May I nominate Michael O’Leary as the biggest swine on earth? The Ryanair chief’s latest pathetic bid for attention came in the form of a pronouncement that swine flu is “only a tragedy for people living in slums in Asia or Mexico.” People who live in other parts of the world aren’t going to die, he stated.
Mr. O’Leary should stick to what he knows best: running a very bad airline. He is not an epidemiologist or a member of the medical profession. Flu viruses are highly unpredictable; they can start out mildly, then roar back with a vengeance, as did the 1918 version that infected a third to a half of the world’s population. In 1973, the so-called London flu, a mutation of the Asian strain, hit Northern California very hard. I came down with it and developed pneumonia. I was out of commission for a month. I consider myself lucky, since many who developed pneumonia died. Let the record show that I was not a slum-dweller.
Mr. O’Leary also needs to be reminded that not all people in Mexico are slum-dwellers. And even those who live in poor neighborhoods are human beings, which is more than I can say for him.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Prudence vs. panic
Whether or not swine flu reaches pandemic status, the airlines are already bearing some of the economic pain it causes. There’s no clear line of demarcation between prudence and panic in these situations. Was it premature for the European Union to advise travelers to avoid visiting not only Mexico but areas of the U.S. where this strain of flu has been identified? We will never know.
Here is what we do know: The Spanish flu of 1918 spread so far and wide because of the unprecedented movement of people all over the world in the waning days and aftermath of WWI. At least a third of the world’s population – some estimates put it at half -- became ill, and somewhere between 20 million and 100 million died. Travel plays a role in spreading viruses, and air travel can spread them farther and more rapidly.
The airlines are waiving change fees for travel from the U.S. to Mexico, but that’s a bit like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. What might make a real difference is waiving change fees for people who feel ill or have been exposed to the virus. That will dry up some badly needed revenue in the short term, but it’s nothing compared to what would happen in a full-scale pandemic. Now is not the time to quibble over doctors’ notes.
Since the best way to avoid getting the flu is to keep your hands clean, the airlines also could distribute antibacterial wipes at the beginning and end of each flight and enforce their use as rigorously as they enforce seatbelt rules.
My mother never knew her father. He died before she was born, in the 1918 pandemic. For me, a flu epidemic is not just theoretical; it’s part of my family history. We are not yet anywhere near the time to panic, but we can take a few simple steps to avoid reaching that point, like staying home if we are sick. The airlines can and should do their part as well.
Here is what we do know: The Spanish flu of 1918 spread so far and wide because of the unprecedented movement of people all over the world in the waning days and aftermath of WWI. At least a third of the world’s population – some estimates put it at half -- became ill, and somewhere between 20 million and 100 million died. Travel plays a role in spreading viruses, and air travel can spread them farther and more rapidly.
The airlines are waiving change fees for travel from the U.S. to Mexico, but that’s a bit like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. What might make a real difference is waiving change fees for people who feel ill or have been exposed to the virus. That will dry up some badly needed revenue in the short term, but it’s nothing compared to what would happen in a full-scale pandemic. Now is not the time to quibble over doctors’ notes.
Since the best way to avoid getting the flu is to keep your hands clean, the airlines also could distribute antibacterial wipes at the beginning and end of each flight and enforce their use as rigorously as they enforce seatbelt rules.
My mother never knew her father. He died before she was born, in the 1918 pandemic. For me, a flu epidemic is not just theoretical; it’s part of my family history. We are not yet anywhere near the time to panic, but we can take a few simple steps to avoid reaching that point, like staying home if we are sick. The airlines can and should do their part as well.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
LUV is the answer
If you thought Wall Street types had learned anything over the last year, put that right out of your mind.
During a conference call to discuss Southwest Airlines’ first-quarter financial performance, the Street’s airline analysts badgered CEO Gary Kelly with the same question phrased in different ways: Why isn’t Southwest charging fees to check bags?
I could almost hear the ghost of Gordon Gekko whispering, “Greed is good.”
I suppose the analysts can be forgiven for second-guessing what is arguably the least stupid airline in America. After all, Southwest just reported a first-quarter net loss of $91 million, the bulk of which was due to charges related to fuel hedging. (American, meanwhile, reported a first-quarter net loss of $375 million.)
The money is there for the taking, the analysts argued.
“I would argue that our revenue results demonstrate that we are doing something better,” Kelly said. “Our load factor and revenue production is better in comparison to the legacy carriers.”
It’s low-hanging fruit, the Wall Street boys argued.
“We are virtually alone in not charging a bag fee,” Kelly said. “Based on all our research, there is a meaningful impact” in taking that approach. Besides, he said, in times like these, an airline is more dependent than ever on price-sensitive travelers. If you lose just one customer, you need 10 or 12 bag fees to make up for it.
