This a guest blog from Vinay Bhaskara looking how airline and train transportation has changed over time on the east coast. This is his story:
One of my more ’œavgeeky’ hobbies is looking at the Form 41 data; specifically the T100. The T100D Segment, which I’m going to be looking at today, gives us data about every domestic flight operated by all carriers, both US owned, and international.
Now the T100 database at the DOT goes back to 1990, so I decided to take a look at how a specific route looked like in 1990, and then in 2009 (the second to last full year of data available). After a few moments of debate, I decided on New York La Guardia to Washington Reagan ’“ one component of the venerable Northeast Shuttle.
The La Guardia to Reagan route is still one of the most traversed air routes in North America, comprising 423,483 passengers last year. There are only two airlines on the route; US Airways, and Delta. In 1990, it was the legendary Pan Am who flew the route in lieu of Delta. That being said, here are some of the stats I found most interesting:
* Capacity on the route fell by 49% and passengers dropped 50%. So in 19 years, the airlines have halved their capacity on the route, and half as many passengers are flying the route.
* Despite the precipitous drop in capacity and demand, the average number of daily flights only dropped from 31 to 24.
* This corresponds with the average aircraft size falling from 159 seats in 1990, to 103 seats in 2009. Of course this probably has a lot to do with the fact that Delta is running E175s every hour, but still.
* Delta had a load factor of 40% last year. I hope they have lots of high yielding passengers, because they sure as heck aren’t filling many seats.
The following chart shows how the capacity and passengers carried stacked up for each airline:
The next two charts show the corresponding market shares of the different airlines. Isn’t it surprising that Delta (who replaced Pan Am on the route in 1991) lost so much market share?
Why are the passenger numbers dropping so much? In a word: time. The time it takes to fly between New York and DC has grown so much, that flying has become far less attractive, especially when compared to other options like the Acela Express.
Still skeptical?
Let’s take our average businessman, and say that he lives 20 minutes away from both Penn Station and La Guardia (I’m not sure there is such a point, but work with me here). So we start with that. Then, the Acela Express takes an average of 3 hours to reach its destination, and bam, you’re in downtown DC at Union Station.
The flight on the other hand is much more complex. After arriving at the airport, you usually have to budget time for security. I’d estimate it to be 15 minutes at the Marine Air Terminal (Delta Shuttle) during peak times, and 40 minutes at US Airways’ terminal during the same time period. So let’s assume that it takes around 30 minutes for security. Then, you want to be at the gate around 25 minutes before your flight; which brings you to a total of 75 minutes before you even board the flights. Now, the average ramp to ramp time, which is how long it takes for the plane to go from gate to gate was 73 minutes last year. Once you arrive at the airport, we can figure around 10 minutes for disembarking and going to the taxi stand/limo pickup. From Reagan National, it usually takes around 25 minutes to get to downtown DC by car. So let’s tally up the total travel time for each method.
Acela Express
Drive to Penn Station- 20 minutes
Train Travel Time- 180 minutes
Total Travel Time- 200 minutes
US Airways and Delta Shuttles
Drive to La Guardia- 20 minutes
Security at Airport- 30 minutes
Time at Gate Prior to Departure- 25 minutes
Plane Travel Time- 73 minutes
Time to Get out of Reagan Airport- 10 minutes
Drive to Downtown DC- 25 minutes
Total Travel Time- 183 minutes
Plus, the service on the Acela Express is much better. Acela Express- Spacious seats, in-seat power, WiFi, a newspaper, and gourmet meals. US Airways/Delta Shuttle- Cramped cabin, snack boxes, free drinks, and a newspaper. You decide’¦.. Which one would/do you choose?
Vinay Bhaskara is an aviation analyst and history buff based in the United States (New Jersey). In addition to his analyst’s position at Aspire Aviation, he also writes for the Bangalore Aviation blog, and does a podcast on Asian aviation with Innovation Analysis Group (IAG). He can be reached at @TheABVinay on Twitter, as well as at vi***@***************on.com, on Facebook , and via Linkedin.
ANA's first Boeing 787 Dreamliner to be delivered on September 27th.
Sorry folks, I have to be lazy and copy and paste directly from ANA’s press release:
’œThe airplane is ready. ANA is ready. And, Boeing is ready,’ said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. ’œThis airplane begins a new chapter in aviation history.’
ANA’s airplane will arrive in Tokyo on Sept. 28, following a Sept. 27 departure from Everett, Wash., and will be greeted by ANA employees, media and Japanese partners. Details of events in Everett and Tokyo will be provided in the weeks ahead. Many of the events will be webcast live, allowing people around the world to participate in the celebration.
Shinichiro Ito, president and CEO of ANA Group, said, ’œAs launch customer, we are delighted to be taking delivery of our first 787 Dreamliner. This aircraft will enable us to offer new standards of service and comfort to our passengers and will play an important role in our international expansion strategy as we seek to become Asia’s number one airline.’
ANA launched the 787 program with a record-setting order of 50 airplanes in April 2004. The airline has played a key role in guiding the design of the Dreamliner.
I am currently at a hotel in Istanbul, Turkey and so far the trip to Rwanda has gone very well. Our flight leaving from Boeing Field ended up being delayed about six hours due to a power black out and computer issues for the bank in Africa. It turned out okay, since it gave us more time to check out the 737-800 (9XR-WF) on the ground and we were even rounded up and taken to a dive bar (Stellar Pizza for any of you locals) where the CEO or Rwanda Air, John Mirenge served us beer — right on.
