & cell phones in carry-on luggage. I feel safer already. :rolleyes:

The only thing that could make sense is that this is a TSA mandate for *safety* reasons, but only for domestic flights, however the safety angle doesn't make sense if passengers have laptops & cellphones. So here's a disconcerting thought, maybe the TSA is going to ban laptops & cell phones in carry-on luggage. I feel safer already. :rolleyes:

What??

It is child's play to supply your *own* power to detonate explosives!

A 9-volt battery will work nicely.

Going into the lav and grabbing electricity from the lights or smoke detector will work nicely.

You don't need a degree in electrical engineering to put together a circuit for a blasting cap. Voltage source, wire, cap. Very easy. Any concerns about the power ports being a tool for terrorism are absolutely baseless.

A 9-volt battery will work nicely.

great, now they will ban 9-volt batteries too.. :D

Just brought this thread to the attention of HP execs. I also passed it on to Dawn Gilbertson who is the Airlines reporter for the Arizona Republic.

This is a boneheaded decision that flies in the face of logic behind Parker's "barbell" plan that focuses on business travellers on each coast.

great, now they will ban 9-volt batteries too.. :D

Maybe we should hold Parker's tongue to a freshly charged 9V battery until it drains out..... :D

Well, they said there will be changes and we would like some and not like others.

Let the games begin.

bad changes 1 good changes 0

Here's a question... will this be a deciding factor for anyone to take business elsewhere?? I can see where it might be for some of you.

All I can say is that CCY had better have a good reason for this. Speculation on the other boards are that this is being done because of high maintenance costs. They will be capped immediately and removed from A/C during the next C check.


I have a choice between AA and U for PHL, DFW, ORD, MIA. AA has better schedules and power. Yes, it will make a difference.

Here is an E mail I got from a friend of mine who works for US Airways.

*********An internal memo today also states that we are disconnecting and eventually removing the power ports on the Airbus 319/320/321 family starting this month. Guess mgmt feels that you businesspeople who fly all the time don't need to use those laptops as much. They will remain on the A330 family to Europe and SJU. Interesting......************



this is *not* the action of a management that should be doing everything possible to keep the east-coast business customer base...

but then it's part of a series of steps that will alienate that base:

1. converting PHL back to banked operations
2. significantly downgrading a big chunk of eastern operations to Express-- the jets are being moved east even now.
3. now, the killing of powerports...

what's next, a euro-style 6kg carryon limit??

this is *not* the action of a management that should be doing everything possible to keep the east-coast business customer base...

but then it's part of a series of steps that will alienate that base:

1. converting PHL back to banked operations
2. significantly downgrading a big chunk of eastern operations to Express-- the jets are being moved east even now.
3. now, the killing of powerports...

what's next, a euro-style 6kg carryon limit??

Looks like the running tally is now: good decisions 0 -- bad decisions 3. Any other changes we're missing?

Wow, that's disapointing, I've actually switched all my trans-continental flights to US specifically because they have the powerports in coach. I've been going out of my way to fly on their planes.

I wonder if there's many more like me who otherwise have no reason to fly on US rather than United other than this single issue.

That's very sad.

This is one of the reasons I fly transcons and Intl with AA. Power ports at almost every seat in F and Y. I like being able to work on my travel projects while flying. Flying AA means I never have to carry extra batteries for my laptop or PDA.

Looks like the running tally is now: good decisions 0 -- bad decisions 3. Any other changes we're missing?

Attache being changed to "US Airways Magazine".

There's going to be a need to adapt to changes on both sides. HP has their own programs that they have used with reasonable success. They won't be in a hurry to change things that have worked for them in the past. If they can be shown that changing their thinking on some issues would increase their success, then they may consider changing their systems.

Note they have little/no experience with transcontinental travel to multiple cities on the east and west coasts, trans Atlantic travel, travel to the Caribbean islands, a shuttle product and having a large contingent of business travelers with multiple choices for airlines.

On our side, we can look forward to more rational fares. However, with that, comes HP's desire to actually sell FC seats through more reasonable pricing-something they have done successfully, but decreases chances for upgrades. Also HP will probably be adjusting FC seats per plane for fleet commonality. We've all learned to dance around and avoid the 757's on US. What will you do when the 320's go to 12 FC seats and the 737's go to 8 FC seats? Yes the FC seats on the 757's will probably increase to 14, but I would not be surprised to seat the 321's decrease to 16 FC seats. Additionally, HP does not have any closets on their planes. This adds an extra row of seats, but decreases the amount of overhead space available because of employee bags and equipment storage.

The ability to upgrade on transcontinental flights is one of the biggest perks for elites. What happens if HP routinely sells half the FC seats on a 16 FC seat 321 leaving only 8 available for upgrades? This is probably a distinct possibility.

We can make suggestions and hope that HP listens. Past that, we all have to make our own decisions regarding what airlines we use.

Just a few comments here.


HP is an airline centered around 2 smaller cities (LAS and PHX), with predominantly leisure traffic.

In case everyone didn't hear, Phoenix actually passed Philadelphia in population during the last count. Phoenix is now the 5th largest city in the country. I am going from memory here, but I believe it is also the 5th busiest airport in the US.

I am fond of saying they must have Vampires for customers, given the disproportionate number of redeyes they fly.

From what I understand that has increased utilization of the planes and they have pretty good load factors. I may be wrong, but I believe this has been very positive for the bottom line. It is not the same model many airlines use but then again they are not other airlines.

As indicated, they have blown off pets, unacompanied kids, now power ports.They appear to be striving for a low cost product, matching some of the LCC's.

HP currently is a LCC. The new US will be a LCC. Parker has made this clear all along. The new stock symbol will be LCC. Yes, you are correct, they are striving to be a LCC and there will be changes, very possibly significant changes to what current US FF are used to.

I think pets, UM's and now power ports are all part of the plan to lower the costs and help the new US to make money, which is really what we all want. I think there are going to be more and more of these decisions as the new US starts to look a lot like HP.

I know this isn't what many, especially US fliers who are used to what US has offered, want to hear, but it sure looks like this is going to continue. Everyone will have to decide if they want to pay a lower fare and fly with fewer bells and whistles or pay a higher fare to fly with a legacy carrier.




I am not saying I wouldn't like it if the power ports and other perks were available to me but I just don't see it happening. I hope I am proved wrong.

Wait...does this mean the regional jets aren't getting power ports anytime soon? Some of us are excited to see a 737 on a route, don't forget about us...simple minds, anyone?--ugh. Haven't flown on a US Airbus in...6? years.

:confused: :D

On a side note--don't laugh--why don't the IFE radio choices work on most aircraft? I swear I'd be thrilled just to have that option. :cool:

Jennifer, firstly, the standard unit measurement for population ranking in this country is the MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area). Your ranking scale placing Phoenix in the top 5, does not include Mesa, Scottsdale, Glendale, etc. That is not how you rank population centers. In actual fact, Philly is 4th and Phoenix is 12th. Given its proximity to NYC (80 miles) and Baltimore (abut the same), as well as the continuous bands of population in between, you are probably looking at a potential 12 plus million people for the Philadelphia airport to draw from. Metro to metro, Phillly has 5.2 million to Phoenix' 3.2 million, and that increases nearly threefold when you count nearby cities and towns, which, for statistical purposes, are attached to other metro areas. Phoenix is landlocked. Philly is in the middle of the largest population corridor in the nation. Philly is major port. PHL has dozens of International flights. While many are USAirways, it is also served by British Airways, Air France. and Lufthansa. Phoenix has one flight to Europe, a BA trip to London,which, much of the year, only runs 6 days a week.

