I’m talking more about this from the Continental/United perspective at BNET, but here I want to focus on Southwest. An airline that used to consider Islip a New York City airport will now be serving two of the biggest and most congested airports serving New York. Crazy.

This slot deal will allow Southwest to have 18 flights in and 18 flights out per day, unless they figure out some magical way to have more departures than arrivals. I’m gonna guess that physics makes that a tough sell. The first flights will begin next March with the full amount of slots going into Southwest’s possession by June.

This move is really funny when you think about it. It’s old-school Southwest meets new-school Southwest. Yes, the airline is flying into one of the most crowded, delay-filled airports in the US. You never would have seen that 10 years ago. But it’s also the tried and true Southwest strategy of bracketing a big metro area. You now have LaGuardia on the east (along with Islip on the waaaaay east) and Newark on the west. (It also conveniently brackets New Jersey with Philly on the South. That’s about as close as you’d want to get to NJ anyway.)

So what is Southwest gonna do with this? Well, 18 flights is a lot. It’s more than double the measly 8 flights they were able to squeeze into LaGuardia. At LaGuardia, there are five daily flights to Chicago/Midway and 3 down to Baltimore. But for Newark, we have some good guidance. Take a look at what the DOJ had to say about this:

The proposed merger would combine the airlines’ largely complementary networks, which would result in overlap on a limited number of routes where United and Continental offer competing nonstop service. The largest such routes are between United’s hub airports and Continental’s hub at Newark airport, where Continental has a high share of service and where there is limited availability of slots, making entry by other airlines particularly difficult.

In other words, Chicago/Midway, Denver, and Houston/Hobby have to be a lock. Baltimore? Probably. (And, as I talk about on BNET today, Continental and United must be happy not to have exact airport competition on these routes.) You could probably fill a schedule with that pretty easily, but there could be other cities as well.

Unlike from LaGuardia, Southwest can run Phoenix or Vegas from Newark, if it so chooses. The reality is that with Southwest’s focus on business travelers, Florida might not make as much sense. Sure, you can always fill those airplanes, but with scarce slots, that doesn’t seem like the best plan. Then again, maybe we’ll see Florida at some off-peak times.

Southwest has to be thrilled to have benefited from the merger here. Apparently the feds were happy with this deal as well. It may not seem like a huge number of slots, and really, it isn’t. For United and Continental’s nearly 450 flights per day, this is a drop in a bucket. Then again, Southwest does know how to make a drop in the bucket feel like a tidal wave.

LAN-TAM Merger: U.S. Carriers Sweat The Fate of Alliance Partners – BNET Headwinds
LAN and TAM are merging, and everyone wants to know which alliance the combination will choose. Could it be both?

how to keep your flight attendant from jumping off the plane – Antibride
Admittedly a fluffy story, but it’s a light-hearted look at how to treat a flight attendant onboard (with some serious points).

JetBlue’s All-You-Can-Jet Turns Back to Twitter to Fill Seats – BNET Headwinds
It’s baaaackk. JetBlue’s All You Can Jet has returned and the airline is relying on Twitter to get the word out.

Flight Attendant Demands May Block Southwest’s Push Toward Bigger Planes – BNET Headwinds
I thought Southwest’s announcement about getting a larger plane was odd, but I then I started looking at the labor angle.

How to Fix LAX By Bringing Alliance Partners Together< - BNET Headwinds
I admit it’s a reach, but LAX won’t be able to spend much money and this could be a big improvement for the customer.

So make sure you update your bookmarks. The old industry.bnet.com/travel site is so 2009. Start using this link from now on:
http://www.bnet.com/blog/airline-business
And the new RSS feed is:
http://www.bnet.com/blog/airline-business?mode=rss

Southwest’s Chronic Flight Delays Are Getting Worrisome – BNET Headwinds
Southwest had another month with a fair number of flights delayed more than 70 percent of the time. With the DOT’s increasing focus, they’re going to need to work on this.

Delta Woos N.Y. Fliers as Chicago Shuttle Targets UAL, AMR – Bloomberg
Bloomberg ran a piece about Delta moving into the LaGuardia-O’Hare market with full force. I see this as an attempt to “win” New York, so it’s targeting American more than anyone else.

