The major airlines’ race downhill has shifted into overdrive. United, once an airline that tried to make the customer experience better, is making hypotheticals real. They’re charging for meals on flights to Europe, raising prices for stuff sold on board, and reducing the service offered in some domestic premium classes.

And all the while, they’re blaming oil prices and cynically saying this represents customer preference and expands choice. Could someone remind them that oil is off its highs? Alrighty then.

This comes as no surprise to regular readers of this blog. After all, United was polling some of its customers just two weeks ago to gauge their tolerance for international buy-on-board meals. Now those charges are reality. I guess they interpreted those survey results with impressive speed…

One thing that’s missing from the new pay-to-eat-while-trapped-in-an-aluminum-tube regime is an improvement in quality, which was implied in earlier surveys. You’ll recall that United’s poll included a “restaurant quality meal” as an option. That doesn’t appear to be on offer. Rather, you’ll be asked to pay good money for “fresh and snack box offerings” — read: shelf-stable snack boxes, as you already know them, or hockey-puck sandwiches. No price points are mentioned. Uh oh.

So who among you told United in the poll that you’d happily pay $30 for a meal? Fess up!

This is yet another embarrassment to the once-grand tradition of American aviation. United has become a pathetic, washed-up mess of an airline. Patriotism be damned, I’m a consumer: If United is the primary carrier on an international route I need to fly, I would bend over backwards to fly another airline, preferably a carrier without an American flag on the tail.

The internal United memo announcing the changes, confirmed by reputable sources, is below. Comments inserted.

Catering Changes Provide Value and Options

Cost reduction and revenue generating opportunities continue to be the focus of every division throughout the company. In the wake of high fuel prices and a challenging economic environment, we must continue to examine every aspect of our business and find new ways to improve our day-today operations through efficiencies that still meet our customers’ expectations.

Comment: Value. Choices. And the fuel excuse, again. And I ask you, does charging for crappy food meet your expectations? Browse over to non-US airlines and read about their onboard service. Let me know if your expectations are still being met. Back to the memo…

And we can expect this will continue to drive changes to the way we do business.

Comment: So the worst is yet to come?

Fleet and capacity reductions announced in June have already resulted in significant changes for our division, many of which were implemented in July and August. And there are more changes scheduled for September and October.

These changes are difficult, but necessary, and we do not make them lightly.

However, they enable us to reduce costs and generate additional revenue while preserving a differentiated product for our premium cabin customers both internationally and domestically. Our industry is changing, and in United’s ongoing efforts to offer overall value and competitive fares, we need to tailor our products and services to what the customer values and can choose from accordingly.

Comment: Which services is the customer valuing, or choosing? Choices are being taken away, not added.

The following is a general overview of the upcoming changes. You can expect detailed information in the coming weeks.

Effective Sept. 2

North America United Economy® (UE) -All Markets

• Expanding a la carte snacks for purchase to flights between 760 -1149 miles (approximately 2-3 hours in duration) as a result of successful testing in select markets. Along with the expansion, we’re removing complimentary biscoff and pretzels as data from those tests confirmed that the a la carte offering appeals to our customers and they are willing to pay for snacks of higher value.

Comment: No more Biscoff?? Noooooooooo… the last tasty freebie snack in the American sky, now gone…

• Continuing test of a fresh Buy on Board offering along with the current snack box on flights between 1440 - 2099 miles (approximately 3.5 - 5 hours in duration). Testing limited to ORD-LAX-ORD and DEN-IAD-DEN.

Effective Oct. 1

Increasing Buy on Board Prices

• Shelf-stable items increase from $5 to $6.

• Fresh items increase from $7 to $9.

Comment: Raising prices bothers me little, frankly, if these were already items being assessed a fee. Everything costs more at the supermarket, so why not in the sky. No problems here.

Offering Two-Class Service on North America Three-Class Airplanes

• United First® service remains the same.

• A combined BOB service will be offered in United Business® (UB) and United Economy® (UE).

• Customers in UB will receive complimentary beverages and BOB offering.

• Staffing will be adjusted to FAA minimums.

Comment: This is a real downgrade. Previously, on a 3-class plane traveling domestically, you’d have three classes of service. Not anymore. Now, the business-class seats get coach service, just comped. It’s like the Spirit Airlines “big front seat” model.

