First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

I’ve been encountering US Airways a bit lately, and it hasn’t always been fun. A function of my recent move to North Carolina, perhaps. Hard to avoid US Airways in these parts. But having previously observed that United-US Airways codesharing and cooperation aren’t living up to their hype, I’m still convinced that these two Star Alliance partners aren’t working well together, and need to shape up their cooperation.

The breakdown of cooperation starts with the little things, right at the time of purchase: Why can’t the US Airways website allow me to enter my United frequent flyer number in the reservation? They’re both in Star Alliance, and other Star Alliance carriers let you choose from a range of different frequent flyer options.

Update: The option to add other airlines’ frequent flyer numbers is back on the US Airways site. Not sure what was missing when I booked, but it’s there now. Yay!

Admittedly, other sites have similar issues, especially third party booking sites — Orbitz, I’m looking at you. I bought a ticket on Orbitz recently when no one else would sell me that particular itinerary at a lower price. Again, no option to enter a partner airline’s frequent flyer account. I could enter a US Airways account number, or nothing at all. This limitation isn’t isolated to Star Alliance, either. If you, say, book a British Airways ticket, you can only enter a British Airways frequent flyer number, and not an American Airlines number. (Expedia is much more flexible with frequent flyer accounts.) Alliances and partnerships aren’t new, people! Give us the option!

The cooperation breakdown continues at check-in: My wife bought a United-coded ticket for an all-US Airways flight on United.com (the UA-coded ticket was cheaper) but when she got to the airport to check in, she was told that the ticket wasn’t paid for. Apparently, United hadn’t transmitted the funds to US Airways, and the ticket was still listed as reserved, not issued. Her United receipt (and credit card statement) showed that it was indeed paid, but until the ticket number was manually entered into the computer record, she wasn’t getting a boarding pass.

This is stupid. I know there are incredible complexities that arise when large organizations attempt to integrate or link their data systems, but if the increasing frequency of these kinks is any indication, the problems are getting worse with time, not better.

Related:
- Star Alliance out of alignment: Are United and US Airways fighting codeshare wars?
- Update: US Airways and United codeshare conundrums
- Confused by codeshares? Sue!

(image)

Reader Joanna writes:

Is it worth paying an extra $20 to get an extra 1000 miles? United has a deal where you pay the fee and get bonus miles. My husband and I are hoping to fly to France next year, and we could use the extra miles. What do you think?

$20 for 1000 miles means two cents per mile… that’s about what miles should be worth. That’s my minimum-value target for cashing in miles, though I try for higher. Most folks get a lot less per mile than that, if they cash in their miles at all.

(See here for a breakdown of how miles are valued.)

United’s offer is a discount to their normal “miles-for-sale” offer, so it’s an upgrade from that. But it’s not really a steal.

A year ago, Northwest Airlines started an identical offer. (They called it “supersizing.”)

My advice: Only pay up for this offer if you KNOW you are about to cash in miles for something, and you’re just shy of the “free” ticket. And use it only — only! — as a last ditch effort to bump up the account. Don’t use it to hoard. It’s not always easy to cash in your points, so you don’t want to just pay money willy-nilly to an airline. And if you’re effectively pre-paying for that “free” ticket. For most people, the offer isn’t worth it.

(gratuitous image of Three Mile Island lamp… Three MILE… get it… har har har…)

Like trying to determine the bottom in a sliding stock market, trying to figure out precisely when an airline’s in-flight service has hit rock-bottom is difficult, if not impossible, especially when you’re in the middle of the turmoil. Months or years later, you can look back and wisely nod, “Yes, that’s the precise moment when they could go no lower.” But when you’re in the moment? Much, much trickier. But I think I’ve found the indicator that signals the bottom:

Shampooing the carpets.

Hear me out.

Every so often, an airline announces that it has found religion, so to speak, and that it will start cleaning its planes more often. With minor fanfare, airlines announce that they are ramping up their “deep cleaning” schedule. It’s only worth mentioning when things have gotten so bad that passengers start to revolt. It’s sad that it comes to that point, where budget cuts make these cleanings so rare that the space between the seats looks like a miniature landfill.

Delta made such an announcement last October, and that was around the time that things started improving. Sure enough: Improvements to in-flight service started being announced, new premium cabins, etc.

Now, just days after it’s United’s turn, smaller Biscoff packages notwithstanding. It’s buried in this short blurb — which also points to an improvement, actually — about the airline’s video entertainment:

United Airlines plans to put digital entertainment systems on some planes and clean its aircraft more often to attract customers on U.S. flights. e carrier will replace the video systems on 269 planes used in the United States with digital servers by the second quarter of 2009, Tom Abraham, director of in-line maintenance, told employees Friday. United also will increase “deep-clean” services like shampooing carpets by 20 percent, he said.

