Air tran Speaks Out!
 

I found the following announcement in my mail today from Air Tran. Its either an extremly fortuitous market timing, or the first shot in a battle between the majors and Airtran, Jet Blue, and Southwest:
Pay for your Air Tran ticket with an American Express card and you will receive the following:
After 1 1/2 RTs in Business Class or 3 RTs in coach, receive a free Air Tran RT to any Air Tran destination OR 4 Free Business Class uprades.
After 3 RTs in Busines Class or 6 RTs in coach, receive a Free RT coach ticket in the Contonental US on ANY MAJOR US AIRLINE (All the majors are listed).There are restrictions.

The announcement is not clear if you can earn multiple awards. It only states that you have 1 year to earn a reward starting from the earliest credit earned.

Is this the first shot in the war? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Vulcan (edited 09-05-2002).]

I sense that Airtran sees an opportunity here...

They aren't going to become more restrictive like UA, AA, CO, NW, DL.

They want to be "lumped in" with Southwest and JetBlue.

The latter are going to be known as the "passenger friendly carriers" and Airtran wants in.

The AirTran/AmEx "buy 3, get 1" deal has been around for some time. I earned a freebie in 2000 this way...I think it's likely that all of the recent Big 6 "policy enhncements" spurred another round of this email campaign.

AirTran has even more incentive now that Delta has matched "use it or lose it." They ought to at least incorporate it in their newspaper ads in Atlanta and other places that they're less restrictive.

They've always pointed out that they offer one-ways and don't require a Saturday night stay, so maybe this will be an extension of that.

I've mentioned the AirTran deal on MilesBuzz before as the absolute best deal going on right now. I've switched 75% of my flights to AirTran (Southwest getting flights to cities that AirTran doesn't cover). Plus, I love the big seats up front.

From a strategic view, what AirTran should do is go full-out and adopt Southwest's ticketing/refund rules verbatim, and then advertise the **** out of it. Delta just gave them a gift, they must go out and exploit it.

My concern, however, is that AirTran's computer systems couldn't handle the archiving of millions of partially-used credits like Southwest's does.

I think AirTran is in a very nice niche right now and could start picking up some serious market share against Delta.

Another thing that AirTran has got going for themselves is that clean commercial with the simple cel-animation, all of the silhouettes, and the soft colors. It sure doesn't look like anything that would come from a budget airline. (I hope my last statement didn't offend anyone; it wasn't intended to.) I haven't seen it in the Atlanta market for a while, but it was well done.

WN has been giving 3 points per flight if you use your Amex card for some time now. I don't know if it is market sensitive or if it is still going on, but has worked for me over the past year at least. Of course, no upgrades on WN.

OK, how does AirTran BC compare with JetBlue? Compared with "major" airline FC? How many seats do they usually have allotted to BC?
I've been told that you can upgrade at the TC on AirTran for $35/leg, but they get very few takers. However, I have no experience with this airline, though I may if the majors continue with thier nonsense, and try to have all their "benefits" the same.

In the newer planes, they have 3 rows of 2x2 BC seating.

I prefer it to the "majors" BC, with one exception: there's no food at all. Also, the drink selection is more limited than the big boys.

However, AirTran's BC is better because there's never a "upgrade lotto" to see who gets to sit upfront based on status. You pays yer money, and you sit in the front. Very straightforward.

My only beef is that once I pay my $35 (or more, if I reserve it ahead of time), they had better enforce who sits up there. On flights with empty seats, I've seen entire families pick up their stuff in coach and commandeer empty BC seats. That is completely unacceptable.

The other thing about AirTran BC is that they don't have messy electronics boxes under the seats, so you can stretch your legs under the seat in front of you.

On UA domestic narrowbody "first class", this is often not the case, and with bulkhead seats on an A319 or A320, you have actually less legroom than you do in coach, it seems.

I'm sure that you have plenty of room in Business Class when the floor burns away from underneath you.

"I'm sure that you have plenty of room in Business Class when the floor burns away from underneath you."