And the fact that they are cutting back on the number of flight attendants signals that there won’t be more attentiveness to customers in any cabin. This signals to premium-cabin customers that it’s not all that premium. United seems to think it’s all about the seat, and not the service. And that’s just sad.

Buy on Board Offered Out of IAD to Europe (except KWI)

• Replacing complimentary meals in UE with BOB fresh and snack box offerings.

• Economy staffing breakpoints for all aircraft will be adjusted to current North America BOB staffing guidelines.

Comment: There it is. The meal downgrade. Flights to Europe will be buy-on-board only, effective October 1. Folks on the flight to Kuwait should chow down for the rest of the flying public. Flights to Asia are safe for the time being, too.

Eliminate Second Service in p.s. Market

• Removing the pre-arrival snack service and replacing with a beverage service in response to flight attendant and customer feedback.

All in all, another notch down for the United customer experience. As stated earlier, United is giving its international competitors more and more advantage. No doubt other American carriers will follow suit on some or all of these changes.

(image)

Unlike airlines, where improvements show up in premium classes, while the folks in steerage suffer, hotel chains are making positive changes for customers of their less-expensive brands. This is a great trend, worthy of praise.

Most suburban or roadside hotels are hardly interesting. Switch the sign on the front, and you’ll be hard pressed to tell brands apart. And let’s face it: When you turn off the lights, it’s hard to tell rooms apart. But that’s changing.

Hyatt Place was an early entrant, converting the mid-range Amerisuites brand to a more chic and luxurious space. (Early kinks were still being worked out when I experienced it.)

Starwood have rolled out two new mid-range brands, Element and Aloft, which are each trying to bring a little style to the ‘burbs. (Chris Elliott stayed at an Aloft, and offers his thumbs-up here. Rob Lovitt compares the two brands here.)

But those brands are not the bread-and-butter of the American interstate system. Motel 6 and Microtel doing upgrades, to “ncrease their coolness and give guests more functionality—without raising prices”? Now we’re talkin’.

The photo shows a sample room for Motel 6. Markedly different from the Motel 6 I’ve ever experienced (though it’s admittedly been several years since I’ve had the pleasure…)

Room upgrades are sometimes subtle, such as converting from boxspring to platform beds, while others are more striking, such as replacing old carpet with hardwood or laminate floors. (Stylish, but footsteps will resound below… ask for the top floor!)

The real challenge to these brands is keeping the price down. Flat-screen panel TV’s have dropped in price, but they’re still not free. With costs of just about everything going up, I’ll be surprised if the promise to not raise prices holds true.

But it’s nice to see the lower-tier brands thinking about the customer experience in ways beyond price and location.

While we’re at it, talking about renovations, can I put in a request for good sound insulation and quieter doors?…

Downgraded: Uses of college budgets
I know that baggage fees suck, but is refunding students who fly back to school their $15 or $25 baggage fees really the best use of college funds?

Downgraded: “Fakeproof” passports
I love stories like this: British authorities touted the safety and security of their “e-passport,” effectively a passport with an embedded radio-frequency chip. Hacker-proof, they claimed. It was cracked, cloned, and altered within minutes. Minutes. Not even hours, much less days, or weeks. Minutes. The computer researcher proved his point by changing the data to make the passport appear to be Osama bin Laden’s, complete with passport photo. Just awesome. (Recall that, as posted a couple years ago, the easiest way to destroy the chip inside your passport, if you’re wary of RFID scanners stealing your personal information, is with a hammer.)

Downgraded: American Airlines upgrades
A downgraded upgrade? Indeed. American recently rolled out copayment fees for many of its upgrade awards. See the changes on the award chart here. More evidence of the devaluation of miles, if you needed a reminder.

Upgraded: European booking war hilarity
Britain’s Thomson Holidays, part of the TUI Group, came under heat for offering vacation rentals in Greece or Turkey for £14 a week. At £2 a night, that’s some cheap sleeps. Why was this problematic? Competitors complained that Thomson was changing customer expectations, causing travelers to hold out and wait for the rock-bottom room rate, instead of booking early. Sounds like crybaby talk to me.