So I’m calling a bottom here. Not in the stock — I’m not making any stock picks here, ever! — but in the service. It’s not going to go up overnight, and like the stock market, there will be volatility, but the trajectory at United customer service is looking back up.

(image)

It’s official: United Airlines has rolled out their next-generation business class seats, and they look good. (They rolled out a first class prototype a few months ago.) The new seats will be fully lie-flat, which is great news. They’ll also alternate forward and rear-facing seats, much like British Airways’ ClubWorld.

Some videos introducing the new seats, with some fanfare, can be found at United’s press release. See also their promotional site for the new business class: suitedreams.united.com. Better yet: An anonymous tipster forwarded this internal company “employee q&a” memo (MS Word doc) — it’s still a sales pitch, but it’s pretty detailed.

So what to make of the new UA business class? Four thoughts:

First, the seats themselves look very good. 180-degree lie-flat. Proper. Screw those angled flat seats — gravity always wins, people! Nice big screen. Wider (23.5″) than the current-generation first seats. On its own, it looks like other new-generation seats out there, with larger screens. But they’re the best looking seats offered by an American airline right now.

Second, the alternating forward- and rear-facing seats will be an adjustment for many people, but British Airways has been doing it for a while, and they’re still selling tickets. (Interestingly, the promo photos show two parallel seats…)

Third, the service is supposed to improve along with the seat. But “service” is really “features.” That is, new food from chef Charlie Trotter, and better in-flight entertainment. (Movies and games.) But what’s missing from the company’s PR pitch is the actual service in flight. A great restaurant is more than a tasty-sounding menu and a nicely decorated room. It’s how the customer is treated that makes a world of difference. The same is true of an airline, and United’s in-flight customer service has been hit-or-miss lately. It’s not clear that the company realizes this, either. The promotional materials focus on the hardware, and not the human “software” that really makes or breaks the experience.

Fourth, and from the customer’s point of view, the question remains: How much is this going to cost? And how much more difficult will it be to get an upgrade (or free frequent flyer ticket) into these swank new seats? The airline says it’s not raising prices, or changing upgrade policies, but it’s easy to limit award supply or to blame “market forces” for a price hike.

At any rate, the new seats are a step forward for the airline. The new seats will only be on internationally-configured three-class Boeing 747, 777, and 767 planes, and the rollout will take thirty months to complete. I’m hoping to try them on for size some day soon.

Last year, Star Alliance announced intra-alliance upgrade awards, a system that allowed frequent flyer members of one airline to use their miles on another Star Alliance member’s flight. It’s a great concept, and a great option for those looking to draw down their frequent flyer balances, though the “cost” in miles isn’t always cheap.

But United Airlines frequent flyers won’t be able to participate any longer. Though the airline is one of the founding members of Star Alliance, and though UA offered Star Alliance Upgrades for several months, that feature is gone.

The United website’s page for Star Alliance Upgrades now reads:

Effective May 31, 2007: We will no longer accept Star Alliance Upgrade Award requests at this time. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Is this yet another Mileage Plus program devaluation, or more evidence of problems with intra-Star Alliance cooperation? Other programs don’t appear to have shut down their upgrade functionality, so the problem seems to rest with United.

Readers have been reporting mixed information from United on the intra-alliance upgrade front. Reader Samuel says he bought a flight on Singapore Airlines, and that United told him he could request an upgrade if he booked the ticket in Q class or higher. But Singapore didn’t accept United miles for upgrades, even when the program was functional. (See the chart below, taken from the Star Alliance website, obviously out of date at this point.) Samuel’s problem is emblematic of the confusion over this now-defunct benefit.

So why are the upgrades kaput? Unclear. United has the largest frequent flyer program within the alliance, so perhaps other programs were getting flooded with upgrade requests from United members. The bottom line is a further downgrade of Mileage Plus.

I’ve contacted United and Star Alliance to inquire why UA is no longer a participant. We’ll see if there’s anything to report, and I’ll post whatever I learn.

Hat tip to Benet Wilson for pointing out the changed web page!

After posting about the difficulties in reserving a mixed US Airways-United itinerary on either airline’s website last week, I contacted the two airlines about their codesharing policies, looking for some clarification. I’m pleased to report that US Airways has replied with a detailed response.

I asked Valerie Wunder, Associate Manager of Media Relations, to clarify why United-operated flights that had a US-codeshare weren’t coming up on usairways.com. (I asked similar questions of United Airlines, but have not yet received a reply.) She responded with a great, detailed e-mail, the bulk of which is quoted below the jump.

