Seemingly everyone with a laptop or a talk show and an email account has weighed in with their opinion on renegade  renegade flight attendant Steven Slater--and if you’re reading this, you likely need no further explanation of what I’m referring to.

Everyone, perhaps, except for JetBlue founder David Neeleman, who, more than anyone, crafted the company’s reputation as an anti-airline.  Declaring back at JetBlue's founding in 1999 that he wanted to "bring humanity back to air travel," Neeleman stressed the importance of hiring motivated and, yes, contented flight attendants (or in JetBlue speak, 'crewmembers') who would keep people coming back for the good service, and not just for the airline’s trademark low fares and free TV.

So when I caught up with Neeleman a few days ago before he headed back to Brazil for his latest role, as founder of that country’s wildly successful JetBlue clone, Azul, I couldn’t resist asking him what he thought of the ongoing soap opera surrounding Slater’s unusual way of going AWOL.

Neeleman responded with a rueful laugh. “I was just a bystander,” he was quick to point out, although he’s still got a significant chunk of stock in the company that ousted him nearly eight years after he founded it in 1999. “But my first reaction was that this probably wouldn’t have happened in the early days of JetBlue. And that kind of makes me sad.”

He notes that he travels through JFK each week--flying between his home in Connecticut and Azul’s headquarters outside Sao Paulo. And he often bumps into people from JetBlue who, he says, give him an earful about the state of things these days.

“From what I understand it’s a pretty tense culture there”, he said, noting that efforts to unionize the flight attendant workforce are underway. (A similar attempt to organize the carrier’s pilots did not succeed.) He’s concerned, he said, that the company’s commitment to customer service is faltering.

“But the flight attendant job is a hard job to leave,” he said, even when its occupants approach Steven Slater-level burnout. “You get in and you can’t get out,” he said, because the perks and the lifestyle usually are enough to overcome the drawbacks that have gotten so much attention in the last two weeks. He added with a laugh: “I’m meeting a lot of seventy-year-old ladies working flights these days” on legacy airlines that he takes to South America.

There’s nothing wrong with septuagenarian stews, he hastened to add.  One of the first flight attendants hired by JetBlue in 1999 was a former firefighter who’d hit retirement age and was one of the most popular among the company’s almost frighteningly perky recruits.

That the former firefighter and most of his other fellow crewmembers had no prior airline experience was seen as a plus (In my book about the early years of the company, Blue Streak, I followed around some members of the freshman class, who ranged from former cops to cabaret singers.). Neeleman's belief at the time was that airline industry re-treads brought along too much, er, baggage. And he wanted to start with as clean a slate as possible.

Interestingly Slater’s background was exactly that which Neeleman hoped to avoid.  Slater worked for more than 20 years as a flight attendant, starting with a regional line, Skywest, and later with TWA and Delta. In one of his more memorable quotes, according to the publicist he inevitably has acquired, he said: "I used to supply Chateaubriand for people going to Europe on TWA, and now I throw a bag of Cheetos at someone who can't be bothered to take a shower before they get on an airplane."

So what to do if you want to get a reminder of what JetBlue was like in the early days? Come down to Brazil, Neeleman said: “On an Azul flight you’d think you were on JetBlue.”

More on Azul and Neeleman’s life post-JetBlue in my next post…

Photo: Eric Bégin on Flickr.com

The FAA late last week shocked the aviation world by downgrading the aviation safety rating of one of the country's most important allies--Mexico.  It chose to handle this hot potato by putting out a release on a mid-summer Friday afternoon, ensuring it would get little coverage beyond industry trade journals. 

The aviation agency said that its investigators had determined that Mexico's aviation regulatory apparatus did not meet international standards as set by the UN affiliate ICAO  (International Civil Aviation Organization).  Translated into plain English, that means the country's equivalent of the FAA has fallen down on the job--they don't have enough trained personnel to inspect planes, for example--potentially putting airline travelers at risk.
 