I lived in Phoenix for a number of years (Arcadia), and continued to run businesses there after moving, while serving as CEO of a broadcast company. The growth has been fantastic, but is driven by leisure and weather related considerations. From numbers of corporate headquarters to per capita income, it isn't even close. For years, Arizona was the only state without a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank, making it a favorite wth banks pushing cash management systems. In effect, for a long time, checks drawn on local Phoenix banks from outside the area, took longer to clear.

It's a pretty town, with better than average weather, but economically insignificant when compared to Philadelphia. As a location, it is too far from most population centers to be as effective a hub as PHL. This is quite visible, when you see that USAirways is nearly 3 times bigger than AWA, even in its weakened state.

The comment about the redeyes was a joke, although (a) it is accurate, and (b) I doubt there is much high yield business traffic at 3 AM.

As for it's being a true LCC, pre, or post combination, while adoption of that moniker for its ticker symbol, is clever, they will find out about "costs" when they inherit the USAirways short haul network in the east. As for whether or not they are a true LCC, the primary yardstick for comparison for HP is WN, since they compete head to head in so many markets. In that regard, on time performance is not as good as Southwest, which further suggests they haven't mastered the art of scheduling. Absent that, you aren't an LCC.

As for it's being a true LCC, pre, or post combination, while adoption of that moniker for its ticker symbol, is clever, they will find out about "costs" when they inherit the USAirways short haul network in the east. As for whether or not they are a true LCC, the primary yardstick for comparison for HP is WN, since they compete head to head in so many markets. In that regard, on time performance is not as good as Southwest, which further suggests they haven't mastered the art of scheduling. Absent that, you aren't an LCC.

:rolleyes:

Here we go with the "HP isn't like WN so they can't be a LCC" line again.

The term LCC stands for Low Cost Carrier. It has nothing to do with what services are provided, how often you run routes, or point to point.

WN is only one example of a LCC, not the only one.

Good post deelmakur. I would add that just because the new US wants to be a LCC doesn't mean that it needs to take away benefits and passenger comforts. JetBlue and Frontier both have technology (satellite tv and radio) that, in my opinion, greatly improves the ride. If power ports differentiate your product and result in improved yields, then why not keep them? HP management must think that power ports are not that important in getting and retaining customers.

Also, for the record, Philadelphia is still the 5th largest city in the country (not just talking MSA here, which of course is much larger than Phoenix MSA). It made the papers earlier this year that Phoenix was expected to overtake city of Philadelphia proper in population, but growth was slower in Phoenix and the loss of population in Philadelphia was not as great as projected. Thus, for at least another year or two Philly is still in the top five.

Exactly my point Flyphl. I wasn't trying to open a debate on what constitutes an "LCC". They can call themsleves anything they want, but in execution, it looks like the new US will be a hybrid. As you indicate, they should be looking to differentiate themselves. Instead, by dropping various features, they decrease any marketing differences, and give people less reason to switch. It appears they have made a lot of these decisions withut polling the customer base, and that smacks of the old USAirways. When they finally get in there, and discover that the US east coast network still costs a ton to operate, I'm guessing they will start chopping more. A year from now, it will probably be a mess. You can see it from the way they do (and in many cases, what they don't say, even though the takeover is just a few weeks away) things. I suspect they really think they are right about everything. Bleeding a couple of million a day will be a wakeup call. In movie terms, I fear what many of us thought would be a rerun of the "High and the Mighty" will actually turn out to be more like "Dumb and Dumber".

Note to HP types who are starting to migrate to this site: US customers have had years of managements doing dumb things, while never in doubt of how smart they were. Our comments are not on the definition of what HP is, nor are they meant to push back on people who live in Phoenix, and think we think it's a hick town. What we think doesn't matter, but we know bad decisions when we see them. :D

The term LCC stands for Low Cost Carrier. It has nothing to do with what services are provided, how often you run routes, or point to point.

Exactly, you can basically declare yourself a LCC. Whether or not HP is one is debatable. That is another thread.

Ah the my city is bigger than your city discussion. Always a good one. As indicated, city itself is a pretty bad barometer, since some cities are artificially big (I think for example Indianapolis merged with the county and made the whole county the city) while some are artificially small (like the city of Pittsburgh, which has a lot of the population right outside its borders). MSA is usually used, and this is the rankings
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.txt

Over my lunch hour I called Consumer Affairs and played dumb about the removal of power ports on the narrow body Airbus fleet.

Citing my source as a change in their web page and asked them directly, "Should I take this you are planning on removing the power ports on the narrow body Airbus fleet?" When they answered yes, I thanked them for the information and informed them that was the primary reason I had remained flying with them over the last five years through everything and if they were going I was going to look for another carrier that better suited my needs.

This is riddiculous. How can they expect anyone to work on a plane for any extended amount of time without providing power? I don't really care about china or glassware in first class, or any type of meal service on the plane. When it comes down to it, I don't really care if they serve Coke or Pepsi, as long as I know what to expect (I got some really strange looks on a recent UA flight when I asked for a glass of ice and pulled out a .5 liter bottle of Coke). I don't even care about the unlimited upgrades to first or the CP Desk.

But this??? If you prevent me from working on a transcon, and boiling it down to only basic transportation and become a Southwest with a seat assignment.

I will go to another carrier that I can get a seat with a power port. I had the trips planned to earn the 28,000 miles I needed to renew for CP. I'm starting to rethink my travel plans for the rest of this year and for 2006.

Exactly, you can basically declare yourself a LCC. Whether or not HP is one is debatable. That is another thread.

No. You can't just declare yourself a LCC without the low CASM to back it up.

No. You can't just declare yourself a LCC without the low CASM to back it up.

It all depends on how you define "low", doesn't it? Like they say, if at first you don't succeed... lower your expectations.

No. You can't just declare yourself a LCC without the low CASM to back it up.

No one said you had to be telling the truth when calling yourself a LCC.

There's no way to quantify what makes a LCC a LCC.

British Airways, Cathay Pacific and Lufthansa are free to call themselves LCCs if they really wanted to. I am sure they would prefer file for their countries' versions of Chapter 7 before doing so, however. ;)

Schwab,

I am glad you called. We need everyone to either write or call. Heck if this thread continues I might even forward a link of this thread to the people of CCY. I know they lurk on here from time to time. But I have not idea about the management of HP. If anyone has E mail of the top execs there they should forward this thread. I truly hope they rethink this.

T

Over my lunch hour I called Consumer Affairs and played dumb about the removal of power ports on the narrow body Airbus fleet.

Citing my source as a change in their web page and asked them directly, "Should I take this you are planning on removing the power ports on the narrow body Airbus fleet?" When they answered yes, I thanked them for the information and informed them that was the primary reason I had remained flying with them over the last five years through everything and if they were going I was going to look for another carrier that better suited my needs.

This is riddiculous. How can they expect anyone to work on a plane for any extended amount of time without providing power? I don't really care about china or glassware in first class, or any type of meal service on the plane. When it comes down to it, I don't really care if they serve Coke or Pepsi, as long as I know what to expect (I got some really strange looks on a recent UA flight when I asked for a glass of ice and pulled out a .5 liter bottle of Coke). I don't even care about the unlimited upgrades to first or the CP Desk.