Upgraded: Alliance dalliance
It’s not really a surprise, given the urge to merge that’s rampant in aviation today, but American Airlines, British Airways, and Iberia are looking to link up. They’re already alliance partners within Oneworld, and this isn’t a merger (yet), but the three airlines are trying to get antitrust immunity, so they can collude and set fares together. There’s really no benefit to consumers in this, especially if you fly between London and the United States. AA and BA dominate those routes, and the companies want to expand their price-setting power.

Upgraded: Google Maps’ sense of humor
Remember how Google Maps gave directions from the U.S. to Europe which included the instruction to swim across the Atlantic? Those jokesters recently did it again, suggesting you kayak across the Pacific Ocean. (They took it down, alas.)

Upgraded: Your chance to speak your mind on aircraft interiors
Friend of the blog Addison Schonland is doing some market research on aircraft interiors, and what you want to see inside those aluminum tubes. Take his poll, which will hopefully filter through to airline designers and execs attending the Aircraft Interiors Expo show next month.

Upgraded: Stormy weather
Priceline is once again rolling out a cute promotion, which promises to pay the cost of your vacation package if your trip is rained out, through November 16, 2008. The “Sunshine Guarantee” kicks in if a half inch of measured rainfall is present on HALF of the days of your trip. That’s a lot of rain, so don’t count on any payout. Kerala monsoon holiday, anyone?

Thousands of travelers opened their hotel room doors this morning to find a USA Today headline announcing that fliers who had failed to show identification at TSA checkpoints at US airports found themselves on a TSA “list” – “a database of people who violated security laws or were questioned for suspicious behavior.”

The TSA began storing the information in late June, tracking many people who said they had forgotten their driver’s license or passport at home. The database has 16,500 records of such people and is open to law enforcement agencies, according to the TSA.

Asked about the program, TSA chief Kip Hawley told USA TODAY in an interview Tuesday that the information helps track potential terrorists who may be “probing the system” by trying to get though checkpoints at various airports.

Subsequently, TSA Director Kip Hawley announced that any such tracking would cease. But the fact that this was even a possibility is cause for concern, and damages the TSA’s credibility even more.

But wait: The TSA’s own blog goes one further, denouncing the USA Today report and its conclusions:

An August 13 USA Today article overstated the Transportation Security Administration’s interest in passengers who come to airport checkpoints without identification but cooperate in establishing their identity. The story gives the public the impression they might be put on a “list” if they forget their ID. That is false.

Passengers whose identity is confirmed will not be added to any watch list or face additional scrutiny during future checkpoint visits.

Alrighty then. But how are identities “established” when you don’t have identification, either out of principle or because you lost your wallet? You used to be able to simply submit to supplemental screening and be done with it. In fact, that was confirmed in writing by the TSA in a 2007 letter to Senator John Warner. But that’s no longer the case. Wired’s Threat Level has the skinny:

Now, those who left their license at home or had it stolen have to answer a series of questions relayed to the screener by employees in TSA’s operations center in Virginia, where employees have access to databases of public records, including those compiled by data giant Lexis Nexis.

The idea is for screeners to know that the person holding a boarding pass in the name of Buster Brown, actually is that person. For travellers without ID, they better hope that the notoriously inaccurate private dossiers about them are correct.

The process of comparing answers to public records already caused a flare-up after one traveler was asked whether he was registered as a Democrat or a Republican, which TSA spokesman Christopher White called a “day one mistake,” where a TSA employee looked at the available public records and asked a question off of the information in the files compiled by Lexis Nexis and others.

Another traveler recently reported that officials looked at the tax returns she was carrying with her, that the screeners had the Ohio DMV pull up her photo and that she was asked questions about her family, according to a story from the Lawrence Journal World.

The DMV photo detail struck TSA’s White as odd, saying that he didn’t believe the TSA had access to that data and that there were “much less invasive ways to verify identification.”

Even if the DMV photo anecdotes were false — and we have no real reason to believe they aren’t true — the fact that you’re now required to answer 20 questions about your personal life is disturbing. What does this have to do with airplane safety, exactly?