Four things stand out for me:

1) My observation that codeshared flights were restricted from sale (and not simply sold out) is largely validated, though my suspicions for the cause of the restriction are in dispute. Two reasons for the failure to list all codeshares are cited: “System migration issues” and “minimum connect timetable issues.” The former reason makes some sense, considering the integration of America West with US Airways systems has been incremental and problematic. Why should codeshare sales be any different?

But the minimum connect times? Over an hour’s connect time at CLT shouldn’t be an issue, so either the computers are being overly aggressive in blocking out partner flights with “short” connects, or this is a red herring.

2) United isn’t codesharing on the US Airways flights that are technically still operated by America West. United also isn’t codesharing US Airways Express flights when the plane has a capacity greater than 69 people. In both cases, “commercial reasons” are cited. Hmm…

3) US can’t sell UA nonstops if they operate the same exact nonstop route. ORD-CLT and ORD-DCA might be such routes. But they can sell these flights if they’re part of a connection.

4) More codeshares might be hard to come by, because they’re running out of numbers to use.

The bottom line from the airline’s corporate HQ is that US Airways’ website and reservation center still have a few more kinks to iron out of their system. They admit as much. And they admit that other booking sites may come up with more options (which is somewhat like throwing in the towel…)

Read the complete official explanation after the jump…
(more…)

While airline alliances were created for the primary benefit of the member airlines, they also promise benefits to the flying public, such as the ability to buy a wider range of codeshared flights. So why are US Airways and United Airlines refusing to sell each others’ flights?

Last night, I tried to reserve an itinerary, sold by US Airways, that involved a change of planes in Charlotte. Ideally, I wanted the final leg of my trip, from Charlotte to Chicago, to be the US-codeshared flight operated by United. The United flight’s time was more convenient, and I could sit in Economy Plus or even try my luck at burning an upgrade or two.

I knew from the timetables that the flight existed, that it carried a US Airways number (US Airways Flight US5909, operated by United Airlines as Flight UA569), and that it was available for sale on sites like Orbitz, at the same exact price as other itineraries that were wholly operated by US Airways.

But US Airways wouldn’t reserve the flight for me.

Here’s how it worked: I started by going online and searching for flights. US Airways’ website did not include a single flight that was operated by United in its search results. Not one. Neither as a US-labeled codeshare, nor as a UA-numbered flight.

So I tried United’s website. Their search engine lets you tick a box to “include Star Alliance flights” in the search results. But it only included some Star Alliance flights, and only ones that carried a United codeshare number. The list wasn’t exhaustive, either — not all codeshared flights were listed. And it didn’t include any flights that were sold under the US flight number.

In the past, I have been able to use United’s site to book flights on other Star Alliance carriers, usually as part of a mixed itinerary. That doesn’t appear to be consistently possible any more. The site’s help page for booking codeshares implies that it should still be possible to book Star Alliance and codeshare flights using their tool. But the options are severely restricted.

None of this would have been an issue if I had been ready to pull the trigger and purchase the ticket right then and there. I could have just gone to Orbitz and bought the flight, albeit with a $6 surcharge. But I wanted to put the flight on a 24-hour hold, and Orbitz doesn’t allow that. US Airways’ website doesn’t allow putting flights on hold, either (that’s a post for another day), so I picked up the phone and called them.

The phone agent couldn’t — or wouldn’t — reserve the flight I wanted. I gave them the flight number — US5909 — but the answer was no. “That flight is not available for purchase.” So I settled for a later flight, which leaves me more time to partake in the Charlotte Airport’s rocking chairs, barbeque stands, and North Carolina wine bar.

My experience doesn’t appear to be a complete fluke. I’ve seen this sort of thing before, but I’ve always assumed it was just a temporary glitch. After seeing this again and again, it seems deliberate. To give them one last benefit of the doubt, I just tried searching different itineraries (some domestic, some international) on both the United and the US Airways websites. US Airways excluded every United-operated option, every time. United’s website included some US Airways flights, but only if they carried a UA number. Other Star Alliance carriers, like Lufthansa, didn’t face the same discrimination.

My only conclusion: US Airways and United are no longer fully cooperating within the Star Alliance. It’s stupid, it’s annoying, and it irritates the consumer. Fix it.

(image)

Getting paid to eat airline food?
Malaysia Airlines had to pay the equivalent of US$5,700 to a vegetarian who ended up eating chicken on board one of the airline’s flights. The payment covers “depression, shock, mental anguish and humiliation” that the man, an Indian Brahmin, suffered. Insert airline food joke here.