Classic! ROTFL

Well, the floor may burn away underneath you if you are on a Delta Murder-11 too http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Unused credits are stored in the Res system at FL, just like WN. Just used one yesterday. Gave the res agent the confo, and she pulled it up for me. Granted, I couldn't use it online, like WN, but I'll bet it's coming.

FL is more Travel Agent friendly as well, just like WN. FL still pays commissions to my TA, but also allows 'em to book web fares via the website. Once you get over the adjustment from other carriers, it seems to work just fine. Like WN, FL doesn't promise more than they can deliver.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsdown.gif I don't really care even if they offer "Buy 0, get 9999999 free."

AirTran, formerly known as ValuJet, changed its name after a 1996 crash in the Florida Everglades that killed 110 people...

[This message has been edited by FT wannabe (edited 09-10-2002).]

Hello all,
Being new to these forums and more of an aircraft buff than a FF buff here is my dubious insight into AirTran's reputation.

Firstly AirTran is safe, it would not be flying if it wasn't. Has AirTran had a few incidents, yes, but who hasn't. People talk about how irresponsible they were back in the ValuJet days, about how Flight 592 (the Everglades crash) was all their fault. They don't maintain their planes, they have old planes and blah blah. Do a few incidents mean that a whole airline is unsafe? Not by a long shot.

So AirTran has some DC9s that are long in the tooth, well so does Northwest. They pay their pilots less than the Bix Six, so do JetBlue, Spirit, Southwest and many others.

Airtran/Valujet has had only one fatal accident in its nearly ten year history. Was the accident their fault? Yes it was but so what, if anything that will make them be more cautious in the future.

Before anyone decides not to fly AirTran because of that one crash 6 years ago I would urge them to remember the story of American Flight 191, a Douglas DC10. In 1979 AA 191 crashed in Chicago killing 279 people. The engine fell off the plane during takeoff. American had been removing the engine and pylon (what holds the engine to the wing) assembly as a unit instead of the Douglas procedure of removing the engine first, then the pylon. By doing this American was saving a lot of money, but they were also setting 279 people up to die.

When people talk about American is the first thing they mention Flight 191? Before flying AA do you take a look at the wing and see if the engine is properly attached? No, because AA is just "percieved" as safe. Yet almost any media reference to AirTran mentions the Valujet crash, why? because it sells papers. Don't buy into the myth that Airtran (or any other airline for that matter) is unsafe, because it isn't.

PS, sorry for such a long post, and no I am not an Airtran employee http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

ValuJet executives should have been jailed for the experience of 592. Did you know that the aircarft serving that flight had eight incidents in the two years prior where the aircraft either had to abort a takeoff or make an emergency landing?

They will be more cautious? Are you just imagining things to try and create a pretty picture for a company threatening the lives of the traveling public?

What about when they were on their takeoff roll on the runway and another pilot had to radio them that their engine was on fire because the pilot had ignored the warning?

And what about the time that they flew into a hail storm so rough that it cracked their windshield open? They were challenged about it because they weren't supposed to, but then lied about it and were proven to be lying by the FDR.

And what about the time that they recently performed an illegal maintenance procedure on a >30 year old aircraft part that ultimately failed and caused a fire on takeoff?

No, and the reason is because American Airlines has operated an order of magnitude more flights than Airtran
and for decades before the idea of ValuJet was ever conceived.

If you think ValuJet is safe, you either are naive, uninformed, or in denial.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98mar/valujet1.htm
http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/12/crash.record/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/20/valujet.update
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/AAR9603.pdf
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Break...snippets5.html
http://aviationsafety.net/cvr/cvr_vj597.shtml



[This message has been edited by dbaker (edited 09-12-2002).]

Here's one more:

http://www.2600.com/hackedphiles/val...tml/frame.html

[WARNING: THIS DEFACEMENT IS IN EXTREMELY POOR TASTE, DON'T SAY I DIDn'T WARN YOU!]

A less profane version of the site is available here:

http://www.ityt.com/airtran/hacked.php

"If you think ValuJet is safe, you either are naive, uninformed, or in denial."

I am not an AirTran/ValuJet employee and as a matter of fact I have not flown them. Having said that, I would think that the US aviation regulators or whichever governmental bodies that sees about airline safety would not allow them or any airline to keep flying passengers if they were not "safe" to fly.