But this??? If you prevent me from working on a transcon, and boiling it down to only basic transportation and become a Southwest with a seat assignment.

I will go to another carrier that I can get a seat with a power port. I had the trips planned to earn the 28,000 miles I needed to renew for CP. I'm starting to rethink my travel plans for the rest of this year and for 2006.

I'd avoided weighing in on this thread, but now I feel the need.

As a long time HP critic who converted to being an HP loyalist, I've seen, over the years, HP do a lot of stupid things in the past and lot of smart things more recently.

On City Size
No west coast city (except, perhaps, LA) has the population density over such a wide area as that of most east coast cities. The history and geography is such that they've developed differently. None of this is a news flash.

That said, it's not an apples to apples comparison to say that the feeder area of a given airport in the west is not as large as for an airport in the east.

Example East: PHL
PHL is in the center of a huge megalopolis with a catchment area of many millions of people. Also in or overlapping this catchment area are JFK, LGA, EWR, HPN, BDL, BWI, ISP, LNS, ABE, ACY, etc.
With so many people and so many airport choices, where in this megalopolis one lives/works/etc. is a big factor in determining which airport you choose. With JFK, EWR and PHL all as hubs (B6, CO and US, respectively), if you're anywhere near one of these, the number of non-stops serviced really can influence the decision process. Feeder airports also determine allegiance. Distances are small but traffic and congestion are great, so sometimes a 50 mile flight makes a big difference in time.

Example West: PHX
PHX is in the middle of the desert. Although there a few million people in the city and a cluster of suburbs that are expanding rapidly, it is an island of population. In this island, there's one airport, PHX.
With just one airport, if you live there, you use it. No choice, no drama.
But, and this is a big but, the catchment area for an airport like PHX is huge, both in terms of population and in terms of area.
Scores of airports in the west are over a hundred miles from one another and service a very few hub airports. Flyers from airports like SBA, TUS, FMN, HII, etc have few options. Typically, they can choose from LAX, LAS, PHX, SLC or DEN as hubs. Each of these hubs have pros and cons unique to them. LAX, for instance, is great for international connections, but it's a horrible airport to interline at because of the way it's built. DEN and SLC are pretty good airports, but can be hit by weather pretty hard in the winter. That leaves PHX and LAS, the HP hubs, as the most practical options for folks out here.

So, yes, PHL has a bigger catchment area in terms of people than PHX, but it's also got more competition.

On What An LCC Is
Compared to a Ryanair or EasyJet, even WN is a HCC. Does that make WN a HCC? Obviously not. Ryanair and its European ilk are able to be what they are because they don't try to meet the needs of business travelers. With more leisure time than Americans, the holiday market in Europe is logically larger and can support the antics of Ryanair. Unless you're on a weekend or late night flight on WN, most of the passengers are business people whose companies have said fly as cheap as you can or who enjoy the flexibility of WN's lack of change fees on most fares.

If you look at WN's fares against HP's fares though, you'll see that WN is rarely any cheaper and often more expensive. This with no service to small airports, no interline baggage, no 1st class, no seat assignments, etc.

Is HP my favorite airline? No. I really like the service on American, frankly. But, my company's policy is to fly the cheapest fare that still meets business objectives. For me, this is almost always HP and I can fly them most anywhere I need to go with only one stop. In the near future, I expect that the few places I can't fly them today will change to open up new destinations with just two stops and they'll probably still be cheaper. I'm sure that I'm not the only person in this position and I think the folks in Tempe know this.

Just my 7 or 8 cents...

I had my doubts about the long-term viability of the combined HP/US, but my doubts didn't arise because of stupid, boneheaded moves like removing power ports. If this is any indication of the new, improved US and how it tries to attract and keep its customer base, then UAL, AA, DL and others are gonna love this merged airline. :cool:

I Googled and came up with an e-mail address for Doug Parker HP President and CEO.

douglas.parker@americawest.com

Source: Willow Glen Times article
http://www.willowglentimes.com/040105/yeag_den.htm

I also called HP's equivalent of Consumer Affairs and expressed my opinion on the removal of the power ports.

Overall experience was relatively pleasant, got to talk to a live person in 7 min vs 21 min at US. I had called a toll number listed on their website and she asked what number I called and gave me a 1-800 to use in the future.

800-363-2542 Option 2 - HP Consumer Affairs.

I am planning on writing a lengthy letter to both of them over the weekend expressing my displeasure at this decision.

I'll be making a few calls and writing a few letters this weekend. I'm seriously thinking about switching from Delta to US Airways next year, and one of the major reasons as for me switching would have been the fact that there would be powerports on the Airbus flights, while on Delta I'm normally on a MD-88 without juice. Of course, with powerports leaving, GSO and MHT (my two primary airports) being reduced to mostly RJs (GSO has 2-3 737s to CLT only now; MHT is going to 3x mainline to PHL, 2x mainline to DCA and 4x mainline to CLT, mostly on 737s; most PHL, all LGA and some DCA and CLT are RJs), that is one more reason why I'm thinking about sticking with Delta (not to mention the fact that there are occasions where I can grab a 737-800 on Delta).

I just called the number you have me for HP Mr. Schwab. They were more than happy to take down my information and she gave me a file number report. I guess other people are calling because she said this was the 4th request she had today and there are many people in her department. I was not on hold at all. The call went right through. The HP rep was extremely nice.

I will go to another carrier that I can get a seat with a power port. I had the trips planned to earn the 28,000 miles I needed to renew for CP. I'm starting to rethink my travel plans for the rest of this year and for 2006.

which airlines offer powerports in domestic service?

AA does now, on all mainline flights except a handful of ex-TW 757's. in fact they installed them on the ex-TW MD80's (together with bigger overhead bins) specifically because they'd done the math and this was one investment business travelers would pay for.

America West Executive Office - America West Executive Office - Denies any knowledge

I sent an email to the executive office in Phoenix about this “Rumor” of US removing power ports on A319/320/321.

The assistant explained that she or her supervisors have not heard or approved such a mandate.

The executive office has been straight forward in the past so I have no reason to doubt them. She also advised me that they will follow up on this “rumor” and let me know if anything changes.

As a Shareholder and Customer I trust America West Holdings ( At this Time)

Looks like the running tally is now: good decisions 0 -- bad decisions 3. Any other changes we're missing?

Make that 4 bad decisions. No pretzels. Not thriftiness--just sign of being cheap. :p

which airlines offer powerports in domestic service?

AA does now, on all mainline flights except a handful of ex-TW 757's. in fact they installed them on the ex-TW MD80's (together with bigger overhead bins) specifically because they'd done the math and this was one investment business travelers would pay for.

From SeatGuru:

American
A300 - Primarily Caribbean
737-800
757-200
767-200 - Transcon and Caribbean
767-300
777-200
MD80

Continential
767-400 - HI/International Only

Delta
737-800
767-400 - HI & Transcons
777-200 - Prim Int but some domestic

Northwest - N/A Domestic

United
A320 - First class only
757-200
757-200 PS
767-300 - First class only
777-200 - First class only domestic config

If you look at the information from SeatGuru, it seems that the majority of the major carriers have been outfitting their newer aircraft with at least some power ports in the aircraft, for domestic use. Even if it is just in first class.