How Southwest Made Hay With “Bags Fly Free” – BNET Headwinds
Southwest keeps getting more creative with selling its bags fly free prop. This time, it’s a ground ops agent getting in on it.

US Airways Pilot Dilemma Spills Into the Courts -BNET Headwinds
The US Airways pilot brawl is heating up, and management has been dragged in. Now the airline want clarification on what the heck it’s supposed to do.

United-Continental Merger: Suspicions Confirmed as Exec Team Leans Toward Continental – BNET Headwinds
John Tague is out, and Continental is starting to take over.

How Social Media Can Save Airlines Time and Money – BNET Headwinds
There’s a lot of debate about whether or not social media is worth. I say yes, and the benefit can be quantifiable.

Who cares if Southwest considers a mechanical problem under its control or not, right? You should, actually. Airlines make clear distinctions on how much they’ll help stranded customers depending upon whether it was due to circumstances within the airline’s control or not. Here’s a handy chart explaining what’s within airline control and what isn’t, traditionally.

It’s relatively straight forward. If it’s something that an airline can have control over, then it’s the airline’s responsibility. But what’s the difference for passengers? If something is within an airline’s control, then the airline will generally pay for hotels and meals while you’re waiting. The airline will also, in many cases, put you on another airline if available. If the event is outside an airline’s control, then you’re on your own. The airline will get you out when it has a seat available on its own flights, but that’s about it. You’re entitled to a full refund in both cases, assuming there’s a cancellation or excessive delay.

So why do I say that this isn’t as big of a deal here for Southwest? Southwest doesn’t put people on other airlines anyway. If you have a problem on Southwest, you’re waiting for the next seat on a Southwest flight or you’re taking your refund elsewhere. So it’s really just an issue of meals and hotels, not nearly as big of a deal but still important.

For all airlines, the contract of carriage is the binding document regarding air transportation, so this move in Southwest’s contract of carriage (PDF) is worrying, but Southwest also has its Customer Service Commitment (PDF) which outlines what it will do when things go wrong.

The Customer Service Commitment clearly states:

. . . if circumstances within our control, such as aircraft “swaps,” cause you to miss the last possible flight (or connection) of the day to your destination,
our Customer Service personnel have the authority to arrange for overnight lodging. We will find a hotel or motel as near to the airport as possible, and at no additional cost to you. We may also arrange for ground transportation to the overnight facility.

If the cause of your inconvenience is not within our means of control, we will do our best to assist you by securing a discounted rate at a hotel or motel at or near the airport.

With the underlying definition of “circumstances within our control” being clarified, it does make me wary. If a flight cancels because a plane breaks and there are no more flights that day, Southwest is now clearly not obligated to put you in a hotel for the night. Whether that holds up in practice or not remains to be seen, but it’s certainly a concern.

Southwest says that it simply clarified the definition of this in its contract of carriage but that it didn’t intend to change policies. That may be true, but from a legal perspective, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

[Updated on 7/28 @ 1234p: Southwest has listened to everyone and further clarified its contract of carriage to say mechanical difficulties from other entities. Smart move. Read the post on the Southwest blog at http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/southwest-airlines-addresses-misinterpretation-regarding-contract-carriage]

[Original photo via Flicker user swanksalot]

A friend of mine sent me the news when he saw the story on FlyerTalk. Beginning January 28, 2011, funds that are in your name can only be used when you travel on Southwest. The way it is today, if you have a credit, you can use it for anyone.

Let’s say you booked a ticket to Birmingham, Alabama (not sure why you’d do that, but ok) and then found you couldn’t go at the last minute. We all know that Southwest has no change fees, so the amount you paid for that ticket goes into a credit that you can use on Southwest within one year of ticketing. The beauty of those credits is that you can use them for other travelers and not just you. So if I don’t have a reason to use it, I can offer it to my dad or to a friend. I’ve actually done that before where an expiring credit would have simply disappeared so I gave it up to someone else.

