easyJet's in-flight weddings won't be taking off

photo courtesy easyJet

Those of you looking forward to getting married mid-air will have to wait; easyJet's request earlier this month to have its pilots be authorized to wed couples in flight was turned down. The Luton, UK-based low-cost airline, one of Europe's largest, claimed that it received many requests from couples seeking to tie the knot on board, and was aiming to be the first airline to offer in-flight weddings. But the Luton Borough Council axed the proposal, saying that "current law does not permit a civil marriage or civil partnership taking place on board an aircraft... But we would be happy to consider licensing easyJet's ground facilities at London Luton Airport.”

easyJet's Andrew McConnell was less than pleased with the outcome. "We are of course very disappointed by this news. It would appear that faceless bureaucrats in windowless offices have scuppered the dreams of many who wished to get married in the air."

Read More

Virgin Atlantic posts profit, but can it last?

photo courtesy Virgin Atlantic

Only a few days after arch rival British Airways posted a record loss, Virgin Atlantic Airlines announced some surprising news this week: it made a profit for the 2009 fiscal year. Even more surprisingly, pre-tax profits doubled from £34.8 million to £68.4 million ($109.3 million). And to rub it in even more to British Airways, Virgin claims that the increase in profits came from an increase in premium passengers, a demographic that BA is particularly reliant upon. Because price-cutting, Virgin was able to keep load factors in its first and business class seats solid. "We are winning market share from our competitors during the toughest trading environment ever," said CEO Steve Ridgway. "Our load factors remain resilient as travelers take advantage of these bargain fares, proving the value of vigorous competition."

But Virgin's reported recent financial success isn't as simple as just an increase in passengers. Virgin Atlantic locked in its fuel prices two years ago, meaning that the airline didn't have to deal with the steep rise in prices that occurred last year. And Virgin Atlantic, unlike most of its competitors, isn't publicly listed, meaning that it doesn't have to disclose detailed financial information. The Times' Ian King notes that Virgin released the numbers two months earlier than they did last year, which "raises the suspicion that their release has been timed not only to embarrass the old enemy but also to emphasize the airline’s strength to the trade at a time when the battle for corporate clients is more ferocious than ever."

While Virgin might be in a comparatively good spot right now, especially when viewed in light of British Airways' abysmal financial performance, they might not be able to keep it up for much longer. The transatlantic price war that Virgin is taking part in has started to take a toll on profits, and the state of the industry as a whole isn't solid (as Virgin's CEO has admitted). Check back in a couple of months - I'm sure that we'll see a much more subdued financial announcement from Virgin Atlantic then.

Read More

Long-haul a loser for SAS

photo courtesy SAS

Intercontinental (or 'long-haul') routes account for 12.7% of sales at Scandinavian Airlines, but account for almost a whopping 50% of their losses, according to a boarding.no article. The recent economic downturn, which has seen a slump in business travelers, has only made a bad situation worse for SAS. "Half of our most recent quarterly deficit of one billion Swedish kronor [comes] from our inter-continental business," said CEO Mats Jansson in a takeoff.dk article.

This is really serious - if the long-haul routes only account for less than 13% of sales but half of the losses, then something needs to be done. A couple of factors are at work here. One is that the planes that they're flying - the A330 and A340 - aren't flying full. SAS might consider upgrading its inflight service product (it really isn't anything special). Right now SAS offers a "low-cost" service for high prices; it should try to do the opposite. In other words, "we need to look at costs," as CEO Jansson said. That's difficult when Denmark, Norway and Sweden have some of the highest average wage rates in the world. Not to mention, SAS has a fleet that could be euphemistically labeled "diverse"; it needs to simplify. After all, how much sense does it make to fly the A321 next to the 737-800? (It should be pointed out that the MD-80 fleet will be gone by 2010.)

Another problem that Scandinavian faces is that there really isn't much originating and departing traffic at its main international hub in Copenhagen, which is similar to other European cities such as Madrid, Dublin, and Lisbon in that they're large enough to support non-stop service to a few international destinations, but not large enough to become a big international hub. London and Paris, on the other hand, have sufficient O&D traffic to ensure that they're successful international hubs. That said, SAS has the potential to transform Copenhagen into a relatively successful international hub. It might not be able to be anything on the scale of Lufthansa's Frankfurt or even KLM's Amsterdam, but it could promote Copenhagen as a less-congested way to connect from, say, North America to Asia. But a handful more of destinations from Copenhagen might be a good idea (right now Chicago, New York, Washington, Tokyo, Beijing, and Bangkok are the only long-haul routes flown from Copenhagen; Seattle is currently flown as well but will be dropped later this year).

