Airline fees: We gripe, we moan, we ultimately pay.

The recent news that Frontier Airlines has joined Spirit and Allegiant in charging all kinds of fees was not as surprising as it was inevitable.  As these "discount" airlines continue to add on new fees their profitability surges and more and more fliers choose them because of their low base fares.

The Huffington Post article linked above notes that, so far, the majors have no plans to start charging for things like carry-on bags (placed in the overhead bin) sodas and bottled water, as more and more fliers choose to move their business to the fee-heavy carriers, and their bottom line reflects the increased revenue positively, the days of the bundled ticketing model will be coming to an end.

Bundled ticketing will end despite the hue and cry from the fliers that it shouldn't, that somehow a rock-bottom ticket price should also include premium level service of the type that people experienced in the "good old days".  Wishful thinking of this type ignores two key points: 1.) In the "good old days" airfare was cost prohibitive to all but the wealthy. 2.) Passengers today have revealed themselves to be very price sensitive.

For all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding Spirit Airlines (much deserved, it is a terrible airline) there are a surprisingly large number of people who fly with them religiously.  These committed customers do not choose Spirit because they receive good service, or because of the amenities they offer, they do so because a Spirit ticket is, quite often, listed at around $100 less than comparative tickets from other airlines. 

Don't believe me?  Do a simple ITA Matrix search from any two airports Spirit services.  As a sample fare I chose IAH to Orlando leaving July 9th (a Wednesday) returning July 14th (A Tuesday).  These are two of the lowest cost days of travel within the week.  The results?

Spirit is the winner on fares, but what about when it comes to adding in fees?
(for this example it's assumed that all fares were purchased equally. i.e. without the benefit of a branded card)

Spirit:

Fare: $275
Carry on bag fee: $21
Checked bag fee: $26 (assumes one checked bag per person.)
Seat Fee: $25 (The listed rate is $1-$50, I'm cutting it down the middle)
Refreshments: $3.00 (a bottle of water)

Total Spirit charge (per ticket): $350.00 per ticket

American:

Fare: $323
Checked bag fee: $25

Total American Charge: $348/Ticket

United:

Fare: $415
Checked bag fee: $25

Total United Charge: $440

Now, clearly, you can avoid some charges with American and United by purchasing your itinerary with their co-branded credit cards.  How many casual travelers will do that however?  It's also easy to say that Spirit and American are about the same so you should fly American.  This discounts the fact that you have to make a connection with AA, while Spirit's flight is non-stop.  If anything the most direct comparison is with United, and Spirit is a full $90.00 LESS than the airline that calls IAH it's hub.

Given these choices which do you think a family of four is going to select?

If you guessed Spirit, you're probably going to be correct.

And that's the problem with customer surveys which say that "85% of customers dislike paying airline fees".  Of course they dislike it, but there's a very small additional cost that people are willing to pay to ignore those fees, select their own seat in steerage and sit in a seat that reclines ever so slightly.

In a previous post on United's financial worries I stated that SlimLine seats, as uncomfortable as they are, will be the future for all Coach seating. I also think, once the consumer votes with their pocket book, that unbundled fares will be the norm as well.  Whether or not people complain they will (almost) always choose the option that offers the lowest cost and the fewest connections, this is doubly true if they have children.

We can complain and gripe as consumers about airline fees all we want, but until the airlines find a fee that results in significantly reduced ridership (I'm not even sure what that would be at this point) then we're going to find them here to stay.

Brown urges court to legislate from bench (HIS way of course)

In 2009 Annise Parker won election to her first term over four competitors including one former City Councilman Peter Brown. At the time, blogging at the lightly lamented Lose an Eye, It's a Sport, I suggested that Houston could do a lot worse than Controller Parker and predicted she would win.  Since then, Parker has proven to have a tin-ear when it comes to fiscal issues, has shown a tendency to carry out political vendettas, and has proven that her promise to "not be a gay activist" was only campaign rhetoric. In the interim she nullified a long-standing agreement between United/Continental and the City regarding the City's airports, and pushed for a city ordinance regarding city benefits for GLBT spouses shortly before she married her own partner.*

To sum up, Parker has been worse than the Mayor I thought she could be but was still probably the best choice in the 2009 race. A 2013 re-match with former Houston City Attorney Gene Locke proved him to be bereft of ideas, Roy Morales has proven himself to not be an overly serious candidate for anything and as for Peter Brown?