Another analyst asked, what’s the matter, don’t you have the technology to do it?
Not at the moment, Kelly said. “We have the ability to charge fees at the airport, but think about the number of customers who would have to dig out their credit cards. I don’t know if that would be the right customer experience.” Down the road, Southwest will have the ability to collect fees online, but the bag fee is “not on our technology agenda.”
The analysts persisted: But everybody’s doing it!
Patiently, Kelly explained that Southwest loves having customers who love the airline. “You can’t find customers who like the fees,” he said. If Southwest charges bag fees, “We become just another airline.”
Maybe that’s what the Wall Street guys want: an airline that doesn’t fuss too much over whether its passengers are happy. An airline they can understand.
During a conference call to discuss Southwest Airlines’ first-quarter financial performance, the Street’s airline analysts badgered CEO Gary Kelly with the same question phrased in different ways: Why isn’t Southwest charging fees to check bags?
I could almost hear the ghost of Gordon Gekko whispering, “Greed is good.”
I suppose the analysts can be forgiven for second-guessing what is arguably the least stupid airline in America. After all, Southwest just reported a first-quarter net loss of $91 million, the bulk of which was due to charges related to fuel hedging. (American, meanwhile, reported a first-quarter net loss of $375 million.)
The money is there for the taking, the analysts argued.
“I would argue that our revenue results demonstrate that we are doing something better,” Kelly said. “Our load factor and revenue production is better in comparison to the legacy carriers.”
It’s low-hanging fruit, the Wall Street boys argued.
“We are virtually alone in not charging a bag fee,” Kelly said. “Based on all our research, there is a meaningful impact” in taking that approach. Besides, he said, in times like these, an airline is more dependent than ever on price-sensitive travelers. If you lose just one customer, you need 10 or 12 bag fees to make up for it.
Another analyst asked, what’s the matter, don’t you have the technology to do it?
Not at the moment, Kelly said. “We have the ability to charge fees at the airport, but think about the number of customers who would have to dig out their credit cards. I don’t know if that would be the right customer experience.” Down the road, Southwest will have the ability to collect fees online, but the bag fee is “not on our technology agenda.”
The analysts persisted: But everybody’s doing it!
Patiently, Kelly explained that Southwest loves having customers who love the airline. “You can’t find customers who like the fees,” he said. If Southwest charges bag fees, “We become just another airline.”
Maybe that’s what the Wall Street guys want: an airline that doesn’t fuss too much over whether its passengers are happy. An airline they can understand.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
A human experiment
Butterfield & Robinson is a Canadian tour operator that does some lovely trips, with an emphasis on bicycling, hiking or riding horse- or camelback. They believe in getting you out of the car and into the life of your destination. They do it with class and style, and the price tag reflects that.
Just about every travel company on earth is offering a “Stimulus Package” right now, but B&R’s has a twist: Here’s what they say:
“The special offer invites B&R travellers to pay 80% of the trip price in advance of their departure, with the balance to be charged two weeks following their return. However, the final charge will be reduced or waived for any client who determines the experience not to have been worth the full price tag.” For any reason, the company added.
This is the sort of human experiment that I love. Will people say, “Hey, I’ll take the trip and come up with some complaint or other”? Does B&R anticipate that? Is this simply a 20% discount dressed up in a cuter outfit?
Then I thought: B&R appeals to a nice demographic. It’s not mass market. Maybe its customers are above behaving like weasels, and when it comes to the moment of truth, they’ll admit they had a fabulous time.
We shall see. B&R has promised to share the results.
Just about every travel company on earth is offering a “Stimulus Package” right now, but B&R’s has a twist: Here’s what they say:
“The special offer invites B&R travellers to pay 80% of the trip price in advance of their departure, with the balance to be charged two weeks following their return. However, the final charge will be reduced or waived for any client who determines the experience not to have been worth the full price tag.” For any reason, the company added.
This is the sort of human experiment that I love. Will people say, “Hey, I’ll take the trip and come up with some complaint or other”? Does B&R anticipate that? Is this simply a 20% discount dressed up in a cuter outfit?
Then I thought: B&R appeals to a nice demographic. It’s not mass market. Maybe its customers are above behaving like weasels, and when it comes to the moment of truth, they’ll admit they had a fabulous time.
We shall see. B&R has promised to share the results.
Doing the math
Hell has officially frozen over: Southwest Airlines is going into New York’s LaGuardia Airport, something Herb Kelleher used to say would never happen. Never say never, even if you’re Herb.