And SAS should also consider flying a handful of international routes from Oslo, which it has neglected in terms of long-haul flights, and increase service from Stockholm (at present, only Chicago and Newark are served). They should probably be able to get enough traffic for some of these to justify point-to-point service.

Read More

After Skybus, there's JetAmerica

photo courtesy JetAmerica

No, this isn't the original JetAmerica Airlines, which operated a bunch of MD-80s out of Long Beach in the 1980s until it was bought by Alaska Airlines. This is a brand-new start up public charter carrier flying one wet-leased Boeing 737-800 from Miami Air International between cities like Lansing, Michigan and South Bend, Indiana from its base in Toledo, Ohio.

Sound familiar? Well, Toledo is just halfway across the state from Columbus, the home of the infamous Skybus, which went bust less than a year after it started flying. And Skybus' famous limited $10 fares are awfully similar to JetAmerica's $9 fares, although only a certain number of seats (9 to 19) on a flight will be at that price.

So, will JetAmerica (sometimes spelled Jet America) survive? The concept of the ultra-low-fare carrier (where pretty much everything carries its own fee) hasn't really taken off in the US. Sure, carriers like Spirit and Allegiant have managed to make the model work, but these airlines fly mostly vacation travelers to and from Florida and Las Vegas. JetAmerica might suffer because Toledo certainly doesn't have a lot of originating and departing traffic - something that helped contribute to Skybus' demise.

Yet JetAmerica is also being heavily subsidized by some of the airports that it flies to; Melbourne, Florida, Toledo, Lansing and South Bend airports are all giving JetAmerica $1.4 million in grants for a year, not to mention $1.1 million in marketing help and $867,000 in waived fees. These subsidies can help the airline weather any spikes in oil prices, but at the moment, oil prices are relatively low (sky-high oil prices helped to take down Skybus). And CEO John Weikle claims that JetAmerica's goal is to make money along the same lines as Allegiant, by "stay[ing] away from the competition."

Read More

S7 Airlines to join oneworld alliance

photo courtesy S7

Russian carrier S7 (formerly known as Siberian Airlines) has announced today that it will officially join the oneworld alliance next year. British Airways has 'sponsored' the airline, which is Russia's largest domestic airline and a large player on international routes, too. S7 recently switched to an all-Western built fleet (no more smoky Russian jets) and is quickly expanding. Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airways, released a boilerplate statement with the usual "S7 is a perfect fit for oneworld," etc., etc., but also said that "oneworld's priority is the quality rather than quantity of member airlines." That's probably a subtle dig at oneworld rival Star Alliance, which is at least twice as large in terms of number of airlines. But perhaps when it comes to Russia, Walsh needn't be worried. The S7 announcement leaves Star as the only alliance without a significant presence in Russia (Aeroflot is a member of SkyTeam).

And speaking of Star, Greek carrier Aegean Airlines will become a full member of the alliance next year.

Read More

Delta CEO: Goal of no layoffs

photo by sainz

Here's an interesting paragraph from an article in yesterday's Atlanta Business Chronicle:

Anderson credited employee for hard work despite an adverse economy, and said the carrier retains the goal of having no frontline layoffs. Delta and Northwest have offered buyout and early retirement packages to thousands over the past year, and officials have said 2,500 employees will leave the combined carrier after the busy summer travel season. “We just have to do our very best and work very hard,” Anderson said.

That's right! No 'frontline' layoffs at Delta, according to the CEO - except that that doesn't include Delta's wholly-owned regional subsidiary Comair, which has cut jobs through 'attrition' this past February. So, no layoffs? Well, maybe if you work for Delta mainline, but if you don't...

Read More

British Airways posts record loss

photo by lrargerich

British Airways today posted the largest loss since it was privatized in 1987, and CEO Willie Walsh warned that he sees "no signs of recovery anywhere." "I'm 30 years in this business and I've never seen anything like this. This is by far the biggest crisis the industry has ever faced," he told CNN. The airline halted its dividend and Walsh announced that he would work without pay in July: "This is no stunt. I want to make a contribution in recognition of the extremely challenging position we face."

