December 2, 2009
12:35 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
The 1987 film "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" tells the story of Neal Page (Steve Martin), an uptight advertising exec whose hour and 45-minute flight home to Chicago for Thanksgiving turns into an epic misadventure. We laugh as he endures, among other things, a downgrade from first class to steerage; a diverted, delayed, then cancelled flight; a pitiable motel room; an MIA rental car; an abortive train trip; the bus ride from hell; and all along the way, the world's most annoying yet lovable travel companion, master shower curtain ring salesman Del Griffith (the late John Candy).
The story behind the story is that while the experiences of the characters portrayed by Martin and Candy exploit every comic situation, technology has done little in the intervening 20 years to make the basic travel pitfalls faced by our intrepid duo no less plausible today. If only Neal and Del could have had at their fingertips travel technology that would have enabled them to really manage their journey — not simply in searching and booking prior to their departure, but, most important, throughout the entire trip experience.
In fact, mobile technology is about to empower travelers to do just that.
That is the conclusion of some 2,700 travel professionals, thought leaders, and senior executives from travel companies who looked into our travel technology future recently and observed that the journey itself remains ripe for technological innovation. That finding was one of three key travel trends accelerated by the recession, according to the report titled "The Amateur-Expert Traveler," released by my company, Amadeus. This innovation is already occurring, but widespread adoption of mobile technology to alter the travel experience has not yet occurred, either because it is too new, or because not enough travelers have figured out how to use mobile tech to manage their travel experience — or because free, high-speed Internet access at airports, and especially in the air, is not yet a reality.
The nexus between the mobile Internet and user-generated content is becoming increasingly important, according to Forrester Research's Henry H. Harteveldt. “Travel is one of the businesses that lends itself to user-generated content and the sharing of ideas, opinions and suggestions…."
He noted that a big factor behind this increase will be the growth and evolution of mobile Internet devices that are geared more for data than voice. These will enable person-to-person or group messaging that might be written or voice, SMS text, or other data. "Along with this," Harteveldt added, "will be the emergence of new types of Internet sites.”
"The Amateur-Expert Traveler" report points out that some of the most intriguing Apple iPhone apps combine mobile devices with user-generated travel content. For example, Roadtrippr is like a wiki of cool travel destinations. Users contribute information about attractions in their hometown and, in turn, use it as a resource when they are on the road. When used on an iPhone, the application is aware of the user’s location and tailors the content accordingly. Another popular GPS-powered iPhone travel app that depends on user-generated content is EveryTrail. In fact, developers like Tapulous are creating applications for mobile platforms (in this case, the iPhone) that let people buy additional content from within the app itself.
The mobile device of choice among travelers is becoming the smartphone. Earlier this Year BusinessWeek reported that sales of smartphones were set to surge. The only question now is how fast it is all happening.
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
November 18, 2009
12:52 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
I haven’t found anyone who doesn't love their Apple iPhone. If you're a chronic traveler like me, what's so appealing, apart from the incomparable ease of use and Web surfing integration is the content. With 100,000 Apple App Store apps — many of which are downloadable for free — there are just so many ingenious new travel applications that I'm sure many travelers are getting hooked. I already am.
It's ironic, if not sardonic, then, that CIO Insight would publish a "10 Things to Hate About the iPhone" slideshow. Sure, no single mobile device has it all, does it all, or will ever carry it all. But it seems to me that the iPhone comes closest. CIO Insight points out, however, that as much of a game-changer as the iPhone/iTouch platform is, it "is still a non-factor in the enterprise IT market." Are BlackBerry and the new Android closing the iPhone gap? Many think so.
In fact, eWEEK notes that Motorola just introduced its iPhone-challenging Droid smartphone, Verizon's first Google Android platform phone. The article also notes that analysts are saying this may be the first smartphone "to hold its own against the iPhone." That's a large order.
Whichever platform you favor, mobile tech has gone from a curiosity to, as Steve Smith characterizes it, an "inevitability," for marketers and others — and seemingly just in this past year. With so many applications percolating among a widening array of smartphone platforms, I wanted to continue my review of some of the top apps that are helping to reshape the total travel experience:
• Urbanspoon for iPhone. Designed to find a restaurant in an unfamiliar town, its claim to fame is as the world's leading site for "time-critical dining data" (who knew dining data could be time critical? Guess it depends how hungry you are.).