America West Executive Office - America West Executive Office - Denies any knowledge

I sent an email to the executive office in Phoenix about this “Rumor” of US removing power ports on A319/320/321.

The assistant explained that she or her supervisors have not heard or approved such a mandate.

The executive office has been straight forward in the past so I have no reason to doubt them. She also advised me that they will follow up on this “rumor” and let me know if anything changes.

As a Shareholder and Customer I trust America West Holdings ( At this Time)

Hmmm, this is strange. I spoke with a Lisa at HP's equivalent of consumer affairs this evening. I politely told her I was calling them because in about two weeking they'd be running the show and wanted it to express my viewpoint on this matter to the soon to be new managers of the airline. The way she spoke it seemed to be it was a done deal. I could have been mistaken, and I hope I am, but she took my information and gave me a case number and said it was unlikely for management to change their minds but if they did would contact me.

HPDTW,

This is not even close to being a rumor. Any US Airways employee can confirm that on here. It is on the HUB. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A RUMOR. I talked to HP today as well and they are aware of it. So I am not sure who you talked to. You can even go to USaviation.com and go to this simular thread and their are US employees out there that have confired what I have said on here.

America West Executive Office - America West Executive Office - Denies any knowledge

I sent an email to the executive office in Phoenix about this “Rumor” of US removing power ports on A319/320/321.

The assistant explained that she or her supervisors have not heard or approved such a mandate.

The executive office has been straight forward in the past so I have no reason to doubt them. She also advised me that they will follow up on this “rumor” and let me know if anything changes.

As a Shareholder and Customer I trust America West Holdings ( At this Time)

No. You can't just declare yourself a LCC without the low CASM to back it up.
Independence Air thinks they are. The DOT also considers them a LCC IIRC.

I got this today:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning our decision to discontinue the use of power ports on our Airbus aircraft.

The decision was based on the cost of upkeep versus the usefulness of the power ports and I apologize if this will cause you to be inconvenienced in the future. Please be assured your comments are appreciated.

Mr. XXXXX, thank you again for writing. We hope to welcome you aboard in the future.

Sincerely,
Alyssa H. King
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

I got this today:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning our decision to discontinue the use of power ports on our Airbus aircraft.

The decision was based on the cost of upkeep versus the usefulness of the power ports and I apologize if this will cause you to be inconvenienced in the future. Please be assured your comments are appreciated.

Mr. XXXXX, thank you again for writing. We hope to welcome you aboard in the future.

Sincerely,
Alyssa H. King
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

I got the exact same email about 5 minutes ago. I was somewhat surprised to get a response after only 2 days, but not surprised to get such a lame explanation. "based on the cost of upkeep versus the usefulness of the power ports" - and who exactly did they consult about the "usefulness" factor? Did they do a scientific poll - right!

Continential
767-400 - HI/International OnlyCO also offers powerports on the 777 and the rumor is they will outfit the intl. 752 with them as well.

Same old, same old management.

"We know what's best for our customers."

Our customers don't know what is useful for themselves. I do not believe the arrogance of a mangement that has been through two bankruptcies and fell from "America's Most Frequent Flyer" in the late 80's, when they had more flights in the US than any other carrier, to where they are today.

I guess HP is not the savior of US. but just the standard bearer who carries on the US tradition of poor management. :td:

The decision was based on the cost of upkeep...

I'd like to know what these costs are. Even on AA, where virtually every mainline flight has them, 90% of the ports go unused. Many people don't know they exist. On a number of occasions, I've heard the phrase(or similiar) "Oh, I can plug my DVD Player in there?".

So I'm pretty suspicious about HP's lame "costs of upkeep" exuse. It sounds more like they don't want to install them fleet-wide. Cheap B*****ds!

I forewarned you all that HP was cheap (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=466183), and this further proves it! You can expect far more of these "slash-to-save" type of reductions.

I can understand not wanting to incur the costs installing new ones on aircraft which are not already equipped, but taking the time/trouble to viciously, maliciously rip them out of existing aircraft? Completely unacceptable.

Although you can still call or write I believe the decision has been made. It appears that US was already having a hard time justifying the power ports on their fleet. The primary reason was usage over cost, as you have to consider the expense of regular upkeep, replacements, mandatory maintenance checks, etc. It is also important to have consistency across the fleet, one way or another.

There was some previous posts that HP may not be aware of the decision and maybe writing or calling would help.

To try and help bring clarification, I have confirmed with the AWA Executive Offices that they are aware of the power ports removal. Like it or not they have a position on it which I detailed for everyone below.

"The decision to deactivate and ultimately remove the in-seat power ports from the US Airways Airbus fleet, with the exception of the A330, was made by US Airways. Upon further research, we were advised the decision was based on a cost comparative of maintaining the units versus deactivating them, based on the relatively few passengers who utilize them. Of course, we realize they are extremely valuable to those who do use them, and we regret your displeasure."

I got this today:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning our decision to discontinue the use of power ports on our Airbus aircraft.

The decision was based on the cost of upkeep versus the usefulness of the power ports and I apologize if this will cause you to be inconvenienced in the future. Please be assured your comments are appreciated.

Mr. XXXXX, thank you again for writing. We hope to welcome you aboard in the future.

Sincerely,
Alyssa H. King
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

Hmm...mine was less direct

Dear Dr. XXX:

Thank you for the recent email. I appreciate the opportunity to address this
matter.

We try very hard to please our customers, and I regret that this matter has
caused you any inconvenience. We will make sure your comments are recorded
and passed on directly for further review.

Thank you again for your correspondence, Dr. XXX. Your patronage is
appreciated, and we look forward to serving you again very soon.

Sincerely,
XXXX
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

Is it just me, or did US not "address this matter"?

I have emailed US Consumer Affairs, HP Consumer Affairs, and the Chairman's desk. So far, just a polite reply for Consumer Affairs (below). Does not look good... This is very disappointing news.


Dear phillyflyer:

Thank you for sending your e-mail about our recent decision to discontinue the use of power ports on our Airbus 319, 320 and 321 aircraft. I appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of US Airways.

The information you have provided has been thoroughly documented. We are grateful to you for helping us identify ways in which we can improve, and hope your next experience is more pleasant.

Mr. phillyflyer, thank you for taking thetime to contact our office. We hope you will continue to consider US Airways for all of your future travel needs.

Sincerely,
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

I have emailed US Consumer Affairs, HP Consumer Affairs, and the Chairman's desk. So far, just a polite reply for Consumer Affairs (below). Does not look good... This is very disappointing news.


Dear phillyflyer:

Thank you for sending your e-mail about our recent decision to discontinue the use of power ports on our Airbus 319, 320 and 321 aircraft. I appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of US Airways.

The information you have provided has been thoroughly documented. We are grateful to you for helping us identify ways in which we can improve, and hope your next experience is more pleasant.

Mr. phillyflyer, thank you for taking thetime to contact our office. We hope you will continue to consider US Airways for all of your future travel needs.

Sincerely,
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs


The "real" version:

Dear PhillyFlyer,

Thanks for wasting your bandwidth and our time sending your complaint. We are CCY, resistance is futile.

We have completely ignored your comments. We are going to do as we please before we leave and collect our "bonuses".

What we say goes... but we know you will come back and fly with us again real soon as you are a CP.

Screw you.

Sincerely,
CCY

It is also important to have consistency across the fleet, one way or another.




If you think about it, all of this consistency thing is just a bunch of crap. US, for years, has flown Airbus planes that have power, and Boeing ones that don't. Where was the consistency there?

