Much of it isn’t news to travel geeks, but for many, the report will be a revelation. It’s a disturbing report, and well worth watching.

The biggest takeaways:

• Fatigue
  Many regional airline pilots aren’t paid very well, which leads them to live wherever it’s cheap (i.e., with their parents). But that isn’t necessarily close to their base of operations. This means long commutes, sometimes across the entire continent. So there’s a link between low pay and fatigue.
• Risk-Taking
  The airline operating the regional jets and turboprops — and a pilot up front — typically gets paid only when the flight actually arrives at its intended destination. Diversions to another airport? No paycheck. That can encourage risk-taking.
• Coziness
  The FAA, it’s argued, is too closely wed to the idea of “promoting” aviation, rather than regulating it. The airlines and their regulators are too close.
• Obfuscation
  The mainlines try to sell subcontracted flights as if they’re their own, by putting the “Operated by…” in the fine print. Consumers who aren’t obsessive about travel aren’t necessarily aware that they’re technically flying a codeshare on another airline.
• Inconsistency
  The regional airline industry has the gall to say, with a straight face, that their inflight services are on par with their mainline partners, for a “seamless” experience. Puh-leeze. When I don’t have to gate-check a regular-size carry-on when boarding a Canadair Regional Jet, then we’ll be closer to parity.

Personally, I’ve always avoided regional airlines when possible, preferring to fly on mainline planes, primarily because of comfort and convenience issues, rather than safety concerns. Wherever possible, I choose the larger plane, because they’re typically quieter, less cramped, less smelly (some of those CRJs smell just awful), and less likely to be delayed or canceled. (If air traffic control has to control the flow of aircraft into an airport, they’re more likely to bump a CRJ than a Boeing, if only because of the number of people served.) And that’s not even taking upgrade opportunities into account…

Watch the video below. It’s nearly an hour in its entirety.

(If you’re reading this via the feed, or can’t view the video above, click here to (re)load the post or head to the PBS site.)

More importantly, in my view, the rules include a provision that airlines can’t retroactively change the contract governing your ticket. This has always struck me as patently unfair: You buy your ticket in January for a March flight, and the airline changes its rules in February; until now, you’ve been stuck with the February contract. Now, the federal government has ruled that you’re covered by the original contract in effect when you made your purchase. Good.

Chris Elliott has pulled the highlights from the actual rules, if you want to review.

Downgraded: Globespan Airlines
Potentially Downgraded: Credit card processors
Scotland’s Globespan Airlines shut down abruptly over the weekend, stranding 4500 travelers mid-trip. For the time being, guidance from the company on rebookings, is available on the former airline’s website. But questions now turn to whether or not the airline’s credit card processor was to blame for the immediate death knell. The processor, E-clear, apparently held back between £30m and £35m due to Globespan. You may recall that Frontier Airlines blamed their credit card processor when they declared bankruptcy in 2008 (though they didn’t halt all operations at that point).

Upgraded, after days of being Downgraded: Eurostar
English Channel rail firm Eurostar had a miserable (and well-publicized) weekend, with a complete shutdown of all their trains, midway through the Channel crossing. And the company handled things rather poorly. For example:

When worried passengers [aboard the trains] challenged Eurostar officials they received a cursory shrug. Some became so desperate for information that they banged on the train driver’s door but could only hear him sobbing inside.

Awesome. That’s the kind of leadership in a crisis I look for… But the company is resuming service and has promised to make it up to the thousands of passengers it stranded, not just in the tunnels, but on both sides of the channel. They’ve vowed that “the company would reimburse them for expenses incurred while they were stranded.”

Upgraded: The number of stars in the Parisian hotel sky
Four stars? Not enough. Bring on the fifth star. At least they haven’t gone the way of the absurdist 6 and 7 star hotel…

Upgraded: Biofuels
A Seattle company has put in motion plans to create a large-scale biofuels operation aimed specifically at airlines. AltAir Fuels has signed up 14 airlines to be launch customers for jet fuel and diesel made from camelina, a mustard-like weed whose seeds can be refined.

Upgraded: Consumer rights for “mistake” fares
As I’ve argued in the past, it’s sometimes impossible to know if a low fare is an error, or just a deal. (1 cent fares, anyone?) So I’m pleased to read that, in the U.S., the federal government is warning airlines that they’re (at least partially) on the hook for mistake fares. The DOT ruled: “We believe that all airlines should accept some responsibility for even the erroneous fares they publish.” Customers with canceled tickets must now be “made whole,” though this doesn’t mean that tickets will be honored. Still, a good move.