• Trapster for BlackBerry. When you're motoring in a rental car, you'd certainly appreciate knowing where the speed traps, red light cameras, and speed cameras are. This little ditty tells you.
• Calorie Counter for Android. For dieters on the go, this is your nutrition guide for convenience foods and restaurant fare.
• Gate Maps for iPhone. When you're in an unfamiliar airport, and in a hurry to get to your next gate (which I usually am), you need a map. What's great about this app is that it doesn't require a network connection — you can use it in Airplane mode. It delivers fast maps — no .PDFs or Flash software to slow you up.
• TeleNav for BlackBerry. This is a GPS app that provides driving directions; it also identifies restaurants, hotels, ATMs, and wi-fi hotspots.
• Fusion Voicemail Plus for Android. If you like to stay organized on the road, keeping on top of your voicemail is important. This app centralizes your home, office, and mobile voicemail in one place with a Touch-N-Listen feature that keeps things fast and simple. Brilliant.
• Postman for iPhone. This app lets you choose one of your iPhone photos to create a custom postcard that you can email.
• Digital Clock for Android. Turns your phone into a big-display bedside clock-alarm.
• Night Stand for iPhone. An app that's similar to Digital Clock.
• WeatherBug for Android. This app delivers severe weather alerts, local weather, and live neighborhood reports.
• InnTouch for iPhone. Identifies B&Bs and inns, provides photos and descriptions, and a link to the reservations function.
• US Traffic for Android. An app that shows traffic in U.S. cities.
Smart apps for smartphones are proliferating faster than the blink of an iPhone. I apologize if my short list of mobile travel applications has overlooked many handy and dandy apps. The point is that smartphones and other mobile devices have shifted the focus of travel technology away from the home or office computer and into travelers' hands. Already anyone who craves comfort, convenience, cost-saving, and choice will want to come armed with a smartphone, smart travel apps, and the know-how to use them. Mobile tech is becoming synonymous with traveling. Soon we'll have forgotten what travel was like before we all carried iPhones, BlackBerrys, Palms, and Androids.
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
November 8, 2009
09:23 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments
Travel is changing even as travel has slowed.
But actually that is typical for economic downturns — recessions are times when the pressure to innovate becomes most critical. Some of our greatest technological strides were made during the Great Depression, so the current flurry of new applications for smartphones and other mobile devices is not at all that surprising. Still, the speed of the change is breathtaking.
Travelers are looking for ways to optimize their trips, which is one reason time- and money-saving travel apps are surging. But, by the same token, as BusinessWeek noted in a recent cover story, "Inside the App Economy," there is a lot of money to be made in the world of "bite-size software programs people load onto their mobile phones or tap into on the Web."
As you might have surmised, mobile apps is a chaotic field. Some of the best apps are only available on certain platforms. With so many platforms to choose from — iPhone, Palm, BlackBerry, Pocket PC, Symbian, Android, and so on — your choice of your favorite apps will be circumscribed by the smartphone(s) you are using. BlackBerry and iPhone are the marquee names, so apps designed for those operating systems grab the headlines.
In fact, Apple's App Store recently hit 100,000 apps, making it the largest applications store in the world. On the other hand, with so many apps flooding the iPhone market, only 20 percent are being used.
Let's look at some of my fav travel-related apps for work and play:
• Dopplr for iPhone. Lets you share your travel plans with your private network of friends and business partners; aggregates all of that data in a "Social Atlas." Will soon offers versions for BlackBerry, Android, Nokia.
• TeleNav for BlackBerry. Transforms a GPS-enabled BlackBerry into a navigational gude for drivers.
• Yelp for iPhone. A snarky, user-driven business directory that points you to local shops, gas stations, and eateries that are open when you need them.
• FlightCaster for iPhone or BlackBerry. This one is great. This one, as The New York Times says, "seeks to give passengers a leg up by actually predicting delays." In other words, it uses fancy algorithms to tell you if your flight will be delayed or cancelled long before the airlines will. What more can you ask for?