Ashby filings, formal and familiar, suggest the debate is far from settled. Erin Mulvaney, HoustonChronicle.com

This is behind the Chron's paywall so I'm going to quote sparingly, please go read the entire thing (if you can) for the full story.

Peter Brown, director of Better Houston, a nonprofit urban planning group, sent a letter to the court also. In the letter, Brown, who was on City Council from 2006 to 2010, also sided with the residents.

"A ruling in favor of the developers in this case would perpetuate the unplanned, hap-hazard, inefficient development patterns which negatively impact city life," Brown wrote in part. "A ruling in favor of the developers would unnecessarily limit the authority of the City to enact reasonable rules, standards and incentives to promote important initiatives now underway."

He recommended downsizing the tower to seven stories or 90 feet and to require a public space. He also suggested the judge mandate a basic overhaul of city development regulations to ensure more security for developers for future projects.

The emphasis is mine.

To me, that bold sentence is fairly shocking.  In it we have a former public official rejected as Mayor by 78% of voters FWIW (Brown received 22% of the vote, missing the run-off) openly advocating for the courts to mandate a revision of city ordinances to include things voters have clearly stated they don't want. What is that you ask?  It's very simple, it's zoning. Something for which Brown has openly advocated in the past and, again, Houston voters have soundly rejected.

It is often stated that one's definition of "legislating from the bench" is strictly limited to judicial decisions to which one is opposed.  While there is some truth to this it's unbelievable that a former elected official and part time Houstonian (Brown spends much time in Europe) would so brazenly call for judicial legislation of one of his priorities that has little public support.  In short, he can't convince people to do what he wants so he wants to force them to do it.

Viewed from that perspective, Parker was indeed the best selection.  Hopefully the judge will take a look at his suggestion and laugh.  I have no issue with Brown having a certain vision for Houston and the region, but I take exception to his attempts to try and require us to live under that vision whether we choose to or not.




























*Note: While I lean pro-gay marriage the timing and circumstance around Parker's push for equality sure seemed to be of financial benefit to her.

United Continental Holdings is losing money, here's part of the reason why.

While most of the other major domestic airlines are turning profits, United Airlines, and their parent company United Continental Holdings, continue to post huge losses. Over the past couple of days there have been many theories as to why and how United continues to struggle in the face of an industry uptick ranging from operational issues to bad technology to rather weak hub positions.

Each of these theories undoubtedly are partially to blame for United's continued fall and there are probably many other reasons (including inclement weather) that explain the rest. From my perspective however there is one major flaw that United continues to make for which management does not seem to have any desire to fix. To explain, allow me a moment to tell a story that is illustrative and also has the benefit of being 100% true.

Last week a co-worker and I flew on a RT itinerary to Phoenix from Houston for a business conference. Since I still have Gold Premier status with United I booked his ticket at the same time as mine. This allowed him to select Econ+ at the time of purchase as my travel companion.

On the first leg all was well, I was sitting in 8D and my co-worker in 8F as we selected. Amazingly, the flight left on-time, we had no issues, the In-flight entertainment worked and we arrived in PHX slightly ahead of schedule. So far so good.

The problems started on the return leg. First off let me say that on Tuesday morning before we flew out of IAH, I logged on to United.com and we verified both our flight status on Tuesday afternoon and our seat selection for both legs of the trip. As I stated earlier for the out-bound leg nothing was amiss, neither was there any indication that, on Tuesday AM, anything had been "adjusted" on our Friday return leg. When selecting seats for the return leg, I had placed myself in 12D and my co-worker in 12F, basically the same seating configuration as the first leg only a few rows back. Our check of this on Tuesday AM revealed this was still the case. The problems started when I got my automatic check-in e-mail on Thursday morning. (our return flight was scheduled for Friday AM)

I realized we were in trouble when my boarding pass had my seat listed as 11E. That's still econ+ but it's a middle seat which, as anyone will tell you, is very inferior to either an aisle or a window seat.  Fortunately, I was able to re-seat myself in 12C which allowed me to keep an aisle seat.