BA's posted a net loss of £375 million ($594.6 million) for the 12 months that ended on March 31, only a year after posting a record £712 million profit a year before. Its operating loss of £220 million was compared to year-ago results of £878 million in profit. BA's full year fuel costs are near £3 billion - something that Walsh pinned the loss on, along with "reduced passenger and cargo demand."

While the news of the huge loss is certainly surprising, especially in light of the fact that the airline posted record profits only last year, it wasn't altogether unexpected. BA has long been dominant in flying 'premium' passengers; some have argued that it was the airline that really made business class popular. The number of premium passengers that it flew dropped 13%, and while this number isn't far from the industry average, BA has more exposure to the premium market than other airlines; as such, it is adversely affected by the double-digit drop even more.

This has meant that, over the past year, the airline has had to put volume over yields. In other words, instead of focusing on 'profit per seat' figures that are boosted by premium-paying passengers ('yield'), it's focusing on filling seats, even if those passengers filling seats are paying less. "We're now saying it's getting that balance between yield and volume so it's more a focus on volume than it has been," said Walsh, who believes that going after increased market share "is sustainable in the long term and will be profitable."

BA also announced that it is still ordering the Boeing 777-300ER for delivery between 2010-12, the same time that its remaining Boeing 757-200s will leave the fleet and be replaced by aircraft in the Airbus A320 family. But BA will slash capacity by 4% next winter to reflect the lowered demand for travel as it parks 16 aircraft.

Read More

Air France and Delta finalize joint venture

A Boeing 777 in Air France's new livery. Photo courtesy Air France

Air France/KLM and Delta yesterday put the finishing touches on a $12 billion-a-year joint venture deal that would allow them to operate as a single carrier on North Atlantic routes. The pact extends a previous joint venture that KLM and Northwest have had since 1997. Air France merged with KLM in 2004, and Delta recently took over Northwest, allowing for a four-way alliance (all are already members of the SkyTeam alliance).

The deal is a revenue- and profit-sharing venture, and will have antitrust immunity (something that American and British Airways are seeking right now). It affects more than 200 daily transatlantic flights to over 400 destinations in Europe and North America, or around 27% of total trans-Atlantic capacity. It also allows them to more effectively combine operations. For example, if both Delta and Air France have a flight from New York to Paris, but both flights are only 1/3 full, they can be combined and flown on one aircraft. Marketing, pricing, and ticketing will also be shared, and these result in very impressive cost savings (about $150 million per airline).

As previously mentioned, American, Iberia and British Airways in the oneworld alliance and United, Lufthansa (and soon Continental) in the Star Alliance are working on similar deals. This means that airlines without an alliance affiliation - like Virgin Atlantic - might suffer as a result. And while this means that Air France and Delta are cooperating even more closely, they can't actually merge - under US law, a foreign company can't own more than 25% of a US airline, although this rule might end in the future.

Some slides from the Air France/Delta news conference in Paris on Wednesday:

Read More

Southwest to begin Milwaukee service

photo by YoLoPey

This morning, Southwest Airlines announced that it Milwaukee, Wisconsin would be the fourth addition to its route network this year, following Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York LaGuardia, and Boston. Apparently, Southwest has been adding these new destinations without adding any new aircraft to its fleet; instead, it's been trimming unpopular services and shuffling around resources. "As we have previously announced, we essentially slowed our 2009 and 2010 fleet growth to zero," said Southwest President and CEO Gary Kelly. "All of these new market opportunities are made possible without the addition of a single airplane by our continuous flight schedule optimization process."

Southwest starts flying to Milwaukee on November 1, and it will put the airline (which already has a formidable presence at Chicago's Midway airport) up against Milwaukee-based Midwest Airlines (formerly known as Midwest Express), which is partly owned by Northwest Airlines. While Northwest has been known to aggressively defend its turf against low-cost airlines, Southwest doesn't seem scared, having first started flying out of Minneapolis/St.Paul (a key Northwest hub) and now Milwaukee. AirTran also has a good number of flights out of Milwaukee and will have to compete as well.

But I think that Midwest is the airline that should really be concerned with this news. The airline has already retired a significant portion of its fleet and only has nine Boeing 717s left (the rest of its flying is outsourced to Republic and SkyWest as "Midwest Connect"), and if Southwest provides significant competition - which I expect it will - on routes out of Milwaukee, Midwest might not make it.

Read More

Finnair - 40 years ago

On May 15, 1969, Finnair inaugurated service to New York with the DC-8, and in honor of the 40th anniversary, here are a few interesting pictures from the time period (courtesy the Finnair AV Department - click to enlarge).