Look at other consistency issues. ALL the aircraft have different numbers of seats. Suppose they reconfigure HP F cabins to match those of US, it would be easy to at least install power for the F class passengers.

Take a look at AA. They fly ex-TW 757s, that have no power ports, while the rest of their 757 fleet has ports. They seem to be able to handle it. But, AA also posted a Q2 profit, and has (literally) 10x the cash US does. Mmmmm . . . :rolleyes:

If you think about it, all of this consistency thing is just a bunch of crap. US, for years, has flown Airbus planes that have power, and Boeing ones that don't. Where was the consistency there?

Look at other consistency issues. ALL the aircraft have different numbers of seats. Suppose they reconfigure HP F cabins to match those of US, it would be easy to at least install power for the F class passengers.

Saying you have something on an Airbus vs Boeing or A320 to A330 for that matter, is not the same as saying you have power ports on some A320's and not on other A320's. People often book trips by the AC type, some like features of different AC. More problems would arise with people that said they booked that A320 for the power only to find that that A320 on that day did not have them. Or even playing on the safe side, people could assume that it would not have power and get to the airport only to find that there is power. Now they are unhappy because they carried an extra battery, there is no way to win unless you have it all or none on a particular AC. This is the same as HP is currently able to list entertainment availability differences between 737 and 757, 319, 320. You can't tell people that movies and music are available on some 737's, you have to go one way or another so people can plan accordingly.

I would imagine you will see some reconfiguring of the fleet but not as you suspect. HP reconfiguring to US, hum you should keep open the strong possibility that it may go the other way around...

Regardless there is a huge difference from reconfiguring some seats or closets to installing power ports, not only do you have the significant initial costs but you have the upkeep. That does not include the additional time the AC has to be scheduled out of service.

Now logically why would HP go through the cost to install them across the fleet if US says they can't justify the cost of having them on the current fleet?

It was a US Air decision that's been in the making for a while.

I think they are making a huge mistake. Who are the most profitable customers? FF business people making long flights. I hate to fly to the east, if I can work on the way there and back, I'll give business to the company that supports this. Therefore AA is the way for me from here on out.

Doug - you are playing with fire here! :mad:

From HP Customer Relations (early this morning - turnaround time was <12 hrs.)
"We appreciate the time you have taken to write since
we feel our customer's concerns are considered a vital link to the continued
growth and success of America West Airlines. The decision to deactivate and
ultimately remove the in-seat power ports from US Airways Airbus fleet, with
the exception of the A330, was made by US Airways.

Upon further research, we were advised the decision
was based on a cost comparative to either maintain the units or deactivate
them based on the relatively few passengers who utilize them. Of course,
we realize they are extremely valuable to those who do use them, and we
regret your displeasure."

Take a look at AA. They fly ex-TW 757s, that have no power ports, while the rest of their 757 fleet has ports. They seem to be able to handle it. But, AA also posted a Q2 profit, and has (literally) 10x the cash US does. Mmmmm . . . :rolleyes:

The issue with the ex-TW 757s is they are being returned to the lessors as the leases expire. Why sink the money into something that is bound for the desert.

Case in point: Tonight I flew PHL-BOS on an A321. By the time I plug everything in, it's time to land.

Keep the HP Airbus birds for the heavy traveled, short routes. Use the US Airbus birds for the "premium" transcons, keep them equipped with powerpoints, and everyone is happy. It's easily done. This is the stupidest business decision I think I've seen from US (other than giving Dave Siegel his uber-generous golden parachute).

. . .Now logically why would HP go through the cost to install them across the fleet if US says they can't justify the cost of having them on the current fleet?

I think that is the key point. Assuming that the justification of having them incorporates the number of business travelers who use them and value them, (and therefore choose to fly US because of them) and those numbers are not sufficient to substantiate the cost of providing them, then this decision is easy for the airline. (And, as I've said elsewhere, very consistent with HP's approach in recent years.) Having said that, as a HP customer who would truly value them, it still sucks that they've decided to remove them.

I think that is the key point. Assuming that the justification of having them incorporates the number of business travelers who use them and value them, (and therefore choose to fly US because of them) and those numbers are not sufficient to substantiate the cost of providing them, then this decision is easy for the airline. (And, as I've said elsewhere, very consistent with HP's approach in recent years.)

except, Mr Parker is on record as hating US's short average stage-length, and wants to get their mainline equipment flying longer segments. As has been noted, this deactivation had to be in the works for quite some time, so the US management that made the decision was not taking those lengthening plans into account.

Case in point: Tonight I flew PHL-BOS on an A321. By the time I plug everything in, it's time to land.

Keep the HP Airbus birds for the heavy traveled, short routes. Use the US Airbus birds for the "premium" transcons, keep them equipped with powerpoints, and everyone is happy. It's easily done. This is the stupidest business decision I think I've seen from US (other than giving Dave Siegel his uber-generous golden parachute).

That would make sense, and is thus utterly unfathomable. Try again. :rolleyes:

I got the exact same email about 5 minutes ago. I was somewhat surprised to get a response after only 2 days, but not surprised to get such a lame explanation. "based on the cost of upkeep versus the usefulness of the power ports" - and who exactly did they consult about the "usefulness" factor? Did they do a scientific poll - right!

At least ya'll got responses. I sent CA an email soon after this was revealed and have not heard anything back.

Since I have CP already, it will be the carrier that is maintaining power ports in their cabins.

Since I have CP already, it will be the carrier that is maintaining power ports in their cabins.
AA? :rolleyes:

US has deactivated theirs effective this week. HP doesn't have them. AA still offers them.

AA does seem to want my business. Must be that I often buy full fare coach/restricted first tix at the last minute and fly a lot. How come U didn't figure this out?

Even if there is good economic sense behind the decision ( I doubt it) it is way shortsighted and will lose them lots of business eg PHL and CLT to DFW or ORD, over the long run.

1st post on the forum, been lurking for a while. That being said. Neither AA or US power ports would run my Sager notebook. Now, I *KNOW* it's a power monster but as laptops get more and more powerful and suck down more wattage I can see this being more and more of an issue.

-Dave

1st post on the forum, been lurking for a while. That being said. Neither AA or US power ports would run my Sager notebook. Now, I *KNOW* it's a power monster but as laptops get more and more powerful and suck down more wattage I can see this being more and more of an issue.
-Dave

Dave,
I don't see where your Sager ( regardless of whether you are running the IntelP4 or Athalon 64) is drawing more W than anything I am running on Dell. Which Sager notebook are you running and which power adapter are you using?

Sounds like something different than a W draw.

Kevin

[QUOTE=KevAZ]It was a US Air decision that's been in the making for a while.

I think they are making a huge mistake. Who are the most profitable customers? FF business people making long flights. I hate to fly to the east, if I can work on the way there and back, I'll give business to the company that supports this. Therefore AA is the way for me from here on out.

I'll step into the line of fire here.

I think they make the most money off of FF people making short flights and charging them BloFares.

If I am transcon, going West, then I sometimes use a charger. Still, my battery is good for 4 hours, and it's not even new (2 years old, charged and run down basically daily) , but I use aggressive power management to help it last. Coming east I nearly always redeye (I miss less work that way) so I wouldn't need the power port, I'm working an hour or 2 at most.