The TSA has yet to provide an adequate explanation for how checking identification actually enhances security. Yes, there are some bad people who want to blow up planes. But if you actually search them before letting them onboard, then they should be able to walk into the airport carrying a Mickey Mouse Club membership card and a smile and that should be that. Cockpit doors are locked, pilots have guns, and passengers aren’t about to take crap in the sky. But you’ll never get a straight answer out of TSA for why ID checks are necessary for domestic travelers. Instead, this is what you’ll get:

When it comes to security, identity matters. Positively identifying passengers is a critical tool in TSA’s multi-layered approach to security and one that has been bolstered significantly during the past 18 months. On June 21 enhanced identification requirements went into effect and passengers now have to be positively identified before proceeding past the checkpoint. This makes sense because our law enforcement and intelligence partners go to great lengths to identify people planning attacks on aircraft. It is our obligation to stop them once they have been identified.

Bolstered significantly during the past 18 months, how? Calling something critical doesn’t make it so. Evidence does. What evidence do we have that keeping individuals — who would presumably have passed security screening — off planes has increased security?

Some have even argued that identifying potential baddies on the no-fly list is counterproductive — that doing so makes clear to the potential perpetrators that the feds are onto their scheme. Better to let them fly, by that logic, and keep up the surveillance.

Either way, the system is broken. TSA uses the fearmongering language of “security” to justify intrusions into our personal lives, and then cries foul when they get called on it. I hope and pray that Inauguration Day 2009 will lead to changes.

Related:
- Security update: Shorter no-fly lists; air cargo won’t be screened, “for your safety”
- Your laptop is a suitcase: How the U.S. government is searching computers, phones, and other electronics at the border
- A handy guide for luggage inspectors
- TSA wants to know who’s flying 72 hours beforehand
- Your shoes remain a threat to security
- Would you pay a fee to reserve a time to pass through airport security?
- Dangerous shirts see their day in court
- The TSA: New uniforms, new rules!

(image)

I’ve been in South Carolina these past few days. When the Lundberg Survey of gasoline prices in the United States comes out, South Carolina is often near the bottom. (Tulsa, Oklahoma was last week’s winner.) But falling oil prices plus lower taxation/distribution costs make fuel cheap here. ($3.49 is the lowest I’ve seen.) These low gas prices got me thinking:

With fuel prices dipping lower, the primary justification for the airlines’ litany of fees and customer-unfriendly policy changes is melting away. Every airline CEO has blamed fuel prices for the need to nickel-and-dime the self-loading cargo known as “passengers.” But with oil entering a bear market (a 20% correction from its peak), will we see some of those fees rolled back?

Ok, stop laughing.

Believe it or not, in the past, airlines actually have lowered fuel surcharges when the cost of oil has dropped. But those are fuel surcharges. Not the ticket-change fees, baggage fees, or pillow-and-blanket fees.

Yes, airlines have been posting losses for longer than oil was at its peak, so they’ve got some catching up to do with fees, in order to balance the books. And yes, lower fares plus higher fees will suck more people in to buying their product, unwittingly paying more than they shelled out at first. So, from the airline’s perspective, fees are a way to maintain demand and shore up the balance sheet. I get it. But the airline PR logic of “high fuel = more fees” is, on its own, dishonest.

If airlines had simply increased fares or added fuel surcharges, they could have rolled them back readily when prices dropped. But that was clearly never the intention. These fees are pure opportunism, using fuel as an excuse.

When airlines started tacking on checked-baggage fees, thousands groaned in anticipation of the battle of the bins they knew was coming. With people avoiding checked luggage, there would be more carry-ons, making it harder and harder to get your carry-on in the overhead compartments. Which, in turn, makes early boarding — an elite-level perk — more and more important.

While airline management has been blasé about the effects of increased carry-ons, I’m wondering if planes are boarding more slowly, with takeoffs delayed as flight attendants shuffle and reshuffle bags to make them fit.

My wife just completed a trip on a split itinerary: outbound on US Airways, inbound on Delta. Plane sizes were comparable (e.g., 737-400 vs. 737-800) and flights were equally full.

But she noticed a difference. Her observation (admittedly not a systematic analysis… n=1) was that the US Airways flight boarded much more slowly than the Delta flight. US Airways, of course, has a fee for the first checked bag. Delta only charges for the second checked bag (but charges $50 for that bag). US Airways passengers each had a sizable carry-on, while many Delta passengers didn’t. Boarding and deplaning were both slowed down on the US Airways flight. The Delta flight loaded and unloaded faster, with less mayhem.