• FlightStats for Android. Tracks individual flights and shows flight status.
• Zagat to Go for iPhone. It's hard to beat Zagat for insightful reviews of eateries, nightspots, hotels, and shops.
• Worldmate for BlackBerry. No more Post-It Notes! Organizes and stores itineraries, meaning all of the reservation and other numbers, addresses, and details you need for your hotel, car rental, meetings, flights, etc.
• Room for iPhone. If you're really forgetful like me, this app will display your hotel room number on your phone, along with helpful info like which tower it's in (if it's a big hotel) and which elevator to take.
• Flashlight for iPhone. This one converts your phone into a flashlight. Cool.
• Sit or Squat for iPhone. Okay, I couldn't resist this app, not just because of its, ahem, unusual moniker, but because it's actually among the top dozen iPhone apps. Plus it's practical: It directs you to lavatories in unfamiliar locales around the world. Invaluable, if you ask me.
This is only a small sampling of the wave of new travel apps flooding the Web. Next time we'll explore some additional apps, including some that exemplify how apps that encourage user-generated content are reshaping the total travel experience faster than you can say "Cool Your Jets."
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 2, 2009
04:09 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
When new software is introduced, such as whiz-bang applications for mobile devices, technology reviewers tend to focus whether it is the latest, greatest, or coolest thing to hit the market. Less often do you see reviewers take a step back and ask the forest-for-the-trees question, i.e., Do we even need this technology? What's driving it? Is it fixing something that is not broken? The big one for me is, Is it going to be more trouble than it is worth?
That's the question I find myself asking about the new mobile boarding pass software. In fact, Chicago Tribune's Josh Noel recently did a story on mobile passes that points out the teething problems of the new technology. What the article doesn't address, however, is the "why" of mobile boarding passes.
I think it's a valid question. Kiosk-printed boarding passes work. They've eliminated the need to print and send tickets through the mail; they are simple, efficient, and reliable. So what advantage are we gaining by replacing a simple piece of paper with a complex, delicate gadget?
After all, the nature of electronic gizmos is that they don't always work.
Also, how many times have you let your cellphone battery run down?
Or dropped your cell?
Or mislaid it?
This then brings me to the basic question, What does the consumer gain by having the boarding pass on the mobile device? What does the airline gain? I am certain that someone must have identified a benefit apart from the tiny added convenience of not having to make a five-minute stop at a ticket kiosk to print out a paper pass. I suppose it would be pointed out to me that if it's a busy time at the airport, the traveler is eliminating not just a visit to a kiosk, but an irritating wait in line to use the kiosk.
For me, the bigger issue is this: Will the time saved by eliminating kiosk visits be offset by time lost when mobile problems occur in the line of antsy passengers waiting to board the plane?
In fact, I have already seen this occur. A traveler presenting his cell at the gate had the electronic boarding pass on the mobile screen, all properly displayed; but for some unknown reason an electronic glitch prevented the scanner from reading the screen. Suffice it to say, this traveler was not happy. He had to be pulled from line and another gate attendant had to be called over to troubleshoot the problem. Now, multiply that times a factor of five or 10 or more as more mobile passes get into travelers' hands, and you can imagine the logistical difficulties for the airline and the impact on travelers.
Still, I am betting that the technology will mature and we will get over the technological bumps. I am also guessing that having the boarding pass on a mobile device will enable the airlines to do more than just eliminate a kiosk visit. For example, will having your boarding pass on your cell lead to real-time messaging from the airline that will update your flight information to reflect changes as they occur? Or could it give you a highly convenient way to add services to your existing ticket should you decide to make a different seat selection or onboard meal choice?
The benefits from having your pass on your cell are not yet fully apparent because the process is evolving. It is becoming more efficient, beneficial, and not as device-reliant. Different technologies, such as near-field communication (NFC), are being tested. These represent a much-needed team effort among the airlines and mobile service providers.
The ultimate intent of the mobile boarding pass is that with one quick swipe of the mobile device, a traveler could be cleared through security, checked in at the gate, informed of any itinerary changes, and more. This kind of capability is perfect for road warriors or, indeed, any travelers who gravitate to geeky stuff because it holds the promise of saving time and improving comfort and productivity.