If a flight is 3 hours or less, by the time they allow you to fire up, and then you shut down before you land, you might get in 2:15 of battery use. So I see really no need for a power port on a PHL-DEN run (for example) at all (ducking bullets!)

Maybe you guys are watching movies or something very power intensive-- I just don't do that -- I am not sure actually if that takes more power.

There's always someone who has a special need and wants to run their electric razor through their computer though or something. So I'm sure it's a valid complaint

If you are a corporate person, just have your company buy you a new double size battery for that IBM corporate brick. Save it for trips. It's really no skin off of your back...

OK, just wanted in the firestorm here to say that if it saves them money, I'm all for it, because I just don't care if they have them or not.

[QUOTE=KevAZ]If a flight is 3 hours or less, by the time they allow you to fire up, and then you shut down before you land, you might get in 2:15 of battery use. So I see really no need for a power port on a PHL-DEN run (for example) at all (ducking bullets!)



take your power settings off "aggressive" and see how much use you get.

and yes, watching movies takes the most. a 4-hr battery *might* last an hour doing that.

I can get one full DVD movie played on one battery on my PowerBook G4 15" widescreen. And I carry a spare battery.

But I just don't see how this saves that much money :confused:

This will come as a shock to many of us, but the website has already been updated to reflect that on the 330 has laptop power.

I don't think the website has ever been updated so quickly for anything.

Words do not exist to express the idiocy of this move. :td: :td: :td: :td: :rolleyes:

Pay toilets are next.

[QUOTE=ytjk]

take your power settings off "aggressive" and see how much use you get.

and yes, watching movies takes the most. a 4-hr battery *might* last an hour doing that.

I have an off-brand, 4.2-pound notebook and I get about 1:30 for a movie and about 2:25 for regular stuff and I haven't messed with the power settings. I guess from now on I'll be renting shorter movies.

I had made a suggestion that they should leave the first class power ports and the first 5 to 8 rows of coach alone and take the rest of the power ports out from row 9 onward. They can take those power ports and put them on HP aircraft (install them as they go in for their C or D checks or what ever check).

That way they are not just throwing these things into the trash. They would keep their first class happy and FFers that sit in the front rows of coach.

But Troy, this makes logical sense! What are you thinking?!

Hey I got the letter too, but mine has one important difference.

Dear Unknown: (and yes, that is how they addressed me. :rolleyes: )

Thank you for contacting our office regarding the discontinuance of in-seat power ports on the Airbus.

This decision was based on the cost of upkeep verse the usefulness of the power ports. The power ports will remain active on Airbus 330 for our longer haul flights. I regret any inconvenience this decision has caused you. Your comments have been documented and are certainly appreciated. We have been able to make many positive changes to our operation as a direct result of passenger feedback.

Thank you for taking the time to write. We appreciate your patronage and hope to have many opportunities to serve you in the future.

Sincerely,
Theressa Parks
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

So it's not as bad, right? Does this mean international only, or domestic as well? What's US Air's definition of longer haul? And what's an upkeep verse? :p

The Wall Street Journal has a story on the power port removal in tomorrow's edition: Airline Pulls the Plug on Outlets.

Hey I got the letter too, but mine has one important difference.

Dear Unknown: (and yes, that is how they addressed me. :rolleyes: )

Thank you for contacting our office regarding the discontinuance of in-seat power ports on the Airbus.

This decision was based on the cost of upkeep verse the usefulness of the power ports. The power ports will remain active on Airbus 330 for our longer haul flights. I regret any inconvenience this decision has caused you. Your comments have been documented and are certainly appreciated. We have been able to make many positive changes to our operation as a direct result of passenger feedback.

Thank you for taking the time to write. We appreciate your patronage and hope to have many opportunities to serve you in the future.

Sincerely,
Theressa Parks
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

So it's not as bad, right? Does this mean international only, or domestic as well? What's US Air's definition of longer haul? And what's an upkeep verse? :p

It means that all of the European flights that have power ports now will continue to have power ports. Note that is both LGW flights, 2 of 3 FRA flights, FCO, MAN, CDG and sometimes MAD or MUC. Also, SJU is serviced by the back-up A330 and it will thus continue to have power-port service. Other than SJU, there ar eno domestic A330 flights.

It means that all of the European flights that have power ports now will continue to have power ports. Note that is both LGW flights, 2 of 3 FRA flights, FCO, MAN, CDG and sometimes MAD or MUC. Also, SJU is serviced by the back-up A330 and it will thus continue to have power-port service. Other than SJU, there ar eno domestic A330 flights.


Do you (or anyone) know if the flight from PIT to VCE has powerports? That's my next international flight.

This is a terrible decision. The letter really just smacks of "Sorry, you lose.", without taking into account the coming wave of technology that will be on board in a couple of years. I mean, you know that as soon as internet access becomes commonplace on a flight (which it will, let's face it), powerports will also become standard as well. Then they'll just have to put them back in and then raise prices to justify it. It's just incredibly short-sighted. :td:

Do you (or anyone) know if the flight from PIT to VCE has powerports? That's my next international flight.

This is a terrible decision. The letter really just smacks of "Sorry, you lose.", without taking into account the coming wave of technology that will be on board in a couple of years. I mean, you know that as soon as internet access becomes commonplace on a flight (which it will, let's face it), powerports will also become standard as well. Then they'll just have to put them back in and then raise prices to justify it. It's just incredibly short-sighted. :td:

PHL-VCE is operated by 767-200, which have never had powerports (for US, at least).

The Wall Street Journal has a story on the power port removal in tomorrow's edition: Airline Pulls the Plug on Outlets.

And the Journal's piece got some play from Andy Serwer on CNN's American Morning this a.m. They had the amusing bit of how much does this really save the airline - a few cents each flight?

I sent in an e-mail via the Chairman's e-mail address and they've told me they've forwarded it on to Consumer Affairs. We'll see if they've changed their response at all post-WSJ article.

The Wall Street Journal has a story on the power port removal in tomorrow's edition: Airline Pulls the Plug on Outlets.

By AVERY JOHNSON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
September 20, 2005; Page D3
In the latest rub for fliers who have watched everything from meals to pillows disappear onboard, US Airways has started pulling the plug on electrical outlets on many flights.
The airline, which has been in bankruptcy protection since September 2004 and is to complete a merger with America West as soon as a week from today, quietly began deactivating the power strips on many Airbus planes last week. A US Airways spokeswoman says the system has become too expensive to maintain, but declined to say how much cost savings the airline expects to gain from cutting it.
The power bars will be removed completely when the aircraft go into the shop for heavy maintenance. The plugs, used by travelers to charge laptop computers and other devices, were never installed on any of the carrier's Boeing planes. The plugs will remain on the A330 aircraft that are mostly used on the trans-Atlantic route.
As the airline industry's financial situation has worsened this year because of low fares, labor tensions and record oil prices, in-flight stinginess has reached new levels. In March, Northwest Airlines started to eliminate free pretzels and in June cut complimentary magazines, while Delta Air Lines this spring jettisoned pillows. UAL Corp.'s United Airlines, also operating under bankruptcy-court protection, plans to finish rolling out a $2 fee for curbside check-in by the end of this year. And all the so-called legacy carriers, except for Continental Airlines, have traded free food for some form of paid service on most domestic flights.
Travelers may see even more cutbacks ahead. Delta and Northwest both filed for bankruptcy-court protection last week and will likely be looking for ways to slash costs. Some airline experts say, however, that there is so little left onboard that the carriers will have to look elsewhere, such as to route cuts, to really make a dent. Northwest and Delta representatives both said that no amenity cuts have been announced due to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy-court filings. Delta even has said it is returning free magazines to flights starting Nov. 1.
As service has eroded on the legacy airlines, the newer low-cost carriers have generally been held up by the industry as shining examples of customer service. However, some of them also have been scaling back the freebies. Spirit Airlines, for instance, now has blankets only on overnight flights, having taken them out of routine service in May.
Write to Avery Johnson at avery.johnson@WSJ.com

Do you have her email address?