Finnair uniforms, newly designed in 1969.

Finnair pilots in front of a DC-8.

The Finnair 'space suit'.

The interior of Finnair's Manhattan office.

More uniforms.

Flight attendants in yet another uniform design, at the door of a DC-8

Read More

AA/BA alliance a "monster monopoly"?

photo by Jun Seita

Virgin Atlantic president Richard Branson has called upon the US Department of Transportation to reject a proposed alliance between American Airlines, British Airways and three other airlines, claiming that it would form a "monster monopoly" that would pose a serious threat to the survival of rival airlines and would mark the end of "red-hot competition."

In an address to the National Press Club in Washington last week, Branson warned that a tie-up would be "disastrous" for consumers, and highlighted the fact that American and British Airways, combined with their oneworld alliance partners, would control almost half of the takeoff and landing slots at London Heathrow. "It doesn’t make sense to encourage even less competition by allowing dominant carriers to increase their stranglehold by setting prices together and agreeing schedules," he said. "...Our arguments are as strong today as they were on the previous two occasions when BA and AA tried to merge. Their dominance has grown even further between then and now."

Under the proposed alliance, American, British Airways, Finnair, Iberia, and Royal Jordanian Airlines would receive antitrust immunity on transatlantic flights - something that has already been granted by the DOT to carriers in the rival SkyTeam and Star alliances. "This permission or antitrust immunity has already been granted to 10 airlines in Star and six in SkyTeam - including the recently merged and now world's largest airline Delta," said an American spokesperson, in an email to AFP, adding that the proposed alliance was "simply seeking to level the playing field."

But Branson predictably did not agree with this logic, stating: "I understand that it is tempting for regulators to say, 'We’ve given dispensation to one alliance, we should do likewise for others' as they’ve done previously. But they must resist temptation. Each anti-trust application must be considered on its merits and it’s clear that the application for a merger between BA and AA must be rejected."

Branson has lobbied against proposed two AA/BA tie-ups in the past (1997 and 2001), both of which failed due to regulatory concerns. American's argument that 'it's only fair that we get this too' certainly has credit to it, but the sticking point is likely to be Heathrow - the AA/BA presence there is already enormous. The DOT has six months to issue a ruling, so we'll just have to wait and see if Branson is successful in putting down a proposed AA/BA alliance for a third time.

Last month, former American CEO Robert Crandall said that "any objective observer would have to look very hard to find a way in which alliances have benefited consumers." He also believes that "airline alliances have been far more beneficial for international airlines than for US carriers, and for that reason alone, I think they should be disallowed." Interestingly, he also noted that if Star Alliance and SkyTeam are allowed their own antitrust agreements, "AA-BA should be permitted as well."

Read More

Virgin America's top 10 requested cities

photo by Johnny Vulkan

Virgin America recently released a list of the ten cities that are most requested for new VA service. The survey is still up, so if you don't see your preferred route listed below, you can still vote.

1. SFO- Chicago
2. SFO- Honolulu
3. SFO- Miami
4. LAX- Miami
5. SFO- Portland
6. LAX- Chicago
7. SFO- Phoenix
8. JFK- Miami
9. SFO- Denver
10. LAX- Portland

Many of these routes are currently flown only by a few legacy carriers. The San Francisco - Chicago and Los Angeles - Chicago routes, for example, are currently flown only by United and American. JFK - Miami is flown only by American and Delta, and American has a monopoly on the San Francisco - Miami and Los Angeles - Miami routes. Even though Virgin America would certainly be taking a risk by flying into the fortress hubs of legacy carriers (United in Chicago, American in Miami, etc.), their relatively premium product would probably attract quite a few unsatisfied AA and UA customers. Those are the routes (LAX-MIA, SFO-ORD) that would be best for Virgin America to fly, especially as they would avoid head-to-head competition with other low cost carriers (i.e. Frontier on SFO-DEN).