That luxury is going the way of free airline meals. Now you have to be the one traveling to use the credit. That sucks. I think we all understand why Southwest would do this. Without being able to transfer the credit, more people won’t be able to use it and Southwest will get to keep the money. It also eliminates any black market that may have been out there to get some cash for credits that would have gone unused. So this is a revenue-generating move, but I think there are better ones out there than this.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I think Southwest should have a change fee. Just put a reasonable $25 fee on there and the airline can start raking in the dough. It can also eliminate a lot of the uncertainty out there. If someone really needs to make a change, that person would pay $25. It would hurt those who just book for the sake of booking a cheap flight and then bank the credits later if they don’t take the flight.

Why do I like this better? I think it’s more flexible and useful. I know there is always an outcry when I mention a Southwest change fee, but if you could share your credit with someone else for only a $25 fee, then it would be better than not being able to share it at all. I know Southwest hates change fees, but there are only so many messages that an airline can promote. It’s been almost entirely about bags flying free lately and that’s a good campaign. Why not keep the focus on that. It’s not a conflict because a $25 fee would be fair.

This, however, isn’t happening anytime soon. And that’s too bad, because I find a change fee to be more palatable than a restriction on credit use.

[Original photo via Flickr user flygraphix]

The rumors have long been out there that Southwest would have to give in and start charging bag fees. For the longest time, Southwest said it was the right thing to do, but the airline didn’t promote it much and couldn’t really show any gain. In recent months, the marketing team has really ramped up the Bags Fly Free campaign to beat it into people, and it’s worked. Southwest now says it has gained share, and its stellar unit revenue gains shows some real strength. Much of this is from better scheduling, but, I think the halo off the marketing campaign has undoubtedly helped.

Now, like a teenager who wants to prove his commitment to something, Southwest has decided to get a tattoo showing that it remains even more committed than ever. Take a look:

That’s right. At least 50 airplanes will get this decal (ok, so it’s not really permanent) with an arrow pointing to the belly promoting free bags. There will also be 1,000 bag carts to remind people that bags fly free. (Fortunately, the shirtless dudes will not be deployed to every airport.)

I like this move. It’s cheap and easy advertising that hits people right when they’re angriest. Sure, at places like Dallas/Love and Chicago/Midway where Southwest nearly has a monopoly, there won’t be very many people on other airlines who will see this, but at all the other airports in the system, it will target anyone who looks out the terminal window or the window from their airplane.

For many people, that’s the time when they are most unhappy about having had to pay bag fees, because it’s fresh in their minds. So something like this can have more of an impact at that point. Whether it turns into more business for Southwest is unclear, but does it really matter? This isn’t an expensive campaign and it certainly helps hammer home the airline’s commitment to its promise.

Southwest Airlines’ March Meltdown — Less Than Meets the Eye – BNET
Southwest had a rough March, but it hardly means that things are heading south.

How will the new United-Continental treat customers? – Cleveland Plain Dealer
I talked about some of the issues that the combined United/Continental will face (in the infobox) on the side.

AirTran-Frontier: Once Friendly Airlines Are Now Kicking, Gouging Eyes -BNET
The hammer has finally dropped. The once-cozy AirTran-Frontier deal is now over. It’s been fun to watch the fight.

spice up your flight – antibride.com
If you’re traveling for your wedding, it can’t hurt to try to get some perks.

Mesa Air Group Loses Battle with Delta, and US Airways Must be Smiling – BNET
Mesa’s contract with Delta is toast, and that means US Airways has even more leverage.

Spirit Airlines: Why a Threatened Pilot Strike Could Take the Company Down – BNET
Not quite as dramatic as the title would suggest, but a strike threat at Spirit is a bigger deal than at a larger airline.

United-Continental Merger: Continental Is Taking the Reins, No Question – BNET
Another clue about the leadership team at United/Continental is out there. There is no trace of United President John Tague on the integration team.

The airline will go into Charleston, but the one that’s more interesting to me is Greenville/Spartanburg. (GSP). Both cities are expected to launch in 2011 and we know nothing else except that they won’t need any subsidies. (It was a pretty odd announcement.)

Why is GSP interesting? Geography.

Think about Atlanta. Right now, the airline “serves” Atlanta by flying into Birmingham, a couple hours west of town. GSP is about the same distance from Atlanta as Birmingham but on the northeast side instead.

It’s not just Atlanta, however. Southwest will also be looking to bracket Charlotte with this move. GSP is about an hour southwest of Charlotte while the airline already serves Raleigh/Durham, a couple hours east of Charlotte.