My co-worker was not so lucky. Upon check-in we included ourselves in the Complementary Premier Upgrade (CPU) list. Because of this our travel agendas were severed.  Now on his own, and no longer tethered to my agenda, my co-worker was kicked out of econ+ and placed in 15F which, in this plane's configuration, is a horrible seat in front of an exit row and will not recline.  Not only did he lose the extra leg room, but he was placed in one of the worst economy seats on the plane.

Before we go further, I understand that there are many different reasons that an airline might need to make a change to a seating arrangement. In this case, it appeared to be an equipment change from a 738 to a 739.  What I don't understand is this:  How can United make changes to an itinerary and provide no notification that they are doing so?  How can you have a computer system that can't keep track of booking details through a mess of changes? And how can you have such a disinterested customer service leadership team to not realize that items such as these are bigger issues than even flight delays?

At minimum we should have been notified earlier than check-in that there was a change. In fact, we should have been notified when the change was made so we could have a chance to react. I say that these snafus are worse than delays because the onus of fixing them lies entirely with the customer. If you're delayed and miss a connection, the airline will automatically re-seat you on the next available flight. Granted, you will still probably have to do some work because the "next available flight" will probably be on the next day.

The problem is, United doesn't even seem to care that they're creating an inconvenience for the customer. Both my co-worker and I took to Twitter where we were engaged by United Customer Service. Normally, this is one of the better CS outlets for the airline. In this case however, the Twitter CS agent belittled my co-worker by suggesting that he "shouldn't have been in Econ+ in the first place" because his "status changed" from when we booked the flights back in February until now.

This was, of course, false. What had changed was that United's computer system did not properly track his status as my travel companion when it split the itineraries and he was forcefully removed from Econ+. When he explained that to the Twitter rep the response was that "your ticket isn't marked with that so there's nothing I can do."  And that's it. No apology, no offer of compensation, nothing. Just a sit on the plane and be happy about it. At least the Twitter CS agent that I corresponded with offered up a "sorry".

To me, this is the crux of the problem for United, they don't care about their customers. They also don't care about their Premier customers or doing anything to make the program worthwhile. If you've flown United of late, you may or may not have noticed that over 50% of passengers are lining up in the queue for boarding group 2. Premier check-in if frequently more crowded, and slower, than regular economy check-in.  At PHX I and my co-worker went through the regular line b/c the Premier line was so congested. I've said this several times before and I'll say it again: If everyone is Premier then no-one is Premier.

United is a company whose customer service culture is rotting, and it's certainly coming from the top. I've seen it suggested that it's possibly time for CEO Jeff Smisek and his team to be shown the door. I'm glad to see it because I've thought this for a while now. If United can't do a better job taking care of ALL of it's customers (and not just the ones in the premium cabins) then they're going to continue to suffer at the hands of their competitors who are. I'm not suggesting a return to the "good old days" of stale peanuts in coach and luxury seats. I understand that SlimLine seats are the future despite them being butt-numbingly uncomfortable. I also don't mind not having a snack, I don't mind IFE going away and being replaced by WiFi.

What I do mind is being treated as an inconvenience by an airline who has failed to provide the service that I paid for, whose computer system cannot keep track of itinerary details when changes occur, and whose attitude is that they have no responsibility to notify me when major changes are made to my trip plan. I also mind lip-service around how I'm valued as a Premier when the actions don't back it up.

United is struggling because people are choosing to shop the competition and they are finding UA to be way behind in almost all areas.

The TLSPM is working overtime to overstate a tenuous connection.

If used selectively, stereotypes can be a powerful political tool. The entire Republican "war on women" is the result of taking the actions of a few, and applying them to many. Used in reverse stereotypes have created the myth that "All Democrats are socialists". These are happy fictions that lead to breathless columns from a group of unthinking political columnists happy to base their career output on what is force-fed to them by political operatives.

Conveniently, this brings us to the subject of today's post.  Peggy Fikac's political column stereotyping Republicans based on the idiotic actions of a staffer for political consultant Allen Blakemore.

