Can we finally stop blaming 9/11, SARS, the Iraq war, etc., for empty seats on planes that have REALLY been caused by unwise cost-cutting or bad airline management decisions on frequent-flyer programs?

Would be nice if there were a proclamation in the Wall Street Journal for upper airline managements saying that, henceforth, accountability has returned and empty seats from this point onward can't just be written off to 9/11. Airlines appear to have recovered enough to hit that threshold.

Hopefully we've hit bottom with the cuts and takebacks, with recent announcements from NW and UA turning the tide. One of those two will get most of my business next year. Would hope that if it causes the loads to go up then those airlines would get the credit due, while the ones in a position to lose passengers (notably CO) would no longer be able to reflexively blame external events unless there was a clear connection.

Would also nominate DL for the airline that has been able to mask the most FF-related and other operationally related passenger losses with 9/11. Maybe others disagree or would nominate someone else, but I just hope the accountability holiday is over. Thoughts?

We blame the new convoluted security system on 9/11. We blame empty seats on executives who don't want to have to take their shoes off and be patted down to fly to a meeting by commercial airliner.

9/11, SARS, the Iraq war and bad management are to blame for the huge deficits of the past 2 years. Those elements plus a major downturn in the economy in 2001-02 significantly reduced demand. Airlines were faced with a significant high cost per passenger. Most have cut back their capacity and are now ready to deal with a better economy (hopefully).

This has nothing to do with frequent flyer programs however.

Well changes to frequent flyer programs and benefits are definitely moving passengers around.

Winter fares running about 10-15% higher than 2002 seems to support the view that passenger loads - systemwide - will be higher. This is good news coming off the high summer loads. And the old saw "a rising tide lifts all boats" seems to apply as every airline other then DL seems to have benefited with solid revenue boosts in Q2.

DL continues to see large losses in 2003, and it can be argued ( and no doubt will be ) that the changes to SkyMiles had an effect, moving passengers to other airlines like CO, NW, AA, and UA - all who saw revenue improvement and, in CO's case, an actual profit.

UA should have hit a brick wall in terms of their DiP financing rules for Q3 and Q4, yet positive changes to MP - in terms of mileage bonuses - has helped contribute to sustained high passenger loads providing sufficient aggregate revenue to keep them on target. With UA announcing 2004 benefits while passengers can still qualify without extensive effort will hopefully keep passengers booking and flying through the winter.

It remains to be seen if CO's plans to model their FF program on Delta's will reverse CO's financial performance in 2004. I know many FTers say it will, and if DL's woes can be tied at least in part to SkyMiles, then OnePass changes will be a drag on revenues, unless CO can make good on their intentions of "a high fare basis passenger in every First Class seat".

Actually SARS, 9/11, Iraq etc are all very recent when you consider what behemoths most airlines are. It's like trying to turn the Titanic.

Union rules, management incompetency, 20th century marketing ploys, greedy executives, Capitol Hill protectionism..... the list goes on. Until the airlines become lean, mean fighting machines they will always have an old excuse.

Look at the ones who aren't complaining so much - smaller, leaner, newer.

I think it is too soon to say those things should be ignored in the evaluation of financial performance because airlines have burdened themselves with some very inflexible systems, labor agreements, etc.

However I think that it is absolutely time to stop blaming those events for loss of passenger traffic. I do not know anybody who is avoiding travel because of Iraq, SARS or 9/11. They avoid travel because it has become a very arduous proposition and not simply because of the security "improvements". Even when you ignore the security issue the simple act of sitting in an aircraft cabin has become far less enjoyable in every class and on every airline. Until that changes I am going to fly as little as possible for my job and for pleasure. Three years ago I would take several short trips to the same destination every year, now I consolidate that travel into one or two long trips. Mostly because flying is no longer any fun at all.

I blame Al-Qaeda for the end of Concorde service, bankruptcy of Midway Airlines, and shrinkage of the airline industry. On the local level, I am travelling less because of bin Laden. I did not reduce travel after Hizbollah and Col. Quaddafi blew up Pan Am 103. Neither did many millions of travellers.

i blame mr W.

Moderator, could you please close this thread for security reasons?

Before the "new regime," if you had no checked baggage you could get to the airport a half hour to 15 minutes before your flight, jump on the plane, and go. Now, unless you get there nearly two hours before your flight, you risk the possibility that you will still be standing in the security line as your plane takes off. At least, that's the case at LAX and HNL.

9/11 is partially responsible for that, because it was the impetus for implementing this new and burdensome system. But the new and burdensome system is what is responsible for my reduction in flying.

I guess FDR and Churchill were responsible for WWII. I suppose the U.S. is responsible for 9/11 since NYC had twin towers of evil intimidating the Islamics.

Possibly a small bit among we FT'ers, but among the flying public at large I doubt even 1/2 of 1% of travelers change carriers because of frequent-flyer programs. That's enough to cause airlines to pay attention to FF program competition, but not as much as we sometimes make it out to be.

Even with the level of competition we have in the industry today, most of us don't have any real choices for our primary carrier. Say you live in Denver and you're mad at United. What are you gonna do? Take Greyhound to Australia?

Even if you live in the Bay Area, NYC, or LA where several airlines have hubs or mini-hubs, you've picked your primary carrier because of the airport you prefer and the routes they fly. It's going to take a massive FF program change for most people to switch to a competitor at a crosstown airport.

Chicagoans are the lucky ones. They are about the only folks I can think of (in the US) that have two major carriers with full-blown hubs at one airport. They actually do have a choice which airline they fly, and the differences between MileagePlus and AAdvantage might factor into that decision. (Of course those two programs are relatively similar as FF programs go.)

Given that NO airline flies nonstop DEN--Australia, one does have a choice of several airlines/alliances that do it with one (or 2) stops.

------------------
Play the travel game 3 vacations into the future!

Okay, maybe taking DEN-Australia in a vacuum is a bad example. If that is the only route you ever fly, then you're right: you could choose either UA or AA (with partners) and get there in about 22 hours.

But if you live in Denver and want to pick one primary carrier that you use for a wide variety of travels, you have only one real choice. (You can also choose to not give loyalty to any one carrier, something most infrequent travelers already do.)

The only point I'm making is that the vast majority of people don't have two carriers to choose from that are so equal in every way that the FF program becomes the deciding factor - with Chicago being the notable exception I can think of off the top of my head.

The vast majority of the flying public only takes 1 or 2 round trips a year (or less) on the cheapest fare possible.

The FF'ers are the ones making dozens (or more) round trips each year and pay many thousands to the airlines! I'd say FF programs do play a large part in revenue and passenger loyalty.

B.