Downgraded: TSA’s mad redacting skillz
Seth, over at the Wandering Aramean has been digging through a document detailing the TSA’s standard operating procedures. The document was redacted, but Adobe Acrobat doesn’t delete the text hidden behind the black boxes. Oops. Now the TSA says the policies were never implemented, after all. (Then why were they posted, and redacted?) Seth has links to the original documents on his site.

Upgraded: Continental systemwide upgrades for top-level elites
In a further alignment of Continental OnePass with United MileagePlus, Continental is systemwide upgrades and a double-secret invitation-only ultra-elite level for high-spend elite frequent fliers.

Upgraded: United’s long-range aircraft… eventually
After slicing and dicing their fleet over the years, and recently killing off their 737s, it’s finally time for United to look at renewing their fleet. They’re ordering 25 Boeing 787s and 25 Airbus A350s, which will replace their 767s and 747s, respectively. …in 6 to 9 years.

Upgraded: Knowing what to do when you’re traveling for the holidays
Before you head to the airport, consider this post on five ways to get an edge on other travelers during the holiday season. The TSA has also published an updated list of do’s and don’t's for bringing items through security, which includes references to the infamous issue of pies. Don’t let anyone say you weren’t warned.

Downgraded: Your health in the sky
Contracted H1N1 or another nasty contagion? Got travel plans? Unless you’ve got good travel insurance, be prepared to pay a fee if you want to change you flights if you’re sick. From several reports (see here and here), it’s clear that being contagious doesn’t make you any less desirable aboard America’s airlines. Medical waivers be damned! Give them your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to cough up a lung onto their seatmates. It guess that’s freedom.

Upgraded: Regulation of frequent flier miles?
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is pushing for an inquiry into frequent flier programs, with particular attention to the phenomenon of expiring miles. Airlines, of course, argue that an inquiry is unnecessary by the government in the affairs of private business. Much like Congress is looking to regulate credit card fees and other business practices of the banks, this could get interesting.

Downgraded: Lufthansa intra-European economy seating
Lufthansa is shrinking the legroom in its economy cabin on shorter flights within Europe, to jam in more people. Thankfully, they’re leaving the big birds that fly across the oceans as they are, for now.

Upgraded: Communing with animals while you travel
A man with 15 lizards strapped to his chest was caught at LAX. For those keeping score, it was two geckos, two monitor lizards (!) and 11 skinks.

(image)

The problem, for airlines, is that the US Congress is starting to take a closer look at these and other fees. Not, alas, because this kind of surcharging misrepresents the price of air travel to consumers. Rather, Congress has noticed that taxes aren’t collected on surcharges the same way they’re assessed on base fares.

If the fees are fare increases in disguise (which fuel surcharges and peak travel surcharges certainly are) then the government has every reason to want its money. Yes, those fees would be passed straight to the the consumer, but it would be logically consistent and fair.

The Government Accountability Office is investigating the surcharges, and public hearings are coming. Airline executives won’t enjoy their time on the stand, but it’s an important debate to have.

(image)

Upgraded: Baggage allowances on Gulf Air
This isn’t something you’ll see in North America anytime soon: Gulf Air is raising the weight limits for passengers with (complimentary!) checked baggage, effective October 1, 2009. And the increases aren’t small: +10 kg (22 lbs), in each class. That raises the total weight limits for First, Business and Economy to 50 kg, 40 kg, and 30 kg, respectively. Silver-level frequent fliers in Gulf Air’s frequent flyer program get another 15 kg; gold members get another 20 kg. Individual bags are still limited to a whopping 32kg (70 lbs) each.

Upgraded: Virgin Atlantic’s website
Sure, airline websites have been selling hotel reservations and rental cars. But now Virgin Atlantic is trying to go further by offering “add-ons” like passports and visas. Services are provided by CIBT, either via the Virgin website or call center. (Or, perhaps more accurately, centre.)

Upgraded: Paperless boarding passes at US airports
The number of airlines and airports that permit scanning boarding passes from your mobile device keeps increasing. The TSA blog compiles the who/where. Here’s the bottom line, airlines and airport codes:

Continental: IAH, DCA, EWR, BOS, AUS, SAT, CLE, LGA, LAS, SFO, ORD, LAX, SAN, FLL, TPA, PDX, PHX, CLT, MSY, RDU, MCO
Delta/Northwest: ATL, LAS, MEM, MSP, DET, SLC, CVG
Delta only: LGA
Northwest only: IND
Alaska: SEA
American: ORD, SNA, LAX

Upgraded: Punishments for abusive passengers in-flight
The FAA is increasing the size of the penalties it levies against unruly passengers, like the man who “dropped his pants and exposed himself to the female passenger sitting next to him, then punched her, according to an FBI affidavit.” Good.