By itself, having a pass on a smartphone is no big deal. That's because it is just a first step. The carriers and their partners are undoubtedly working behind the scenes on features that will flow from this new capability.
Stay tuned.
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
June 13, 2009
03:51 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Fliers increasingly are warming up to the concept of choice, aka à la carte, meaning paying only for those services you want in the airport or on the plane. But going à la carte comprehensively, that is, across hundreds of airlines around the world, is not as easy as it seems. New real-time booking technology is required to make that a reality.
United Airlines, to use one example, has reintroduced its Economy Plus Upsell, which is the upgrading of passengers from the airline's economy section to seats that offer more legroom and complimentary services.
The twist is that United is upselling these seats even after takeoff.
Selling in the air is made possible by United's adoption of new handheld credit card scanners with which flight attendants are now equipped. No longer are flight crew just safety instructors and food service personnel. Today airline attendants have become salespeople-in-the-clouds.
Sure, flight attendants have always sold duty-free fare on international flights. But those sales were more in the form of an offer. What United has rolled out is selling in a way no airline, at least to my recollection, has done before. This is definitely the wave of the future in the air.
United attendants will push up to three upsell messages to passengers in the economy section in an effort to sell each flight's entire Economy Plus inventory. Until now, things have been more informal. Passengers have merely moved to unoccupied seats when it became apparent that the seat was going to stay empty or shortly after takeoff.
United can do upselling because attendants will have at their fingertips real-time data about which seats are actually available. Traditionally, determining seat upsell availability has been difficult, with seat assignments changing at the gate even as people are boarding.
True integration of an airline's reservations, inventory, and departure control systems is required to make this sort of advanced à la carte feature possible. A number of airlines, including United, are adopting advanced information technology systems that give them an edge in that department over airlines that are still flying with older IT.
But new services like in-the-air seat upsell create new questions. For instance, what if there is only one Economy Plus seat left and three passengers simultaneously signal they want it. How does a flight attendant not only fairly pick the winner but then smooth the ruffled feathers of the two passengers who lost out? Is it loyalty-based or first come, first served? Will this be a boost to airline loyalty programs?
Obviously, the airlines and the systems that support them need to develop policies. What if a service is not delivered? What's the policy then? Let's say an Economy Upsell was booked by a customer, but then an earlier flight became available. How does that work? Is it refunded or transferred? What happens when a flight is cancelled or delayed?
The complications presented by à la carte thus are not just technological complexities but complexities of customer relationship management.
Carriers may learn from the experiences of their competitors, but many airlines are developing their own customized strategy for à la carte. The whole thrust behind what is also known as "ancillary services" is to improve customer service and profits, but also to differentiate the brand.
In the past service was one size fits all. That made comparing costs a lot easier, even as it stifled innovation. But because choice begets complexity, comparing costs in an à la carte world is not so easy. Indeed, the technological challenges are daunting. Returning to an across-the-board comparison that is readily understandable is the common goal.
So, while à la carte merchandising transparency remains frustratingly just over the horizon, the solution is entwined with the question of new standards that the travel industry will have to adopt. Before transparency becomes reality, information needs to become standardized and streamlined. It's a tall order. In fact, it's sky high.
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
June 4, 2009
07:54 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
In January, Continental Airlines became the first U.S. airline to test biofuel in a jet engine. The Boeing 737 used a B50 blend of jet-A, jatropha, and algae - so it was 50 percent conventional jet fuel and 50 percent bio-oil.
The key to the development of the biofuel was that the airlines and airplane manufacturers, notably Boeing, were seeking a "drop-in" replacement for current aviation fuels. The industry wanted a fuel that would require no engine, aircraft modifications, nor changes to ground operations, yet would decrease engine emissions.
While green fuel holds great promise, the airlines are also 'sharing the love' for flying green by giving passengers tools to gauge their size of their pollution footprint. For example, United Airlines has rolled out a so-called "carbon footprint calculator" by which fliers can measure their impact.
Where it gets interesting is that the groups which have targeted the airlines for greater green regulation seem not so interested in on-time performance, but instead in how emissions are defined as acceptable and flights as "unexcessive." They'd rather not leave it to the airlines.