It cannot be argued that the act of creating a PAC with the name "Boats n' Hoes" is stupid on a monumental level. We're talking about a 400 year old US Constitution level of idiocy. Even more stupid is using the actions of this one person to imply (directly) that all Republicans are "tone-deaf" when it comes to women's issues.

Clearly the Greg Abbott campaign is not tone-deaf. Despite Fikac suggesting that they are, their proactive call to ChronBlog secretarial journalist Kolten Parker denouncing the action reveals that they're very in tune to the happy mythology she is trying to weave. Were Abbott and Co. truly tone deaf, they'd take a passive stance and let the Davis campaign take the lead.

The rest of the Fikac column is nothing more than a protracted apology for Davis poor performance in recent polls. Again, she's allowing the use of stereotypes by lumping in all minority and young voters into the category of "no home phones".

Political columns such as these do the public a disservice. This is something I've said before and I'll continue to say it as long as it's true. Yes, there are Republicans out there who have a women's issue problem, minority issues problems and economic issues problems. That doesn't mean that all Republicans have the same traits. And it certainly doesn't mean that the Abbott campaign should be defined by State Senator Dan Patrick's consulting firm.

Selective use of stereotypes can run both ways. Back when the Super Bowl was in Houston Peggy Fikac's employer ran breathless coverage of "Pimp n' Ho" balls suggesting that, using the same logic, Ms. Fikac herself might potentially be tone deaf when it comes to issues relating to women and human trafficking.

Taking a broader look, one could use Ms. Fikac's column to assume that all members of the Texas Lock Step Political Media are unquestioning cyphers whose only focus is to regurgitate information disseminated to them by more-intelligent political operatives.

Either that, or we could forgo this entire silly exercise and start looking at each campaign on it's merits.  It involves a significantly larger amount of research and time, but it would certainly be the best way to serve the Texas voting public.

Even if serious issues are given unserious treatment by politicians, the media does us no favors in doing the same.

Yesterday I mentioned a rather sorry piece of political theater orchestrated by John Thornton's Texas Tribune who seem to be struggling in finding a balance between reporting their news-ish stories in a somber manner and catering to Evan Smith's carnival barker tendencies.  In this case, the carnival-barker won and, despite few Texans even realizing what was happening, the very serious matter of immigration reform was reduced to a juvenile back-n-forth between two of Texas' most diminutive political figures.

While some of the TLSPM chose to take the matter (somewhat) seriously Houston's hometown newspaper hid it's news treatment of the event behind it's pay-wall while releasing a juvenile slide-show on it's free site.

Unsurprisingly, most of the "straight" coverage focuses heavily on Mr. Castro, who is a TLSPM darling despite little-evidence to show he's the 'rising-star' they are painting him to be.

For Chron.com however the increasing prevalence of hokey-juvenile content is troubling, as it undercuts the contentions of the new Editor-in-Chief Nancy Barnes that she's planning on steering the USS Chronicle back onto solid journalistic footing. It also doesn't speak well for new Managing Editor Vernon Loeb, who has spent more time retweeting leftist causes and activist groups on his Twitter feed than he apparently has working on the reporting.

None of this bodes well for the future of political journalism in Houston. Nor does it reflect well on the information delivered to citizens of the entire Metro region.  If the Chronicle is continuing to abdicate it's throne as the newspaper of record, then there's precious little reason to pay any attention to them at all except on Sunday, for ads and coupons.

I know, from personal experience, that there are still some good front-line journalists over at the Chronicle but they're being given a background role to the on-line, pretty slide-show team.  No matter which way you look at it, this is a bad development. It's already bad enough that the Texas Tribune is pushing much of the agenda for the TLSPM, although one could argue that it's just the name on the masthead that's changed.

Back during the Bush Governorship, it was Paul Burka writing columns and articles that gave the TLSPM their marching orders. Today the "Dean of Texas Political Journalism" is out of touch and out of ideas. He (and Wayne Slater for that matter) have been reduced to fitting their personal obsessions (For Burka it's Perry, for Slater it's Rove) into almost every issue whether it fits or not.