The original story (that prompted him to do further digging) has strangely disappeared from his BoardingArea blog, but still appears on a (legacy?) blogspot site:

Here’s a new one, at least to me. As we taxied before takeoff on a flight tonight from Denver to Tucson, the flight attendant announced that no personal possessions could be placed in the seat-back pocket, because of “FAA regulations.”

Nothing, she said. Not a pair of eyeglasses or a newspaper or a paperback book. Only “company-printed materials” were allowed in seat-back pockets, she said, and of course I quote her precisely.

What were these strange new “FAA regulations”? My seat-mate — a hard-core business traveler and until then a stranger to me — and I looked at each other. Surely this could not be a new law. But before takeoff, here the flight attendant comes marching down the narrow aisle on inspection, and right away she spots the books each of us had tucked into the pockets, as we had done thousands of times before.

She was on us like a prison guard. “Gentlemen, I told you, nothing in the pockets,” she said. Sheepishly, we put our books in our laps, while the “company-printed materials” (the crappy in-flight magazine, the sales catalog, the barf bag and who knows what else) rode merrily alone in the seat-back pockets.

One does not argue with a flight attendant if one wants to get where one needs to go.

Like Joe, I would have assumed that the flight attendant who was telling passengers that use of the seatback pockets was prohibited was on a power trip. I would have thought the same. Apparently, I would have been wrong, as Joe wrote in yesterday’s NYT column.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that airlines whose flight attendants had been telling passengers that no personal items of any kind could be placed in seatback pockets were “following our guidance, if they are enforcing this with travelers.”

The agency’s response came after numerous inquiries following a flight I made from Denver to Tucson operated by SkyWest Airlines, on which the flight attendant announced before takeoff that, as a safety measure, nothing could be placed in seatback storage pockets — no eyeglasses, no ticket stubs, no iPods or bottles of water or magazines.

What. The. Hell.

I understand the ban on sticking your laptop computer into the seatback pocket. That’s a big item that peeks out of the pocket and can hurt someone if it flies out.

But a book? A sheet of paper? A ticket stub? Have we lost all sense of logic?

If the contents of the pocket are truly dangerous then ban everything. Ban SkyMall catalogs. Ban the safety cards. Ban barf bags (with ads, or with art, or anything on them.) Ban “American Way,” “Hemispheres,” and the (oh-so-creatively titled) “US Airways Magazine.” They’re a threat to your safety! Hide the kids!

For the time being, it doesn’t appear that airlines are actively enforcing this. Most appeared to be unaware of the rule — which originated in a 2007 cabin safety directive put out by the FAA — so for now, it’s still going to be the exception, not the rule, to hear this rule announced. But once is too much. This is just plain stupid.

I’m reminded of Ryanair. The much-maligned Euro-WalMart of the skies, has never had seatback pockets, as a way to save money on cleaning expenses (and restocking those magazines).

Apparently, we are all Ryanair passengers now.

(Thanks to reader Nicole Rowan for drawing the column to my attention!)

(base image)

One of the great frustrations of booking travel — air, hotel, car, whatever — has been the difference between initially-quoted price and the final bill. For hotels, the problem has often been surcharges like resort fees, local occupancy taxes, and other mandatory fees that aren’t included in the base rate. That may be changing, if only for European customers.

In an effort to meet the terms of European Union regulations, Pegasus Solutions, which provides hotel rate information to travel agencies and most major booking sites, is requiring hotels to break out their fees in a way that hasn’t been required before.

But just because a hotel is required to report all the parts of a room rate, that doesn’t mean you, the customer, will see things broken out when you go to book:

Once Pegasus provides the pricing breakdown to distributors, it will be up to each website where there are no governmental mandates, such as in the U.S., to decide how — or if — they want to display the information.

All websites that sell hotels eventually give consumers the total price, including taxes and fees, but some distributors force consumers to take two or three steps. Sometimes, distributors require credit card information before revealing the bottom-line price.

That means that US customers might still end up with partial quotes, lumped-together taxes and fees, and worst of all, surprises like mandatory resort fees, payable upon check-in.

The resort fee has always been my greatest hotel peeve. If it’s a mandatory charge, it should be quoted up front, with the rate. Now, with the Pegasus initiative, these fees will hopefully be visible — somewhere. But will the US consumer benefit? Unless they’re doing searches on EU-based search engines, I doubt it.

The major online travel agencies have been escalating their competition over the price and transparency of surcharges, for hotel booking fees as well as airline booking fees. So here’s a challenge to the agencies in the US:

Start breaking out the price of a hotel stay, including your fees, their fees, and the taxes. Be thorough about it, and show them right up front. Include the resort fees. Don’t make us go all the way to the brink of purchase before showing us the numbers. Give us the facts, up front, the first time.