[This message has been edited by MyDearMiles (edited 09-12-2002).]

I'm sorry, but that's a naive response. For what it's worth, the FAA did ground the airline for over a month in 1996. They continue to be under investigation. I might note that the government did nothing to stop them from flying the aircraft that served flight 592 that crashed, even though it had 8 accident/incidents in the two years prior. Two of those were on the same day, but were unrelated!

The FAA's oversight relies heavily on the assumption that the operator is attempting to comply with the regulations. When an operator takes short cuts and intentionally tries to avoid detection, the chances of the violations going undetected are fairly good. The FAA simply doesn't have the resources, or funding to develop the resources, that would be necessary to monitor all of the airlines closely enough to reliably detect violations that are being actively concelaed.

To all of you who think that AirTran is the 'Devil's Preferred Carrier': http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

1. Do you think that flying AirTran is less safe than driving, let's say, ATL-WAS?

2. Do you think that AirTran safety standards and records are below many international airlines, like Swissair (3 fatals in 3 years), Korean Air or China Airlines?

3. Whom should I fly out of ATL and Florida for low fares- Delta or US Airways? Or perhaps I should wait on Gordon Bethune to offer $39 one-ways systemwide??? Southwest simply does not fly to Atlanta.

While I would love to fly on a safer airline than AirTran (Southwest comes to mind), that is very difficult on the eastern seaboard.

What a great country - we have a choice. If you don't like FL - don't fly them. Thats one more seat for everybody else.

But don't compare Airtran to Delta - two different airlines, two different operations. If you don't like Delta - fly airtran, give up those unlimited free drinks in first class and membership to the crown room - its too crowded anyhow when people bring in 4 freeloading guests.

No, but at least when driving, you have some control and know that your vehicle has been maintained correctly so it offers some peace of mind.

I'm not as familar with Swissair/Korean/China to give an answer to this. I wasn't even aware of a recent Swissair crash beyond the 1998 MD-11 incident.

I do know, however, that AirTran has had 170,000 flights, Swissair has had 3.2M, KoreanAir has had 1.3M, and China Airlines has had 690,000.

Do the math.

I fly to ATL on CO, so I don't really know much about flying out of there. I would say that paying the premium for DL/CO/US is certainly worth it when it comes to your safety.

My point is to make people aware of their history and their current status and safety issues. The vast majority of people flying AirTran likely aren't even aware that it's the same company as ValuJet.

I'm not complaining about AirTran for the sake of complaining about an airline that I fly constantly (which is a popular pasttime on FT).

I fly AirTran weekly, and get 2 free drinks per segment, no fight to sit up front, and usually an empty seat next to me. I'll take that over the alternative, but hey, that's why one airline is breaking even and one is not even close.

The Swissair crashes:

In 2000, Zurich-Dresden on a Saab turboprop- all (10) killed.

In 2001, Berlin-Zurich on an Avro RJ-100: 24 killed.

And the Murder-11 crash over the Atlantic, of course...

Where does the idea that AirTran is unsafe come from?? It comes from the media who are the most subjective and misleading resource on airline safety there is. CNN, MSNBC et al will do anything to get viewers and one of the tings they do is create an overly unrealistic portrayl of how "unsafe" it is to fly. They do this because they know people will buy into their bogus stories.

Airtran has a fatal accident rate of 5.88 per million flights. That means that the chance of any given Airtran flight is about 1 in 175,000. You would have to take 175,000 flights before you were involved in a fatal crash. Think about that.

Yet CNN and ABC are lighting up the airwaves with stories about how Airtran planes are winged coffins. They are creating a moral panic and it is shameful. Even more suprising is that people believe this. They see morons like John Norris and Mary Sciavo screaming about how Airtran or the Dc9 are deathtraps, just to get their faces on TV.

So fly Airtran, fly Korean, fly a Swiss MD11 (murder 11, i like that) and fly them knowing that you are several orders of magnitude safer than you were in the TownCar that took you to the airport.