Bad, grandstanding politicians have always, and will always, be with us. What has changed dramatically over time is the way the media handles them.  Before their antics were reported on and treated in an adult manner.  Eventually the demagogues slipped up and were outed as idiots. Today's media, especially the TLSPM, chooses to view some of them as icons, while trying to portray the one's whose ideas they don't like as firmly in the mainstream of the party with which they disagree.

This is horrible political journalism, but it's what we're reduced to in Texas today.

The Castro/Patrick Immigration debate: Lying in the mud with pigs.

In the end, both candidates looked petty and small.

While there's sure to be much chest-pounding and victory-claiming by both sides, last night's made for Texas Tribune immigration debate between Texas Senator and Lieutenant Governor front-runner Dan Patrick and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro was more about regression than advancement.

Certainly partisans of a "my side is always best" type, political bloggers hoping to touch the hem of the King's garment and the Texas Lock Step Political Media will prance around claiming their pugilist of choice was clearly the winner in a debate that had no winners, only losers. 

Julian Castro lost because he lowered himself to Patrick's level.  Not only did he attempt to one-up the Senator in bombastic name-calling but he, quite often, allowed Patrick's radio-friendly style of debate to cause him to lose his cool.  For a rising political star on the left Castro showed that he could be baited into name-calling over policy fairly easily and by a politician without strong debate skills to boot.  State Senator Dan Patrick is a fine orator, he's good at a monologue but he is not a candidate for captain of the debate team.  If you can't work in a reasoned, fact-supported argument against this guy you're probably not the shining-star you've been made out to be by the TLSPM and the Texas Democratic Party.

State Senator Dan Patrick lost because his grasp on the facts and his previous rhetoric made this an impossible debate for him to win.  Throw away lines like "illegal invasion" and "disease-riddled immigrants" play very well to a certain highly-irascible segment of the base, but they are very hard concepts to defend in a room full of adults, using facts instead of hyperbole. Under the Dan Patrick school of politics you find a hot-button issue, make a series of grandiose statements designed to inflame the base, act reasonable after the furor dies down, then move on to the next hot-button issue without really accomplishing anything (see: property taxes).

That said Mr. Patrick was a winner in this debate as well. In part because it was live streamed on Texas Tribune, which meant only about 1% of the Texas population was paying even the slightest bit of attention.  Even IF you assume that most major media outlets run with the story today, the percentage of Texans who will be exposed to this is (I'm guessing) well under 10%. In order to face severe trouble in the Republican primary run-off for Lieutenant Governor against incumbent David Dewhurst Patrick would have to commit a horrendous error along the lines of Clayton Williams "if  rape is inevitable then why not just sit back and enjoy it" stunner that ushered Ann Richards into office.  That didn't happen in this debate so the big loser is.........

Lt. Governor David H. Dewhurst.

I really think this was the last gasp for Mr. Dewhurst. I don't see how he has any path to victory now that Patrick has survived the trap created by his own ego.  Given the tenor and tone of statements coming from Team Starched Shirt, I don't think Dewhurst is going to drop out but I might go as far to say he should consider it. 

Tuesday night was Dewhurst's last gasp, by continuing to move forward his campaign is just animating a corpse and blowing through a small piece of the Lieutenant Governor's not insignificant personal fortune.

Last night did provide some clarity on three fronts.  We now know that the political career of David H. Dewhurst is coming to an end, that we're soon to have a blowhard sitting in the Lieutenant Governor's office and that the ceiling for Julian Castro is much lower than we thought.

Where too many elected Texas Republicans get it 100% wrong.

The (still) niche industry of craft beer might seem like an odd canary in the coal-mine for Texas Republican political fortunes. The comments by one Texas House Republican reveal a very-big blind spot for the state's Grand Old Party.

Report: Texas Lawmaker has heated words for Texas Craft Brewer. Ronnie Crocker, Beer, TX at Chron.com

Testimony in Austin this week from Scott Metzger on behalf of the Texas Craft Brewers Guild appear to have struck a nerve with state Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth. In comments published by the Texas Beverage Industry Journal, he called them “crap.”

“I’m very disappointed that he’s bringing this up, and I’m not going to go into the next session with a very good taste in my mouth with him starting this crap this early,” Geren, a restaurant owner and House chairman, told the Texas Beverage Industry Journal on Friday. “It is the law, and I’m going to fight to keep it the law.”