(image)

Alliances of global airlines — oneworld, Skyteam, and Star Alliance — are under attack. Attached to proposed legislation to upgrade the air traffic control system, a new proposal could be the death knell for the alliances — or at least the end of their legal presence in the United States.

Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), a longtime critic of the alliance system is harnessing unease in Washington D.C. about the competitive impact of international pacts to back a bill that could have a drastic impact on existing and planned airline cooperation.

The chairman of the U.S. congressional committee that oversees airlines is pushing an aviation bill that would automatically withdraw antitrust approval for alliances within three years, although they could be restarted under more stringent rules.

The bill is attached to a $70 billion proposal to modernize the creaking U.S. air traffic control system, which gives it a greater chance of becoming law.

Its provisions could lead to the rolling back of the antitrust immunity, or ATI, already in effect for members of the Star and SkyTeam alliances. It could also derail efforts to expand these groupings and extend immunity to members of Oneworld, the smallest of the three.

Remember that Oberstar is the same legislator trying to block liberalization of airline ownership rules. I would argue that alliances would never have become necessary if nations — like the US — had more reasonable cross-border ownership rules. The alliances are a way to give the companies backdoor merger benefits (e.g., “revenue sharing” on trans-Atlantic routes) alongside the efficiencies that come with aligned schedules.

So what happens if alliances are declared a monopoly in the US, or elsewhere? Frankly, it could be a good thing for passengers, as long as codesharing isn’t entirely eliminated in the process. Alliances may have benefited travelers where schedule alignment and frequent flyer partnerships are concerned, but they’re legal oligopolies. They admit as much: That’s why they require antitrust immunity in order to function.

If airline alliances were to disappear, international passengers would likely see some inconvenience at first. But how much inconvenience? Global lounge access? Priority tags on your luggage? Really, what would change? And for how long? Over time, airlines would negotiate bilateral partnerships in lieu of broad alliances.

And what about the upside? As it stands, alliances are essentially a legalized price-fixing scheme. They’ve always been for the convenience of the airlines, not the passenger. So eliminating price fixing sounds like an easy win for the consumer.

Oberstar may be wrongheaded with his advocacy of protectionism, but he may be onto something with regard to alliances.

But the treaty wasn’t supposed to end with a few new routes across the Atlantic. European airlines in particular are hoping to move into the North American market in a way they’ve never been allowed to before.

The Europeans are prepared to lobby vigorously for the part of Open Skies they see as far more crucial: relaxed ownership rules. In 2010, a year that will likely inflict further financial stress on a global airline industry struggling under recession, expect a new push to soften the 25% cap the U.S. imposes on foreign investment in airlines. It’s no secret to anyone that among the developed world’s airlines, U.S. carriers are the unfortunate, pitied cousins, their service and finances both in shocking disrepair. Most U.S. airline executives would welcome a strong financial partner, or the ability to sell out to one of them. And Europeans want greater access to fly domestic U.S. routes and to acquire airlines here.

But those who are salivating at the prospect of an Air France or Lufthansa flying into Toledo or Raleigh, wipe the spittle off your chin and stop dreaming. It’s not happening. Especially with this guy in a position of power:

In the U.S., Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, reaffirmed his support for tightening foreign-ownership restrictions by inserting protectionist language in legislation to reauthorize FAA funding.
[...]
Labor has also cultivated a warm relationship with Oberstar and has voiced support for his tougher language on control.

Capt. John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, said, “ALPA strongly backs language in the bill affirming that U.S. citizens must control key operational aspects of U.S. airlines. This bill does that by identifying fleet composition, route selection, pricing and labor relations as among the operational elements that the Department of Transportation must ensure U.S. citizens control.”

Oberstar’s language would require U.S. citizens to “control all matters pertaining to the business and structure of the air carrier, including operational matters such as marketing, branding, fleet composition, route selection, pricing and labor relations.”

I understand that the airline industry is critical for the movement of goods and services in the country. And as such, the government takes a special interest in its ownership. But the 25% limit on ownership is overly restrictive, and actually hurts American airlines’ access to global capital.

Oberstar’s efforts to add conditions to expanded ownership will make US airlines less attractive to foreign investors. That’s intentional. And it’s dumb. Short-term it “protects” the companies from control by outsiders, but long-term it makes these American companies — already a laughing stock in the global marketplace — increasingly irrelevant.

Frankly, I don’t think most passengers care much, one way or the other, who owns the airline they’re flying. JetBlue is 19% owned by Lufthansa; does that make you more or less likely to fly them? How about Virgin America, whose nationality is perpetually being challenged, with its high-quality inflight product?

So, as much as I’d enjoy the prospect of a high-quality international carrier coming in and serving domestic cities, it’s not going to happen. And it looks increasingly unlikely that American carriers will get to partner with stronger international partners. And that, in particular, is a shame.