To this end, aviation consultant Robert Mann advocates scheduling shorter flights and eliminating what he calls "excess flying." I suspect that the scheduling of flights is a discipline that's somewhat more complex than those outside the industry would have you believe. I'd ask the question, At what point does the airlines' need to go green conflict with their need to earn green?
Southwest Air Lines and United Airlines are already taking common-sense steps, like power-washing engines to improve fuel efficiency, but it seems that outside interest groups would like to have a say in how airlines run their business. Airlines have always been a lightning rod. Now, environmentally, they've become a one jolly green giant bulls eye.
While some airlines have started to provide passengers with a "carbon footprint" calculator to estimate the desired "carbon offset," I would point out that the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from the wide range of offset options is, as some have reported, difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.
Suffice it to say, the whole process of quantifying the environmental impact of flying is in its infancy. For example, I've read that some fliers who can afford private jet trips later claim they planted a small forest to make up for their several-hour-long Learjet outing. But what they don't say is how long it will take for those seedlings to become large enough to actually offset the supposed impact. Who knows if all the trees survive, or how fast they grow, when they mature, and so on. It all seems like a speculative calculation; and perhaps not a calculation but more like something that defines the terms "guesstimate."
Wired magazine took a crack at explaining offsets, but admitted, "Part of the problem is that offset costs vary widely based on which calculator you're using to figure them out. They're all different, which makes people wonder what's what." Indeed.
The reality is, there is no way yet to accurately quantify the impact of a flight and then translate that into an equal-and-opposite reaction which cancels out, or "offsets," that impact. Offsets are just guesses, a measure of good faith, an attempt at repentance. Some have called offsets "indulgences," the penance payments that the medieval Church sold. Let's just say that "carbon accounting" is more art than science.
A bigger issue than the wild variation in offset formulations is the fact that, as suggested by the Wired article, most fliers have enough to deal with when they're traveling. They don't need the hassle of trying to figure out how to "offset" their trip. Wired writer Dave Demerjian in the last line of his story expresses disagreement with passengers who believe that it's the job of the airlines to figure out how to fly green.
I have to say that I'm in the travelers' corner on this one. For instance, when I need to grab a taxi I don't style myself as an expert in judging what my impact is and which cab to hail to achieve my best green outcome. Nor do I do it with trains, buses, subways, ferries, or bicycles (yes, I'm sure some are more green than others). I think the people who are running an industry know their business well enough to hit the marks they need to hit. What a major carrier probably doesn't need at this moment in their precarious existence is even more regulation.
As I said, the airlines' green operations are mushrooming, while companies are sprouting up to help in that effort. I suspect the clarity we would all like to see on the footprint-and-offset question is still over the horizon. I expect we'll soon find it there, in the wild green yonder.
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
April 24, 2009
04:10 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Taking his cue from Don Quixote, James Oberstar (D-Minn.) is tilting at basic economic reality in seeking to roll back airline alliances. Evidently without analyzing whether alliances are good or bad for the airlines and their passengers, Oberstar is proceeding from the assumption that alliances strangle competition and thus must be bad for customers.
What Oberstar thinks matters, because he just happens to be the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This is a committee that makes big waves in the aviation community.
To say that Oberstar's postulate is not economically valid would be to understate things. Should the language he recently put into the House version of the FAA reauthorization bill become law, havoc would ensue.
Oberstar's legislation (HR 831) would limit airline alliances by limiting the grant of antitrust exemption that makes them possible. Exemption would last three years, after which the airlines would have to reapply for another three years. When you factor in the time that the whole Congressional application and approval process takes, Oberstar's "sunset" legislation would effectively kill airline alliances stone dead.
Which, by all accounts, seems to be the outcome Oberstar is after.
What is interesting is that the congressman seems not to be aware that airline alliances have not caused higher fares. Quite the opposite, in fact. Alliances give consumers more choices than they've ever had before. Yes, alliances account for nearly 80 percent of the total global airline capacity. But, as Martha Stewart would say, that's a good thing. One of the most obvious benefits is how global alliances enable fliers to earn and redeem frequent flier miles across airlines.