At issue was a bill that Rep. Geren sponsored which basically stripped owners of craft breweries of their own distribution rights, providing the large distributors  free-access to increasingly large bucket of money. Not surprisingly, the beer, wine and liquor industry holds the number 3 spot in Geren's list of biggest donors.

This is not to single out Geren, there are plenty of examples of this throughout the State on both sides of the political aisle. As a matter of fact, you'd have to look long and hard to see evidence of a State elected official taking a stance contrary to those that fund his/her campaign. The problem, as is evidenced around the State, is that Republicans as a whole have at once forgotten the tenets of the Reagan Doctrine while fighting to see who can best fit into his underwear on the campaign trail.

The Tea Party?  Sorry, try again.  They started from lean roots but have morphed to a caricature of themselves wandering around without clearly stated goals, without a base understanding of what the State needs to do (roads, education, water, infrastructure) in lieu of deciding that, seemingly, the State needs to do nothing.

The second problem with the Tea Party movement in Texas is that they've allowed themselves to be defined and co-opted by one Dan (Goeb) Patrick.  Sen. Patrick (Soon to be Lt. Gov if polling is accurate) is nothing if not a political opportunist. His initial anti-government lean has been replaced by a doctrine based on rule by intellectual betters (of which he imagines himself one) and government solutions looking for problems to solve. His on/off/on love-affair with property tax cuts is indicative of this.

The rise of the Tea Party has left the establishment Republican group (such as Geren) running back to their moneyed interests hoping to retain power through big-business connections without properly explaining their reasons for doing so.  That Geren, financially reliant on business groups such as the beer/wine/liquor distributors for his political life, is so quick to dismiss as "crap" the severance of real value from small business speaks volumes of how far the needle has moved.

Back in the days before the Republican ascendance in Texas establishment Republicans were moderate Democrats. Most of them read the political tea-leaves and wore-down a hasty path to the GOP door once it became apparent that having a (D) behind ones name would be political suicide in an increasingly red state. The problem for the GOP now is that these political nomads find the idea of working with the ideologically driven right abhorrent.  It's so beyond their political field of vision as to be outer Mongolia.

Given this the silly question asked by well-passed-his-prime political writer Paul Burka of "Can the Republicans Govern?" is actually turning out to be a salient one. Not because of any political foresight on the part of Burka (he was referring to the initial wave of establishment Republicans, and could not foresee the rising of the house of Tea) but because of the compliance of the GOP in buying into the "faction war" myth cultivated by the Texas Lockstep Political Media.

What the TLSPM relies on fully is their myths being given credence by the leadership class. The Democrats are willing because, typically, those constructs dove-tail with their attempts to get back in power. Amazingly however, it appears that some in the GOP are willing as well. Not only is this self-defeating but it leads to a lot of silly intra-party carping over the 20% of things on which the sides disagree.

At their heart, political parties are not homogenous organizations marching in lock-step on each and every issue. The Democrats are a coalition of special interest groups all with a political axe to grind. Only recently has there been signs that these groups are willing to start pulling in much the same direction.  The GOP is a mix of center-right, big business establishment interests, movement and social conservatives. Right now the latter two groups are certainly have their hands on the wheel and are steering the HMS Reagan's Underwear in a direction the establishment does not want it to go.

Where Texas Republicans are getting it wrong is that they don't seem to understand that the direction the ship should go is in the opposite direction in which all are currently fighting to steer.  Republicans do best when they argue based on individual freedom and business opportunity for all. They do the worst when they engage in pugilism with immigrant groups and big, wet, sloppy kisses with big business. Republicans need to reclaim the mantle of champion of small business, to remember that the way to build wealth is to support the middle-class, not take from it valuable assets as a hand-out to moneyed interests. They stray too far from these roots at their long-term peril.

While I don't think Texas Democrats have strong enough candidates to make inroads in 2014, I do see a time in the near future where enough of the new, transplanted Texans decide enough is enough and decide to vote in familiar-feeling candidates who are similar in nature to those who have all but ruined the States they came from.