If this pattern really were to pan out across the board, then airlines could be hurting their turn-times — the time between the plane’s arrival and subsequent departure — with the checked-baggage fees. Are the cost savings from paying fewer baggage handlers (not to mention the fees collected) exceeding the cost of delays?

Regardless: What’s YOUR sense of the boarding process on airlines with checked-luggage fees? Have you noticed a difference in speed since the fees are were put in place? Have flights been delayed because of luggage? Vote, and hit the comments.

(Reading this on the RSS feed or via e-mail? Click here to vote and/or comment.)

I happened across this the other night, and of course it’s already on YouTube… It’s a (charitable) five-minute documentary clip from the pun-filled show “How it’s Made,” on how airline meals are concocted.

So would you pay $39 for this, having seen it made?

I’m all for inflight wi-fi. Granted, I have an internet addiction and giving me inflight wi-fi is like handing a bottle of Jim Beam to an alcoholic. But I’ll feed the need for the time being and praise Delta’s recent announcement that they’d be rolling out inflight wi-fi across their domestic fleet.

Delta is joining with Aircell®, a 17-year leader in airborne communications for business and commercial aviation, to install the company’s Mobile Broadband Network on the carrier’s domestic fleet. The system, Gogo™, will enable Delta customers traveling with Wi-Fi enabled devices, such as laptops, smartphones and PDAs, to access the Internet, corporate VPNs, corporate and personal e-mail accounts, as well as SMS texting and instant messaging services. Gogo will be available to customers for a flat fee of $9.95 on flights of three hours or less, and $12.95 on flights of more than three hours.

Sounds good to me. And according to the Gogo site, and confirmed by Scott McCartney, voice calls, such as Skype, will be blocked. I like.

But there are two caveats:

1) Power. No inflight internet is worthwhile if you run out of juice. Will Delta be installing power ports on every flight? Unlike, say, Virgin America, Delta doesn’t have power at every seat. And their announcement doesn’t suggest they’ll be installing it. While installing wifi can be done overnight, adding power takes a lot more effort, time, and weight. In the meantime: Buy a spare battery.

2) Space. If you’re going to open up a laptop, you need room. If someone pushes their seat back, your screen can get jammed into place in the laptop squeeze. Either you’ll need to negotiate with the person in front of you, to prevent them from reclining, or airlines need to add seat pitch to each row. Good luck with the latter.

All in all, I’m happy to hear that Delta is rolling this out, and doing it so aggressively. I’d love to see power, too, but I’m not optimistic. By the end of 2008, 75 planes (starting with MD-88s) will be slated for the upgrade. By the end of 2009, 300 planes should have it. That’s much faster than the JetBlue or American beta-tests.

Related:
- Inflight internet update: Southwest blocks Skype, Continental (hearts) Blackberry
- Feed the Internet addiction: American Airlines will roll out high-speed inflight wi-fi next year
- It’s official: Boeing pulling the plug on its inflight internet service, Connexion

(image)

United just launched a program called Award Accelerator, giving you, the lucky consumer, the chance to pay an extra fee in order to earn double or even triple miles on your flight. But is it worth it? Let’s do the math.

This is similar to Northwest’s “supersizing” promotion.

Northwest gave 1000 extra miles for an extra $20 fee. United, on the other hand, has a sliding scale, based on the distance flown. From their press release:

From To Miles Flown Award Accelerator
miles* (USD)

Chicago Cleveland 316 Double Miles: $9
Triple Miles: $19

Chicago Orange County 1,726 Double Miles: $52
Triple Miles: $104

Washington, D.C. London Heathrow 3,677 Double Miles: $110
Triple Miles: $221

Los Angeles Sydney, Australia 7,483 Double Miles: $224
Triple Miles: $449

*Prices subject to change without notice. Based on one-way option.

In each of these examples, the fee for the extra miles is effectively 3 cents per mile. That’s expensive. While that would be a decent rate when redeeming miles, you generally shouldn’t be paying that kind of bank for something that you might not be able to redeem for equal or greater value.

3 cpm is slightly less than United’s “BuyMiles” program — which I could swear used to be cheaper. The rate there is 3.225 cents per mile, plus a $35 fee.

So, in comparison to buying miles, the “accelerator” program is a discount, but that still doesn’t mean it’s a good deal. It’s getting harder and harder to cash in United miles, after all, so I wouldn’t spend any extra money to collect more of them.