What is bothersome about Oberstar's action is, if I may use an inapt transportation metaphor, how it puts the cart before the horse. He is asking the GAO (General Accounting Office) to study the effect of alliances on competition, service, fares, and so on. He claims alliances are having an adverse impact. Hmmm. Did he do his own study? One would think the correct approach would be to request an impartial study and then draft legislation if needed, not the other way around.
What is disturbing is that the government has previously approved of the alliance concept in lieu of Congressional approval of mergers between domestic and overseas airlines. Taking the government at its word, the airlines negotiated alliances and tooled up to integrate operations, marketing, and so on. But here comes the government playing Emily Littela and saying, Wait. We didn't mean it. Never mind.
As Evan Sparks writes in "The Cranky Flier," "Unpredictability of policy making can sometimes harm businesses even more than bad policy." Chiming in is US Airways executive C. A. Howlett: "Having the sort of ex post facto law that would undo this is a very disconcerting principle to have in the business community."
What makes Oberstar's anti-alliance crusade all the more troubling is that that assumption that the big bad airlines are colluding to hike fares and fees is patently false, if you look at the study done by W. Tom Whalen and Jan K. Brueckner of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The study states: "The main finding is that alliance partners charge interline fares that are 18-28 percent below those charged by non-allied carriers." Um, what is it that Oberstar knows that these two professors who study the airline industry don't know?
Indeed as Sparks notes in his column, Brueckner updated that 1998 study with a 2003 article in Review of Economics and Statistics, and found that alliances reduce fares by 13-21 percent. The combination of code sharing with the antitrust immunity conferred by alliances translated into fares that were 17-30 percent lower than those of non-alliance airlines. Again, this is so clearly a boon to fliers that travelers like me have to wonder where Oberstar is coming from on this issue.
The Air Transport Association leaves no doubt where it stands on the issue. It wants Oberstar to drop his legislation. The ATA says Oberstar's bill, and I quote, "could destroy important service and public benefits such as competitive fares and new routes by withdrawing previously granted rights for carriers to participate in alliances."
I would agree. How can the federal government change the rules of the game midstream? What are the airlines to think? Investment is based on trust, stability, and regulatory fairness. To introduce this level of regulatory capriciousness now, when most of the airlines are already fighting for their economic lives, is more than a little shortsighted.
Alliances create beneficial revenue-sharing models and enable airlines to give travelers options they wouldn't otherwise have. Alliances drive airline innovation across the globe. For the rug to be pulled out from under the alliances now would not benefit consumers. In fact, the results would be disastrous for the airlines and traveling public alike.
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
April 8, 2009
10:08 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
This month, Northwest Airlines' identity is merging with that of Delta Air Lines, starting with abandonment of the old Northwest uniforms. FoxBusiness.com reports that baggage counters, gates, and luggage claim areas are all being redone in Delta's flagship hues of red, white, and blue. But it will take until the end of next year to repaint all of Northwest's planes.
A merger is a highly complex and delicate ballet, and certainly one of the toughest branding decisions of any merger continues to be the selection of an official flight beverage. Consider how pivotal it is to pick the correct soda. In the process of stitching distinct corporate cultures together into one seamless whole, you have the job of integrating the work of thousands of employees, equipment, technology, unions, etc.
Nevertheless, someone in the Delta hierarchy will still be faced with the unenviable assignment of selecting a cross-platform cola.
According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Delta serves Coca-Cola drinks and Northwest serves Pepsi, but only one will be chosen as the sole beverage provider. In 2007 Delta & Northwest together carried 129.5 million passengers. At stake is a lot of carbonation. What will Delta's decision maker base the selection on? Customer preference? Cost? Relationships? Brand equity? Image alignment? Fizziness?
Interestingly, it was only in 1993 that Northwest staked out the high ground in the airline cola wars by becoming the first major carrier to offer fliers a choice of Pepsi or Coke This early exercise in à la carte marketing took choice to the next level. Still, probably we'll never know for certain just how many passengers decided to fly Northwest because of its adoption of CBO, or the Cola Beverage Option.
So will it be Delta's Atlanta-based Coca-Cola or Northwest's Purchase-based Pepsi? Currently, Coca-Cola controls most of the carrier cola market. My guess is that that will not change much anytime soon.