I got this today:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning our decision to discontinue the use of power ports on our Airbus aircraft.

The decision was based on the cost of upkeep versus the usefulness of the power ports and I apologize if this will cause you to be inconvenienced in the future. Please be assured your comments are appreciated.

Mr. XXXXX, thank you again for writing. We hope to welcome you aboard in the future.

Sincerely,
Alyssa H. King
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

If this turns out to be true, I am definately switching to connecting flights on AA instead of my direct flight from LAX to CLT (which I will be doing for the next 5 years). US Airways will definately lose my business if this is true. What an idiotic thing to do.

I have a choice between AA and U for PHL, DFW, ORD, MIA. AA has better schedules and power. Yes, it will make a difference.

Perhaps I'm posting this too late if US Airways has already set about removing the ports. I will send emails to them often and I will add this URL in my emails. I will definately be switching over to AA if this is the case.

Another idea: I'm going to contact Targus and Kensington, makers of power ports, to recommend they get involved.

Dave,
I don't see where your Sager ( regardless of whether you are running the IntelP4 or Athalon 64) is drawing more W than anything I am running on Dell. Which Sager notebook are you running and which power adapter are you using?

Sounds like something different than a W draw.

Kevin

I think people are blowing things way out of proportion. I have a Dell and am unable to use the power ports. Every vendor I've contacted, including Targus, said my Dell simply draws more power than the plane power adapters are designed to provide. So, ya know what, I bought an additional battery for less than the cost of that stupid adapter I needed for my former laptop. And, I've never had a reason to use it either as my other battery last about 4 hours. I flew DCA-SEA almost every week. This is a non-issue, really.

I think people are blowing things way out of proportion. I have a Dell and am unable to use the power ports. Every vendor I've contacted, including Targus, said my Dell simply draws more power than the plane power adapters are designed to provide. So, ya know what, I bought an additional battery for less than the cost of that stupid adapter I needed for my former laptop. And, I've never had a reason to use it either as my other battery last about 4 hours. I flew DCA-SEA almost every week. This is a non-issue, really.

With all due respect, your post sounds like "I have a powerhog of a laptop and thus the powerports are useless to me, so this is a non-issue, really. You are all blowing this out of proportion."

It's a non-issue for you, perhaps. Others, with less power-hungry devices, value the powerports, and HP management is high if they think this won't drive away business travelers.

I give this dumbell, err, . . . barbell of an airline less than a year before the next bankruptcy filing.

I think people are blowing things way out of proportion. I have a Dell and am unable to use the power ports. Every vendor I've contacted, including Targus, said my Dell simply draws more power than the plane power adapters are designed to provide. So, ya know what, I bought an additional battery for less than the cost of that stupid adapter I needed for my former laptop. And, I've never had a reason to use it either as my other battery last about 4 hours. I flew DCA-SEA almost every week. This is a non-issue, really.

I'm wondering. Do the AA and US powerports put out the same amount of wattage?

I've seen people using those huge 17" laptops on AA's power ports.

I think people are blowing things way out of proportion. I have a Dell and am unable to use the power ports. Every vendor I've contacted, including Targus, said my Dell simply draws more power than the plane power adapters are designed to provide. So, ya know what, I bought an additional battery for less than the cost of that stupid adapter I needed for my former laptop. And, I've never had a reason to use it either as my other battery last about 4 hours. I flew DCA-SEA almost every week. This is a non-issue, really.
So you have a Dell laptop that sucks power down (Mine runs just fine on the power ports btw...D600) yet your battery lasts 4 hours??? My one battery will last approximately 2 hours IF i'm barely doing anything with the laptop that involves disk access. Watching a DVD that is ripped to the HD (not spinning the DVD rom drive) and I get maybe 1:15 or so. The only way I could get a battery to last 4 hours is to hibernate the machine :D

If I got 4 hours out of one battery I wouldn't care about power ports at all.

Lance

According to every sales rep I've spoken with, my laptop requires 10 V more than what the airplane power ports provide. I don't play DVDs, don't use my CD-ROM/DVD player, etc., so the battery lasts four hours. But, again, I ask why you don't just buy an additional battery? It's the same cost OR LESS than that stupid adapter, less cables, etc., so it's far more convenient.

Also, as others have noted, I never see anyone in Coach using the power ports, and rarely do I see people in First using them. This really isn't a big deal.

I think that:

1) by removing a non-important electrical system from the aircraft, US can expect a decrease (however small) in their liability insurance premiums.

2) there may be some appreciable weight savings if there is an electronics module required per-seat to convert aircraft power supply to what-ever comes out of the power jack. The removal of, say, 50 lbs is not something the airlines take "lightly".

3) US points to maintainence costs as the reason, which (unless they are blowing smoke) indicates that the power jack is more than a connector and a set of wires going to a circuit breaker. The failure of an individual power outlet could mean that a power conversion module needs to be examined lest it lead to something more threatning. Perhaps these modules fail moderately often, and simply letting them fail (and not performing maintenance on them) is not an option.

4) There may be FAA regulations that compel them to fix items such as the power outlets when they fail, which would not allow US to simply let them die one-by-one.

It will be interesting to see if they do remove the actual power jack from the seat, or simply insert a non-removable plug into the jack.

According to every sales rep I've spoken with, my laptop requires 10 V more than what the airplane power ports provide. I don't play DVDs, don't use my CD-ROM/DVD player, etc., so the battery lasts four hours. But, again, I ask why you don't just buy an additional battery? It's the same cost OR LESS than that stupid adapter, less cables, etc., so it's far more convenient.

Also, as others have noted, I never see anyone in Coach using the power ports, and rarely do I see people in First using them. This really isn't a big deal.
Well a new battery costs me about $70 and is smaller than the power adapter so that is a plus. However I already have an adapter so it costs me zero. Another battery will cost me $70..so no a new battery is not cheaper than the adapter for all of us. Only those of us who don't already own the adapater.

Lance

Well a new battery costs me about $70 and is smaller than the power adapter so that is a plus. However I already have an adapter so it costs me zero. Another battery will cost me $70..so no a new battery is not cheaper than the adapter for all of us. Only those of us who don't already own the adapater.

Well, I bought three adapters trying to find one that would work. None did. And, let's get real, $70 is not even a drop in the bucket if you're traveling enough to feel you need a power adapter.

Also, as others have noted, I never see anyone in Coach using the power ports, and rarely do I see people in First using them. This really isn't a big deal.

I suppose that if you look at the issue in total isolation, the power ports aren't that big a deal - get yourself an extra battery and make sure you're powered up before your flight and you'll be fine. However, if you look more broadly, this could be a bad omen. When they cut pretzels (which apparently was a US decision that HP will change once they take over), it really affected the back of the bus more than the front of the bus. I don't know about you, but I'm in F for the vast majority of my mainline flights.