Granted, this is a clever marketing campaign. But it’s in their interest, not yours. If you’re within 1000 miles or so of a great award, then sure, spend the 10-spot and top your account up. But stay away from “accelerating” long flights.

Related:
- The value of frequent flyer miles
- Reader mail: Is it worth $20 to get 1000 bonus miles?
- Is a new frequent-flyer point exchange a great opportunity or a new ripoff?
- Should you put all your miles in one program?
- Whose miles are worth the most: What does the black market tell us?

Reader Mark, who just flew US Airways and experienced firsthand how a small bottle of water now costs $2, reports that passengers are none too happy about having to pay for soft drinks. He sends in this anecdote:

I sat next to an off duty flight attendant and she told me people are rebelling by only paying with $20’s. Since they have no change, the flight attendants end up comping the drinks. Unique, at least…

Ouch. Exact change is even more appreciated now, I bet.

I feel bad for the flight attendants who have to enact the policy and deal with surly (or wise-ass) passengers. And having to explain to management why the till is empty has to be no fun, either, just another layer of hassle for the already beaten-up and subsequently disaffected inflight staff.

But I admire the passengers’ spunk!

(And yes, I’m sure the airlines that haven’t yet rolled out card-swipe machines for buy-on-board will unveil them soon enough, so work the system while you can.)

(image)

It’s a long flight, say, from Washington to Tokyo. About 14 hours trapped on a plane. About two meals and a snack. So how much would you pay to eat airline food? $7? $24? Maybe even $39? That’s the question United is asking its customers as it contemplates charging for all meals in international coach.

The airline sent the survey to many of its frequent flyers, and it focuses on international flying, not domestic. (Want to take the survey yourself? Start here.) (UPDATE: The poll is now closed, having “reached the desired number of completions.”)

Economy meals on international flights have been “complimentary,” i.e., included in the base fare, forever. But in today’s let’s-use-the-price-of-oil-as-an-excuse-to-start-charging-fees-for-everything-that’s-not-bolted-down world, airlines see a window of opportunity to screw their coach customers some more.

Remember when United was framing itself as a “premium” American carrier? So much for that.

The food options United wants you to consider paying for are pictured below. “Gourmet” salads. “Premium” sandwiches. “Current” economy meals…

Isn’t it nice how the sandwich and salad are styled and plated — good luck getting china and glassware in coach — while the current inflight meal is just pictured realistically in a plastic tray? Wouldn’t want to bias the survey sample, would we…

(As a bonus, the image they use in the survey for their current inflight coach meal is a user photo from flickr.com. I thought it looked familiar. In fact, I used the same photo a year ago here.)

United is clearly trying to gauge customer willingness to put up with this sort of nickel-and-diming. And they’re trying to get a sense of just how much those willing to put up with this are willing to take. The survey has a price-discovery component: Here are the prices I was asked to consider:

$39? Yowza. But two survey respondents in a row would get two very different suggested prices to consider. For example, the price for the current coach meal comes up at $12, $16, or even $24. Salads ranged from as low as $7 to as high as $24.

$24 salads (or $19, or $16…) are laughable. $24 for the current complimentary meal is an insult. And do you trust United to actually assemble a “restaurant quality” meal at 41,000 feet?

Look, long-haul international flying is not like domestic flying, both in terms of duration, and in terms of competition. People need to eat, and with carry-on limits, we can’t all bring along a movable feast.

But beyond that, United needs to remember that not every airline is racing toward the bottom like they are. If anything, there are some quality airlines out there — outside the U.S., mostly — which actually know a little something about customer service. If United were to implement this sort of pricing, I would encourage everyone to pursue alternate carriers. You could even stick within the Star Alliance — Lufthansa, ANA, Asiana, Singapore, to name a few… — if you need to keep status or earn miles.

As I’ve said again and again, this a-la-carte pricing model is going out of control, and is making it harder and harder to make price comparisons. Paying for food only adds another layer to the onion.

Take United’s poll (Update: now closed), and let them know how you feel. Your opinion may not stop this from happening: The phrasing suggests that it’s coming, and it’s only a matter of which items, and at which price.

But remember, you can “respond” in the most important way possible: With your pocketbook.

Thanks to reader Patrick for the heads-up, and for pointing me toward this FlyerTalk thread for more datapoints!