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
March 25, 2009
08:38 am | 0 recommendations | 3 comments
Is the Airbus A380 a plane in search of a mission?
According to a report in The Straits Times, if not for the recession, traffic controllers at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) might have to turn away the A380 because it presents so many problems for the airport.
Qantas currently is the only airline flying A380s into LAX.
The main problem with the A380 at LAX is that the Superjumbo's wingspan is just too wide for existing runways. Whenever one taxis for takeoff, it requires a special escort all around the jet, and planes that would normally use adjoining taxiways cannot do so because the A380's wingtips come uncomfortably close to passing planes. Not only does this cause air traffic slowdown on takeoffs, a similar level of disruption occurs on landings, when all ground traffic must come to a halt.
And just how big is big? The A380's wingspan is 50 feet longer than that of the Boeing 747. It also weighs 1.2 million pounds, or 30 percent more than the 747. It carries 555 passengers, although it can be configured to hold more than 800. Talk about putting all of your eggs in one basket.
Yet another problem with the A380's super-wide wingspan is that airport officials worry that the jet's outside engines will kick up debris at the edges of the currently too-narrow runways - debris that could be sucked up by its own engines or by the engines of a trailing aircraft.
It makes you wonder about the rationale for the A380. Maybe a plane this big makes sense for super-long-distance overseas flights like London to Shanghai, but can the case be made for long flights within the U.S., such as Denver to Chicago or even JFK to LAX?
The selling point for the A380 has been that you'd be able to fit more passengers into a flight, taking pressure off the air traffic system because you'd need fewer planes and fewer flights. But bringing ground traffic to a screeching halt every time an A380 takes off or lands calls into question where planning to accommodate the plane broke down.
Sure, while having one large plane replace two smaller ones provides efficiencies, it also limits scheduling flexibility and imposes constraints on airports that are not prepared to handle anything as big as an A380.
In fact, one wonders what the folks at LAX were thinking when they decided to open the airport to A380 flights when so many infrastructure improvements remain to be done to accommodate the Superjumbo. While LAX had the better part of a decade to prepare for the arrival of Airbus's megaplane, the airport still has many upgrades to make.
So do other U.S. airports. Interestingly, news reports say that Qantas is considering shifting its A380 flights to San Francisco, which, if true, would be a complete about-face from the upbeat media play that the A380 received when it launched service into LAX in October 2008.
We'll just have to wait and see if the long-term viability of the A380 will truly ever get off the ground.
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
March 6, 2009
05:23 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Travel technology is taking one small leap for mankind in this moon walk anniversary year. It is, after all, forty years this July 20 that the Armstrong and Aldrin set down on the moon. It is also the year that the private suborbital space tourism industry, highlighted by start-ups like Virgin Galactic, really ramps up.
Space tourism is gathering momentum for a liftoff despite the economy. Part of the reason is that the egos behind this private space race are bigger than our recessionary woes. But much of the reason is that the concept of vacationing in outer space remains permanently popular.
A hard core of investors is still jazzed about space travel. Entrepreneurs like Richard Branson not only believe that the brand is the thing, but that there is a market for suborbital tourism. There already are any number of well-heeled, would-be rocketeers who have plunked down multimillion dollar deposits to reserve seats on those first commercial space flights.
The first such flight could come as early as 2011. So while the blue sky world of commercial aviation is scaling back, the black sky aviation world is scaling up. I wonder, however, if one of these suborbital ventures will be able to create a sustainable business model. Sure, I think the market will inevitably pick winners in this budding industry, which is as it should be. Some planes will not fit the needs of market, such as was the case with the Concorde. For supersonic fans, the Concorde is the lost dream. It created much passion, just as suborbital space planes are doing now. What everyone would love to see is a practical vision that matches up with the passion of those lining up to see the moon from the edge of space.
Travel technology isn't only about comfort and efficiency. It's also about discovery. Humans absolutely should be investing in technology that pushes the envelope of flight. Our horizons need not be limited by our all-too-pedestrian visits to today's buses in the sky. I recall a time when flight was rare and inspiring. Suborbital travel can make it so again.
Airline Futurist • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