Cheers
Jesse

I was under the impression that the ValuJet/Air Tran crash of Flight # 592 was NOT the fault of AirTran, but rather the result of AirTran's sub-contractor's/client's lying to them that the cargo met FAA air safety standards, when the O2 containers clearly did not.

As I understand it the subcontractor/client filed for bankruptcy and is no longer in business. IT is the management of that company that should be held criminally liable. Perhaps AirTran was negligent in relying upon the representations made to them, I don't know, but I was under the impression that it was not their employees/management that were culpable for that crash.

Am I wrong?

No you are right but the blame was laid on ValuJet management because it is essentially their repsonsibility.

Again pointing to AA 191 the media more or less blamed Douglas, even though it was American's fault. As is the usual after a crash the blame is not always laid where it should be. And Douglas couldn't get the real story out because if it did they would piss of AA and never sell them another plane.

That I agree with as it is the cornerstone for the CIVIL liability of AirTran on the basis of respondeat superior. But some have contended that this is the basis for AirTran's criminal liability which is just plain wrong. That lies squarely at the feet of the subcontractor/client -- and the management of that company ought to be charged with negligent homicide, at the very least.

If large airlines like AA and UA are having the same rate of fatal accident, there'll be 4 fatal accidents annually for each of these airlines. Even on any bad year, it didn't happen that frequently.

You are right that flying on any airline is safer than driving. However, when compared to their biggie brothers, AirTran really needs to get their act together.

Who cares!?!?!?! I mean really, WHO CARES???? Does it really matter. Has Airtran had a fatal incident during their tenure? Has Airtran had a fatal incident since they returned to the skies after the last fiasco? NO. In fact, they may have one of the better safety records, and are moving towards having one of the youngest fleets.

Some people will never let the past lie - but if you want to cast stones, cast them at US Airways, United, American, Northwest, Continental, Delta and the likes.... They've all had many more fatal incidents in shorter periods of time then Airtran has even been around. Airtran is a fine airline that is putting the crunch on Delta in many markets and people in Atlanta should be happy they are around, whether they fly them or not. They've brought the fares, that everyone there was so fond of complaining about, down to tolerable, affordable levels. You are every bit as sensationalistic as the press.

Airtran flies singificantly fewer flights than do the Major airlines. That's why accident rates are expressed in accidents per 100,000 departures, miles, or hours. The largest airlines fly as many departures in a day as a small airline might fly in several months so they have significantly more exposure to having an accident.

The problem with valujet/airtran is not just their accident and incident rates, which are many times that of the rest of the industry, but it's what is causing these accidents and incidents. Especially enlightening is reading the reports of the many incidents (less serious than accidents) and some of the very poor decisions that have been made by valujet/airtran crews and managers.

Go to http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp#query_start and search from 1/1/94 through the present for model "DC-9". 11 out of 63 of the DC9 incidents and accidents during that period were valujet/airtran. American Airlines, who flies a much larger fleet of DC9s (roughly 260 DC9-80s during that preiod) has only only 5 incidents/accidents. AAL flew probably 8 or 10 times as many flights in their DC9 fleet during that time period yet had less than half of the accidents/incidents.

Read through some of the reports.

Isn't everyone forgetting thar Airtran is quickly coverting their fleet to 717s, which appear to be excellent, safe airplanes. This makes the prior data less relevant. After all, you are flying future flights, not past flights. Does anyone know if and when the entire fleet will be 717s?

AirTran Airways - The Truth about Safety

A B717 is a newer version of the DC9. The DC9 is an excellent, safe airplane. Other airlines operate large fleets of DC9s, many as old as the ones valujet/airtran flies, with accident/incident rates significantly lower than valujet/airtran's.

I just had to laugh when I read this thread. Some people are still living in 1996, apparently.

As far as the now long ago Valujet crash, read the facts, then come back & post: http://www.avweb.com/articles/vj592clo.html .This is the NTSB report, not some 3rd party propaganda.

As far as the plane situation, the CEO states:
Joe Leonard: With the addition of 2 airplanes a month between now and the end of the year and 20 new airplane deliveries next year, we will be an all 717 operator by December 2003. At that time, our entire DC-9 fleet will have been retired.


[This message has been edited by travelcoupons (edited 09-13-2002).]