When it comes to power ports, however... Little Jasper and Madison aren't using the power ports to charge their iPods on the family's annual trip to Disney. Rather, the ports are something that's 98% focused towards business travelers, real road warriors. Chances are, if you're CP, that means you.

The loyalty I've shown to the airline to make CP is a valuable asset. I'd like to get the feeling that I'm the kind of customer that HP will value. This decision makes me wonder.

I'm about to book a mid-week last-minute 1000 mile round trip that will probably cost $800. Do I book it on US or do I look for someone else who, over the long haul, might treat me better? (Upgrades, discounted club, good club network, actually redeemable awards, etc). I'm going to stick around for now, but I'll be keeping an eye on these guys.

I don't think the following generalizations are too much of reach:
1. average laptops have a real-world battery life of ~2h from a full state.
2. laptop people don't necessarily show up for flights with full batteries, extra batteries, nor plane adapters.
3. laptop people use their laptops in airports
4. access to outlets in airports is not reliable
5. unsophisticated laptop flyers never relied upon nor utilized US power ports
6. sophisticated laptop flyers knew which planes/classes to target to have the US power port option

I have a laptop which goes 4-5h on a full charge. I have the plane charger and extra battery. I fly 70% US transcons, 20% US flights ~2h, 10% other (shorter flights, other airlines).
A key reason I chose to fly US is b/c they offered power on certain planes/classes. It was comforting to know I could avoid the threat of being unable to use my laptop due to power by choosing specific flights. While boarding a plane with full and extra batteries is ideal, it's not realistic. It's also nice to leave the plane with a full charge.
My personal experience has been that I've rarely see anyone but me pull out the plane charger, either in coach or FC, short haul or transcons. I pull mine out occasionally, as needed. Today, on whole, the ports are probably underutilized.

Spending the time/effort/cost to remove the power feature is both sensible and stupid.

Sensible:
7. it avoids a situation where someone like me boards a plane where he expects to have power, but b/c it's from the AmWest fleet, never had the feature, and he throws a fit.
8. it may have cost savings

Stupid:
9. scenario (7) is so remote it shouldn't even be considered. most flyers didn't know what determined port availability before, and already saw the power ports as a treat, not a given.
10. more things are going to require power ports in the future, not less
11. it differentiates the US product in a positive manner
12. the customers you anger are most likely from a demographic you least want to anger, directly affecting (8).
13. sooner or later, the cost of adding back power ports will dwarf (8)

I hope someone can find out why Stupid won.

My 3yo son was entertained very well for 2+ hours from CLT-SFO and back due to empower and the DVD player we brought along. The in-flight entertainment provided by US was not good enough for him.

Yes, we could mail-order for another battery to make sure we make it for the entire flight, but if there were delays, etc, the batteries might not be enough.

This was a purchase time consideration. We could have connected somewhere with more convenience, but driving to CLT for empower was a consideration.

This is very disappointing.

Well, I bought three adapters trying to find one that would work. None did. And, let's get real, $70 is not even a drop in the bucket if you're traveling enough to feel you need a power adapter.
It's not the $70 overall it's the additional $70 above and beyond the power adapter I already purchased on my own dime so I could remain billable during all my flights. I'm not pulling down 6 or 7 figures like others here :D


I hope someone can find out why Stupid won.
It's obvious, there were more stupid reasons than sensible ones....Therefore it won out :)

My 3yo son was entertained very well for 2+ hours from CLT-SFO and back due to empower and the DVD player we brought along. The in-flight entertainment provided by US was not good enough for him.


Your "not good enough" 3-year-old has a tough life ahead of him.

I don't think the following generalizations are too much of reach...A key reason I chose to fly US is b/c they offered power on certain planes/classes. It was comforting to know I could avoid the threat of being unable to use my laptop due to power by choosing specific flights. While boarding a plane with full and extra batteries is ideal, it's not realistic. It's also nice to leave the plane with a full charge.
...Spending the time/effort/cost to remove the power feature is both sensible and stupid.

I think your post summarizes the problem brilliantly. It reminds me of when US removed/blocked the TV monitors on the 737s, only to reactivate them again. I'd love to know how much that fiasco cost. These are myopic management decisions with no idea of consequences. So far, the counter proposal by USAIRWAYSFAN is the most sensible: retain in FC and the first XX rows of coach. I fear it may be too late.

...Rather, the ports are something that's 98% focused towards business travelers, real road warriors. Chances are, if you're CP, that means you.

The loyalty I've shown to the airline to make CP is a valuable asset. I'd like to get the feeling that I'm the kind of customer that HP will value. This decision makes me wonder.

I'm about to book a mid-week last-minute 1000 mile round trip that will probably cost $800. Do I book it on US or do I look for someone else who, over the long haul, might treat me better? (Upgrades, discounted club, good club network, actually redeemable awards, etc). I'm going to stick around for now, but I'll be keeping an eye on these guys.


Words have failed me in how I might want to respond to this issue. Thank you, bigred, for doing so quite nicely. I share your thoughts exactly, most especially, but I'll be keeping an eye on these guys.

As for me, this decision on their part resulted in my booking my upcoming three transcons, all A-fares, on UA. The total is in the neighborhood of a $3500 loss for US.

Words have failed me in how I might want to respond to this issue. Thank you, bigred, for doing so quite nicely. I share your thoughts exactly, most especially, but I'll be keeping an eye on these guys.

As for me, this decision on their part resulted in my booking my upcoming three transcons, all A-fares, on UA. The total is in the neighborhood of a $3500 loss for US.

EnvoyBoy, I think you can "respond to this issue" quite eloquently by sending copies of your 3 UA booking confirmations totalling $3500 to US and HP Consumer Affairs. If US/HP sees hard evidence that they are losing revenue from their top tier flyers due to this bone-headed move, perhaps they will restore the power ports.

Just read this whole thread. I am STEAMED. More and more I am needing to be productive while in the air. I just bought the I Go power suppy for the plane, and now I find out I can't use it? My laptop has a very short life as well. No way do I want to carry an extra battery along with AC power for my hotel room. My I Go system does both. I just called the HP consumer affairs number (my thanks to whoever posted that), and I plan to call the CP line as well. The HP agent said that although the decision has been made, you never know.... She said she has received several calls from passengers, so MAKE THOSE CALLS! :mad:

Powerports gone, but Pretzels return?
see: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=476437

Absolutely outrageous. Who is in charge of this ship? Maybe the management has simply gone fishing a few days before Doug et al. take over.

Just read this whole thread. I am STEAMED. More and more I am needing to be productive while in the air. I just bought the I Go power suppy for the plane, and now I find out I can't use it? My laptop has a very short life as well. No way do I want to carry an extra battery along with AC power for my hotel room.

exactly. while usage is somewhat limited at present, the trend overall is toward more and more need for it going forward-- not only for work, but also as IFE options expand in scope and shrink in size. even the pennypinchers at AA realized they could make installation of ports and bigger bins pay. there's also an ultimate limit to what can be carried on--- with food, pillows, etc becoming carryon material, an extra battery is a big marginal burden.

Finally got a response to the e-mail I sent to the CP e-mail address. They referred it to Consumer Affairs who responded to me noting that the decision was "based on the cost of upkeep verse [sic] the usefulness of the power ports." At least they regretted the inconvenience this will cause, and appreciated my input. Sounds like they won't be reversing this decision anytime soon.