The flight from Seattle to Keflavik, Iceland only took about 6hrs and 40minutes and after about a 2 hour layover for fuel, we were on our way to Istanbul. I got to test out the Boeing Sky Interior on a short flight from Seattle to Dallas with American Airlines, but I have to say I love it even more after spending about forteen hours with it now.
We rest in Istanbul tonight and tomorrow we are on our way to Kigali, Rwanda. Unfortunately this is one of those trips where I don’t get to go outside the airport or hotel, but I want to be well rested for Rwanda. Of course I will have a full report on the trip and plenty of photos later.
There is a lot of airline hatred out there and one thing I try to do on this blog is remind folks that even though things can and will go wrong in the airline business, it is still made up of wonderful people who should not suffer because too many people feel the need to share negative stories versus postive. When I wrote a story on giving the airlines some love, I got emails from quite a few people sharing their positive stories. Instead of just enjoying themself, I wanted to share. This story comes from Robert who lives in Ontario, Canada. Here is his story in his own words:
Air Canada Boeing 777-300ER
We recently took a packaged vacation throughout Britain and Ireland. To get to London and home, we specified Air Canada flights 848 on September 16th and 849 on October 2nd respectively. Ostensibly these were requested for their departure and arrival times, allowing us the most practical time in London. But, honestly, I chose them to ensure we would ride on the Boeing 777-300ER equipment; 18.5-inch seats and 32-inch pitch ’“ more than the rest of the fleet.
Was everything perfect? No. It can never be, but those flights came close to being as good as possible.
Things started off with the check-in process at PIA, which to our delight, and using the self-serve kiosks, was almost effortless. Right after I figured out how to get the machines to read our passports that is; a bit better signage might be in order there.
Our air-venture progressed to the gate personnel who did their level best to actually load the aircraft by row number, politely but firmly turning folks away when they tried to barge through. Most of the ’œairport vultures’ were indeed held at bay. And this same effort happened at Heathrow inbound too.
Outbound, we backed out more or less on time and arrived within 10-minutes of sked. Inbound, Heathrow ground traffic raised its all-too-normal ugly head, and we were nearly an hour off the published pushback time ’“ not AC’s fault.
Both flights were packed to the gills. I expect that the captains were able to declare themselves as Air Canada ’œvery heavy’ to ATC during the departure processes.
On-board service, both ways, was totally contrary to, in our experience, the undeserved reputation of Air Canada staff. They were, to a person friendly, prompt, helpful and more-than-willing to assist.
Food was okay. Wine or other beverages were readily available. And the AVOD system worked all the way, both ways; including my favourite ’œwhere the heck are we’ channel. Would someone with some authority officially say thank you for us?
The guys at the front-end were informative, good humoured, and when those timing issues arose in London, honest and forthright. That, plus keeping a firm hand on 375-tons of thoroughbred aircraft to produce the rides we got, deserves a nice note from the higher-ups as well, we think.
The only complaint we have, and it really falls more into a firm request is, please, please enforce, manage, and have passengers observe the carry-on size and quantity rules. Right at check-in. Luckily the triple-sevens have relatively large overhead luggage bays; otherwise some of the extraneous nonsense being hauled into the cabins might have had to be bungee corded to the wings.
Lastly, we were almost an hour from deplaning to receiving our luggage. The GTAA folks really need to build in some staffing contingencies when through no fault by the airlines, planes arrive later than planned. Air Canada is big tenant there; they should feel free to exercise their rights as hub customers.
If you have a positive story about an airline, please send it to me: da***@*************er.com. I would love to share it on a future #AirlineLove story.
Photo by Patcard
Recently, I received an email from Blaine asking me a question about awarding international routes. It was a great question that I did not know the answer. I was talking to Dan Webb, who runs the site Things in the Sky on BoaringArea, and was happy to take on the answer. Here is his story:
United Airlines and Air France Boeing 747-400s at San Fransisco.
Here is part of an email David recently passed along from a reader:
“’¦how is the DOT involved in the awarding of international routes? From what I gather, domestic routes at up to the discretion of an airline (if it makes business sense, they fly it) but it appears that a myriad of airports and airlines compete for international routes. Often, these are not even to the same city pairs – just takeoff and landing slots within the US?”
Unfortunately, there’s no simple answer to this question because it varies by country. In fact, the State Department has a handy page that lists every aviation agreement between the United States and other countries.
As Blaine mentioned, domestic routes are completely in control of the airlines. (The only time one might see the DOT assigning a route is through the Essential Air Service program, but airlines bid for those contracts.)
In some cases, open skies agreements allow for similar flexibility. The most notable example is the agreement between the US and the European Union, which gives carriers the freedom to fly from any point in the US to any point in the EU, and vice-versa. (One example is the short-lived Air France service from Los Angeles to Heathrow.)
Other times, agreements between the US and other parties can be a bit more restrictive. Mexico is a good example. In most markets, up to two carriers from each country are allowed to provide service, though three carriers are allowed in a few. But while the agreement does put a cap on the number of carriers, airlines still decide if they want to serve a market or not (but they do need government approval to launch service).
Another example is the current agreement between the US and China. In one recent example, new frequencies between the US and China became available, and a bunch of airlines competed for the slots. The DOT then decided what carriers would end up receiving the frequencies.
If issues like this interest anyone, the process of applying for new routes is quite transparent, with relevant filings available at Regulations.gov. I often go that website to look up all DOT filings and then sort them by date to see what’s been happening recently.
Image: iflyfsx