Read More

Lufthansa's bmi takeover drama continues

photo by Ingy The Wingy

Although the takeover of British carrier bmi (formerly known as British Midland Airways) by German airline Lufthansa was approved on Thursday by European Union antitrust authorities, the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung yesterday reported that Lufthansa is backing out of the deal, apparently after taking a closer look at bmi's rather precarious financial situation and deciding that the price would be too high.

bmi, which lost $151m in 2008, was 30% (minus one share) owned by Lufthansa, 20% by Scandinavian Airlines, and 50% (plus one share) by former British Midland chairman Sir Michael Bishop. Last October, Lufthansa announced that it would be acquiring Bishop's stake in bmi, meaning that the German carrier would be effectively controlling bmi.

bmi is one of the latest of Lufthansa's potential acquisitions; it already wholly owns Italian carrier Air Dolomiti, German low-cost carrier Germanwings, Swiss International Air Lines, Lufthansa Italia, and regional carriers Eurowings and Lufthansa CityLine, among others (it will wholly control Austrian Airlines pending approval by the EU later this year). It also owns significant stakes in bmi, Luxembourg's national airline Luxair, Belgian carrier Brussels Airlines, and jetBlue.

Read More

UPS retiring DC-8

photo by So Cal Metro

Another aircraft retirement took place recently as UPS operated its final DC-8 flight into Louisville, KY Tuesday morning, receiving a 'water cannon salute' from fire trucks. Last month, UPS decided to accelerate the retirement of its 44-strong DC-8 fleet as a cost-cutting measure; originally, the planes were due to be phased out by 2013. Most of the airline's DC-8s were around 40 years old, and it will certainly sad to see the type go. DC-8s have been absent from scheduled passenger aviation in the US for almost twenty years now; generally speaking, many older types of planes (DC-10s, 727s) often find new lives hauling packages after they're through hauling passengers.

Read More

Whatever happened to flying the friendly skies?

Editor's note: This is the first in a series of articles contributed by readers of The Airline Blog. If you have an airline-related article that you've written and would like to see it on The Airline Blog, please email it and it might be published! Please note that the opinions expressed in this article are of the author, and not necessarily those of The Airline Blog.

Whatever Happened to Flying the Friendly Skies?
by Sedef Onder

I have a confession: I’m a frequent traveler. By choice. Even in these days of predictable flight delays, less predictable baggage handling snafus, elimination of in-flight meals and snacks, and endless waits in long lines on the tarmac while flights takeoff or disembark passengers.

I make regular trips to the nation’s capital at least nine times a year. That’s a round trip air ticket, plus rental car for each visit (oh, and I’ve travelled to Washington, DC twice within the past three weeks). I’m a pretty regular customer for anyone whose paying attention.
Hertz is. Every time I bid on Priceline for a rental car at the airport in Washington Dulles, I get a nearly instantaneous reply from Hertz accepting my offer, virtually regardless of the amount bid. It’s turned me from an Enterprise-by-choice to a Hertz-by-choice customer. Not bad, considering how often I rent cars, including during holidays when they charge a premium.
I noted recently that Hertz’s Connect service offers hourly rentals in NY with rates as low as $8.50/hour, ala Zipcar and other competitors. Smart move, considering more and more consumers are reducing their carbon footprint through less reliance on cars, among other promising energy trends. For this, I applaud Hertz. Some brands get it. When the marketplace changes, and it always does, it’s critical to remain relevant and customer-focused. Innovation is essential, particularly these days.

Which is what makes me particularly baffled by the recent experience I had with Delta. Besides DC, I book at least another 5-6 trips annually; double that if you count travel by car. Recently, I bought round-trip air tickets on the Delta.com Website for the upcoming July 4th weekend. Only three days later, the fare was reduced by $100 total. On Orbitz and countless travel sites, for some time now, they guarantee your purchase at the lowest rate. They want to ensure you’re a satisfied customer; and they definitely want to provide a compelling reason to return and use their site the next time you’re booking travel. It’s a pretty simple formula for creating brand loyalty. What part of it does Delta not understand?

One might expect, as a customer, that you’d receive better treatment and select benefits by booking directly via a company’s Website over an aggregator site intended to sort and compare competing travel offers and rates by emphasizing lowest fees. It’s a market opportunity for airline brands to differentiate themselves and offer consumers advantages for choosing their brand over other options. Jet Blue gets it. They actually charge a $15 fee for booking on a site other than theirs. They also charge nothing to have an existing ticket re-issued at a lower available fare.

And like Hertz, Jet Blue is an innovator. Their Jet Blue Promise Program is a policy that refunds flights or vacation packages in full to anyone whose been laid off recently since making travel plans. How’s that for counteracting the “uncertain” for those unfortunate enough to experience difficulty during these uncertain times. You can call it recession marketing, as some have. Or, I prefer to attribute it to Jet Blue’s exceptional customer focus, which has always been core to its brand experience.