Flight attendants pan United’s “bill of rights”
United Airlines’ pathetic attempt at warding off the passengers’ bill of rights was slammed last week by its own flight attendants. No surprises there. After all, they’ll bear the brunt of the policy: Upset passengers tend to take their anger at the company out on the staff.

Resort fees revealed
One of my longtime pet peeves has been resort fees — the generally unadvertised yet mandatory surcharges on top of published hotel room rates. They’re the definition of customer-unfriendly. They’re usually unadvertised. They’re often mandatory. They’re sneaky, in that they make rates look cheaper than they actually are in online searches. And they charge you money for amenities that should either be standard to the room, or that you should be allowed to opt into. Grr… Anyway… Some destinations are more infested with the plague of resort fees than others. Hawaii is one such place. Now, via SmarterTravel.com, comes this handy list of resort fees in the 50th state. You’ll see the cost, what’s included, and whether or not it’s mandatory. Check it before you book.

Who’s on the No-Fly List?
CBS’ “60 Minutes” obtained a copy of what is allegedly the entire consolidated No-Fly List, and found numerous errors, including long-deceased revolutionaries, the 9/11 hijackers, and the president of Bolivia. The list contains 44,000 names, plus an additional 75,000 names of people who are required to undergo secondary screening. Honestly, I assumed the list would be even longer, especially when you consider that some people appear several times, with spelling variations (e.g., Usama and Osama bin Laden). (via Benet Wilson, whose blog just moved to new digs and got a new title)

Spend a day in Jamaica for $179
I get peppered with e-mails promoting all sorts of travel-related products and services, but this one struck me as sufficiently bizarre to warrant a post. Sandals Resorts is luring honeymooners by offering one-day trips to their Royal Caribbean Resort in Montego Bay, Jamaica as a “test-drive.” For $179, you fly down in the morning, get their sales pitch (with lunch and a spa treatment seemingly included), and fly back in the evening. Mileage run on Air Jamaica, anyone? Have fun explaining that one to the passport control on your return.

(image)

United Airlines seems to really enjoy taking half-steps to appease dissatisfied customers lately. To wit:

Skimpy bill of rights
In response to the brouhaha over passengers being stuck on planes, and in an attempt to fend off pending passenger bill-of-rights legislation, United has devised a new policy (leaked Sunday to our friends at the Consumerist, and made public later this week) for delayed flights and trapped customers. You won’t be impressed. Or if you are, snap out of it!:

Flights delayed for more than four hours on departure, or an hour and a half on arrival, will be declared “flights of note.” Passengers on “flights of note” will receive the following:
# An apology note;
# 20% off one (1) roundtrip economy ticket on a future United flight;
# One (1) $10 airport meal voucher.

That is all. Passengers delayed for less than four hours get nothing.

And remember, this only applies to delays where the passengers are on the plane, away from the gate, and stuck out on the airfield somewhere. If you’re delayed but the door is still open, this doesn’t apply.

While jetBlue’s policy revision had its problems, and didn’t go far enough in my opinion, it’s miles ahead of United’s policy, which is really laughable. At least jetBlue offered cash refunds.

Upgrades converting to miles again… for some
Remember United’s policy change for 500-mile upgrades? United’s policy of worthless expiration won no praise from this blog.

Well, they’ve backed down, for middle and upper-level elite frequent flyers. If you’re a United Premier Executive or higher, your upgrades will still convert to miles if they expire unused, but only if you register at their special site, and if you maintain your status level (or higher). And you can’t call up and ask for upgrades to be converted in advance of expiration.

But if you’re a lowly Premier, who flew 25,000 to 49,999 miles last year, you might be a good customer, but you’re out of luck. No corporate mile-love for you.

The policy still stinks. Remember, United’s top competitor, American Airlines, doesn’t put any expiration dates on their upgrades, and allows customers to convert their upgrades to redeemable miles with a simple phone call.

(image)

United quietly but firmly kicked its elite frequent flyers in the pants again. It may be a relatively minor change, but it’s yet another devaluation in a program that’s getting less attractive all the time.

For years, Premier members of the Mileage Plus program have received “500-mile” coupons (now electronic) that upgraded your North American flights from coach to first class. (You get four of these coupons every time you reach 10,000 flown miles on the airline. One coupon can upgrade you for 500 miles of distance flown; thus the “500-miler” moniker.) If you couldn’t use your 500-milers, they’d expire after one year, but all was not lost: They converted to 500 redeemable frequent flyer miles in your account.

Not any more.

In another “enhancement” of the Mileage Plus program, 500-milers won’t convert to frequent flyer miles upon expiration anymore. They’ll just expire worthless if you don’t cash them in. (And let me tell you from personal experience, they’ve gotten harder and harder to actually put to use.)