With GSP, Southwest kills two birds with one stone, theoretically. It’s an old-school Southwest attack on the fringes, but that’s uncharacteristic of the airline’s recent moves into big airports like Boston or LaGuardia. That makes me think there’s more to this.

If this is indeed the strategy, it seems like an odd one. US Airways is undoubtedly thrilled that Southwest isn’t coming into Charlotte right now, and they will certainly lose some business to Southwest in lower fare markets, but the high dollar business isn’t going over there. Also, AirTran and JetBlue already provide some limited low fare service in Charlotte itself.

As for Atlanta, well, that’s a non-starter. There is plenty of low fare competition in Atlanta these days, so I can’t imagine people driving to Greenville just to catch a flight. It’s not worth it anymore.

That sort of reality makes me wonder if there’s something in Greenville that they are seeing to make it attractive on its own. The Combined Statistical Area (which includes much of northern South Carolina) is around 1.2 million people so that’s not small. It is, however, quite spread out.

Companies like Michelin, 3M, Lockheed Martin, and Honeywell have operations around town. BMW has its US manufacturing facility in Spartanburg. Maybe they’re lining up corporate clients and looking to build a strong base in a historically high fare area.

At least, I really hope that’s the case, because the old Southwest strategy of serving out of the way airports doesn’t lend itself well to courting the business traveler anymore, as Southwest wants to do.

[Map via GCMap.com]

This little fight became publicly known in late March when new WestJet CEO Gregg Saretsky said he wasn’t happy with how long it was taking for Southwest to get its act in order. Then he went on to say they were talking with Delta about a codeshare, conveniently fitting with Delta’s plan to transfer 5 slots to WestJet at LaGuardia. Uh huh.

Southwest said that WestJet had asked for some material changes to the agreement awhile back and then on Friday, the axe fell. Southwest walked away. So what were those material changes? If I had to guess, I’d say it was related to other partnerships that WestJet wanted (duh). Did they give Southwest blanket exclusivity? I’m sure not, but I’m guessing Southwest wasn’t too happy with them trying to link up with another large domestic US airline. So that’s over.

Now, Southwest says (in a very stilted way) this:

We remain interested in exploring the possibility of one day offering service to Canada if it makes sense for Southwest and for our Customers. That would not rule out future codeshare relationships with Canadian carriers, or flying north of the border ourselves.

Hmm, future codeshare relationships? Well if it’s not WestJet and I can’t imagine Air Canada, that leaves some pretty slim pickings. Air Labrador is probably working on trying to feed Sun Country and its burgeoning Gander hub. Maybe Southwest can connect up with Buffalo Airways in Yellowknife? No, I know. It’ll be Aklak Air in Inuvik. Like I said, the pickings are slim.

At this point, Southwest probably needs to look at whether it’s even worth flying to Canada at all. Without WestJet, I imagine a codeshare opportunity is dead, so it becomes a matter of whether they want to build up a tiny operator in Canada (I doubt it) or start flying there themselves. There aren’t going to be that many cities that are attractive for high frequency service on a 737. I mean, look at Air Canada. They fly 70-80 seaters on a ton of routes to the US and they have all kinds of feed coming from within Canada already. Yes, Southwest can bring feed from the US, but I’m just not convinced it’s worth it.

Southwest seeks space at Reagan – GW Hatchet
The newspaper at my alma mater asked for my thoughts on Southwest coming in to Washington/National.

Which Airlines and Airports Are the Worst? Take the Quiz – BNET
Let’s see how well you know the February on time performance numbers. Take the quiz and see some surprising results.

Revenues Are Up, But Can Airlines Avoid the Perils of Overcapacity? – BNET
March traffic is in and the numbers look good. Can the airlines avoid adding too many seats and blowing this whole thing?

The Business Logic of Airlines’ New Standby Fees – BNET
The airlines are charging for same-day standby across the board now. That sucks, but it’s entirely understandable.

Regulators Gone Wild: FAA Fines Frontier $380K for Safety Card Glitch – BNET
Frontier got smacked with a $380,000 fine for failing to replace a placard. Is the FAA just trying to flex some muscle here?