I live in St. Louis, but New York will always be my spiritual home, and the $99 fares sounded nice. Southwest isn’t planning STL-LGA nonstops, at least not initially, but I'm not too proud to connect. So I went to southwest.com and started planning a super summer weekend with my friends, who can no longer afford weekends at the beach.
Alas, the $99 fare is only available on Tuesday and Wednesday, so to use it you must stay either one night or at least six days. If you want a long weekend – out on Friday, back on Monday -- the best Southwest can do for you is $376 roundtrip. With taxes and fees, it’s $411.40. Ouch.
For the same weekend – July 17-20 – I found an American nonstop for $238 roundtrip, or $259.20 with taxes and fees.
If you’ve ever wondered why Southwest doesn’t distribute through online agencies, this is why: In a side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison, American often has the lower fare.
I live in St. Louis, but New York will always be my spiritual home, and the $99 fares sounded nice. Southwest isn’t planning STL-LGA nonstops, at least not initially, but I'm not too proud to connect. So I went to southwest.com and started planning a super summer weekend with my friends, who can no longer afford weekends at the beach.
Alas, the $99 fare is only available on Tuesday and Wednesday, so to use it you must stay either one night or at least six days. If you want a long weekend – out on Friday, back on Monday -- the best Southwest can do for you is $376 roundtrip. With taxes and fees, it’s $411.40. Ouch.
For the same weekend – July 17-20 – I found an American nonstop for $238 roundtrip, or $259.20 with taxes and fees.
If you’ve ever wondered why Southwest doesn’t distribute through online agencies, this is why: In a side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison, American often has the lower fare.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Tweetybirds
I wasn’t enamored of Twitter before the TravelCom conference in Atlanta, but after witnessing a second noble experiment involving its use, I vote that we just leave it to the kids.
Members of the TravelCom audience had the option of submitting questions to speakers via Twitter. Here’s how it worked: A person seated in, say, the second row used technology to ask a question of a person who was on the stage 20 feet away. A third person seated in the front row read the tweet off her Blackberry to the person on the stage. Because of the 140-character limit on tweet size, the questions sometimes were misunderstood or were simply incomprehensible.
I don’t see the point.
Beyond the utility issue, the Twitter thing encourages Bad Blackberry Behavior. The conference speakers looked out onto a sea of people with their heads bent over their Blackberries or iPhones. Perhaps they were tweeting. More likely they were checking their e-mail or sending text messages. I can’t think of anything more disheartening for a speaker than to have an audience who would rather check e-mail than pay attention to what you are saying.
I told another reporter what I thought about this. He disagreed. “It keeps the conversation going,” he said.
But that’s precisely the problem. If people are speaking on a stage, should audience members carry on a conversation among themselves? Can we not shut up for 20 minutes and just listen?
Just when I thought I’d seen it all, a guy on stage pulled his Blackberry out during a panel discussion and keyed something in. Maybe he was tweeting a question to himself, but I sincerely doubt it.
I think that it’s fun to experiment with new technology, but we shouldn’t fall in love with it for its own sake. Twitter may be the trendy new thing, but is it a good substitute for raising our hands, getting off our butts and asking a question? (What’s that word for the practice of substituting an electronic device for human intercourse?)
Members of the TravelCom audience had the option of submitting questions to speakers via Twitter. Here’s how it worked: A person seated in, say, the second row used technology to ask a question of a person who was on the stage 20 feet away. A third person seated in the front row read the tweet off her Blackberry to the person on the stage. Because of the 140-character limit on tweet size, the questions sometimes were misunderstood or were simply incomprehensible.
I don’t see the point.
Beyond the utility issue, the Twitter thing encourages Bad Blackberry Behavior. The conference speakers looked out onto a sea of people with their heads bent over their Blackberries or iPhones. Perhaps they were tweeting. More likely they were checking their e-mail or sending text messages. I can’t think of anything more disheartening for a speaker than to have an audience who would rather check e-mail than pay attention to what you are saying.
I told another reporter what I thought about this. He disagreed. “It keeps the conversation going,” he said.
But that’s precisely the problem. If people are speaking on a stage, should audience members carry on a conversation among themselves? Can we not shut up for 20 minutes and just listen?
Just when I thought I’d seen it all, a guy on stage pulled his Blackberry out during a panel discussion and keyed something in. Maybe he was tweeting a question to himself, but I sincerely doubt it.
I think that it’s fun to experiment with new technology, but we shouldn’t fall in love with it for its own sake. Twitter may be the trendy new thing, but is it a good substitute for raising our hands, getting off our butts and asking a question? (What’s that word for the practice of substituting an electronic device for human intercourse?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