But the real problem isn’t the policy change itself. It’s the fact that they deceptively changed the policy without letting anyone know, hoping that customers wouldn’t find out until it was too late.
(more…)

Hell freezes over: Southwest makes its fares more widely searchable
(corrected) It’s a bizarre reversal of their earlier strategy of keeping their fares out of the major online booking systems and travel agencies, and forcing you to go to their website to check their prices. But they’ve opened it up: Southwest Airlines has signed on for a ten-year pact with Galileo, one of the major computer networks used by travel agents and online booking companies to pull up fares. What does it mean for you? Easier comparison shopping. (Some background here, from when jetBlue similarly linked up other sites.) Until now, Southwest has never shown up in airfare searches outside of their own site, so it’s pro-consumer to see their fares head-to-head with other airlines’ offerings. But there’s a catch: They’re keeping some of their lowest fares out of Galileo. Baby steps. (Clarification: Travel agents who subscribed to the Sabre GDS were able to book Southwest flights for their clients previously. But the big online agencies — Orbitz, Travelocity, Expedia, etc. — couldn’t. It’s not clear if the new deal will integrate Southwest into those sites yet.)

Non-news: People aren’t happy with airlines
It should come as no surprise whatsoever that the general public is dissatisfied with the airlines in America. Only slightly more surprising is just how much some airlines’ ratings suck. United Airlines’ miserable showing is worst in the airline sector. But even more telling, the only company (in any industry) in the survey that out-awfuls UAL? Charter Communications. When you’re in a dead heat for last place with the cable guy, you know something is wrong. (As an aside, looking at the trendlines, I’m obviously not the only person who liked bankrupt United better…) Click here for the full ranking — for all companies, not just airlines.

Reason #7,619 to avoid checking luggage
The Today Show’s Peter Greenberg discovers the dark side of European low fare airlines when easyJet hits him with over $500 in excess luggage fees. Each way. He wasn’t transporting an entire apartment across the Channel, either. Flying on Air France, with those same suitcases, would have cost him less in the end. But Peter, why are you traveling low-rent on easyJet in the first place? (via Elliott)

Midwest and Northwest codeshare, but will it matter once AirTran buys Midwest?
Midwest Airlines and Northwest have started codesharing, which lets customers of both airlines earn miles on a lot more routes. Great, but considering that AirTran is launching a hostile takeover of Midwest, and already has nearly 57% of shares, will this deal survive the seemingly inevitable acquisition?

ID required, just not necessarily real ID
You may have to pull out identification in order to pass through airport security, but as a recent undercover investigation proves, the ID doesn’t need to be real. Just plausible enough to look real. That “Official Bikini Inspector” ID you got on the boardwalk in Wildwood, New Jersey in 1985 won’t cut it, tough guy.

(image)

Elvis has left the building. If by “Elvis,” we mean the entire flight crew of a United Airlines flight from San Francisco to Sydney, and if by “building,” we mean a Boeing 747 full of passengers who just spent over 14 hours in flight.

Passengers on a United Airlines Boeing 747 endured a horrendous 27-hour journey from San Francisco to Sydney yesterday, when their flight was left stranded on the tarmac at Brisbane Airport - without a crew. Fog in Sydney forced the diversion of two United flights to Brisbane early yesterday. But passengers on both aircraft were left to fend for themselves when their United crews clocked off, having exceeded their legal flying hours. (link; emphasis mine)

So let’s get this straight: The plane gets diverted due to weather, the crew goes over their legal time limit, exits the plane, and leaves the passengers locked inside, with no assistance??

Sounds like the modern-day equivalent of “Lord of the Flies.”

Rules? Pfft! With no Leviathan to control the atavistic masses, life onboard devolved to the state of nature. Economy class passengers pillaged first class, spreading themselves wide in the motorized “suites” up front and helping themselves to the few remaining hot nuts. Lavatory smoke detectors were tampered with. Seatbacks and tray tables were kept at partial, not full, upright positions. Exact change was neither necessary, nor appreciated.

Well, maybe not. It’s a testament to the patience of passengers that we’re not reading such stories of onboard revolution.

But honestly, if the crew can be let off the plane, why can’t the passengers? Even if immigration wasn’t prepared for such an influx of cranky flyers (no relation), couldn’t they have let people out and kept them in a waiting room?

Perhaps we’ll hear about an Australian passengers’ bill of rights soon. How fitting that an American carrier would be the one to set that ball in motion.

Thanks to reader Rob M. for the link!

(images: 1, 2)