Despite the economic downturn, I’m planning to keep up my aggressive travel and flight schedule. I figure I’m a catch, and a keeper, by anyone’s standards for customers these days. I think I’ll pass on Delta from now on. Jet Blue...or anyone else, are you listening?

Read More

Air New Zealand staff bare all for TV ad

A recent Air New Zealand advertisement has ANZ employees - including CEO Rob Fyfe - wearing body painted uniforms. It's part of the airline's campaign to differentiate itself against 'budget' airlines with 'miscellaneous' fees (i.e. drinks and checked bags) - ANZ claims that when it comes to fees, it has "nothing to hide."

Edit: Sorry for the oversized video screen - I can't seem to figure out how to make it regular size. To view it without the text in front, just click on the "full screen" icon.

Read More

Airbus slows A380 output

photo by NguyenDai

Airbus unsurprisingly announced that it would lower the amount of A380 aircraft it produced this year to 14, down from 18. Originally, the company had planned to increase production this year compared with last (and still is expected to deliver 20 next year), but the weakened economy and recent scare over swine flu has had an impact on travel demand, causing airlines to defer/delay some aircraft deliveries. IATA has estimated that air traffic, which started declining back in September, fell by 11% in March. (The figures for April will be released soon.)

It's only the latest bump in the A380 program, which has not only seen cost overruns (development spending is now at $18 billion, up from the originally planned figure of $12 billion) but also substantial delays. Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Air France are expected to be among the airlines that take delivery of A380s this year. And Airbus is also scaling back production of other models, too - a move that competitors Boeing and Embraer have also followed.

Read More

AirTran's CEO says airline can remain profitable

photo by James Willamor

Robert Fornaro, AirTran's CEO, was recently interviewed by the Associated Press. He mentioned how the airline had faced a troubling time last year when oil prices shot up. But in the first quarter of 2009, despite a weak economy and lowered travel demand, AirTran managed to post a profit. I'll post a clip from the interview at the end of this post, and more can be read in the original article, but here are some interesting points:

• He doesn't see further consolidation, at least for a while: " Clearly we've seen Northwest and Delta come together, but I'm not sure we're going to see another merger over the next two or three years. The financial condition of the carriers now is weak, and there's probably some real big issues that need to be resolved with the labor contracts."
• Even though AirTran attempted a hostile takeover of Midwest Airlines a few years ago, Fornaro (who has been in the top job for a year) is moving away from acquisitions: "We now feel that we can be much more successful going in on our own. Over the next two years, thinking about acquisitions will be very very low on our priority list."
• How did AirTran responded to the economic crisis? "We stepped back, we reassessed our operation, we adjusted our capacity and obviously managed our costs and have very quickly rebounded."
  

Read More

Canadian airlines create passenger bill of rights

photo by caribb

Canadian carriers Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, Air Transat, and WestJet have come up with new legally binding operating rules, or "airline tariffs," that give passengers more options if their flight is delayed or canceled. As part of the new set of rules, the four airlines must:

• Distribute meal vouchers for delays of four hours or longer
• Let passengers off the aircraft if the plane is delayed on the ground for more than 90 minutes
• Pay for hotel rooms for passengers affected by overnight delays or cancelations

Not bad - if I was a delayed or stranded passenger, I'd say that those rules are a pretty good improvement. But the four airlines, which have formed a lobby group known as the National Airlines Council of Canada, aren't exactly doing this unprovoked, however. A Canadian MP proposed a bill that would fine airlines $1200 per traveler who was bumped off of a flight longer than 3500km (about 2175 miles). Airlines would also have to start giving $500 an hour to passengers stuck on a plane on the ground for more than 60 minutes after the doors close.

Naturally, the airlines are keen to avoid having to pay such exorbitant fines, and are thus rolling out their own "bill of rights" in advance. And it's doubtful whether the proposed bill would actually pass; as the lobby group's president stated: "The compensation requirements are grossly punitive and do not recognize the cost/revenue environment that air carriers face today. In the current economic downturn, airlines are already struggling to provide service to their customers." The fines outlined in the proposed bill do seem rather "grossly punitive"; but at the same time, passengers who are stuck for hours on a plane on the tarmac should be compensated fairly. The National Airlines Council of Canada is proof that even if it takes the threat of a harsh bill to do it, airlines still have the capability to ensure that their customers are compensated in a fair manner.

Read More