So what does this mean for fliers?  The consequences of the FAA downgrade on the surface seem pretty minor--the airlines of the affected country simply can't increase their service to the U.S.  Since most countries that share this dubious distinction are smaller Third World nations, that usually isn't a big problem.  But for Mexico, that could be huge--about half of all their airline traffic involves the U.S.  Worse, Mexico's airlines will no longer be able to code-share with U.S. partners as long as the downgrade is in effect.  That means the biggest impact will fall on Delta, which code-shares with Aeromexico, and American, which does the same with Mexicana.
 
So if you're booked on a flight on either of those lines to Mexico any time soon--check with your airline. If its a code-share flight it should be clearly marked on the e-ticket, and as long as Mexico stays in the dog house then the airline will have to rebook the ticket, issuing a separate ticket for the leg of the flight (or entire flight, if it's a nonstop) that's on the Mexico partner.

And this isn't the end of the bad news for airlines south of the border. This week government-owned Mexicana, hobbled by a crushing debt, formally declared bankruptcy. As in the U.S., bankrupt airlines can still fly and Mexicana insists it's business as usual. But rumors are, er, flying that the airline faces liquidation--or at the very least it might merge with far healthier, privately owned Aeromexico.

As I’ve written before, it was always less than it seemed.

This week saw a number of shocking allegations about flyersrights.org founder Kate Hanni in an expose published by Travel Weekly, a respected trade paper that’s read mainly by travel agents.

The article runs through a litany of charges, some of them you’d expect to see more in a publication like the National Enquirer. (Yes, there’s even a sex tape involved.) Much of the more sordid detail comes from the inevitable disgruntled former associate —actually two of them, one whom is actually named. More seriously, the story charged that Hanni’s group has deliberately tweaked the data and methodology in its annual “report card” to make her nemesis, Delta, look bad. And it said she'd exaggerated the size of her membership and the activity on her "hot line" for passengers in trouble.

Hanni, pictured here testifying before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 2009, has posted numerous comments on Travel Weekly’s and other sites dismissing the paper’s story as “fiction.” And whatever your opinion of her—and as a media darling she’s an obvious target for attack—she has managed like few others to bring attention to the tarmac delay issue. She’s got her fans, like New York Times columnist Joe Sharkey, but even they question whether she’s bitten off more than she can chew, sounding off on everything from the quality of water on airplanes to security and safety issues.

But there’s a bigger story that has gotten little attention: where are the real consumer advocates on airline issues? As I wrote in a story published in our October 2008 issue, Hanni may have the highest profile among a half-dozen self-styled passenger rights "champions" but none of them seem to have the clout or an organization that you ought to expect from someone battling for such a large constituency—the more than 100 million individuals in the US who fly each year.

Someone, in fact, like Ralph Nader. He, more than anyone else, deserves credit for bringing passengers' rights to national attention, after he famously got bumped from a flight and missed an important speaking engagement. But that was more than 30 years ago.

He won enough in his suit against the airline Allegheny (later part of US Airways) to start up the Aviation Consumer Action Project. And however you feel about Nader and his presidential campaigns, he is a serious guy, and ACAP, during its heyday in the 1970s and '80s, was a serious organization, employing teams of lawyers who knew their way around Washington and how to get things done.

However, the organization lost of bit of its edge after the Civil Aeronautics Board that had regulated the airlines for more than 40 years got dismantled after deregulation. That board had provided the public forum for ACAP to argue on behalf of consumers.

But Nader may be getting more active on the airline front these days. I noticed he recently sounded off on the TSA’s new body-scanners in one of Sharkey’s recent columns. And to be fair, the Consumers Union also speaks out on occasion on airline and other travel issues.

So here’s for more substance and less hot air.

When United Airlines Flight 967 hit some choppy air over Missouri Tuesday night, tossing people and their belongings around the inside of the 777, two things were inevitable: the majority of passengers who weren't hurt would immediately pull out cell phones and cameras to record the chaos, and, second, it would spark a slew of fearful flying stories on the internet.

But that may not be such a bad thing—because it might just get a few more people to stay strapped in for the duration of the flight, as boring as that sounds. The NTSB is sending a team to investigate what happened, but all signs point to clear air turbulence as the culprit, which is especially nasty because as the name suggests, it's extremely hard to see and conventional weather radar doesn't pick it up. While such episodes are rare, they're not unheard of—on average, some 60 people in the U.S. are harmed each year when a plane hits turbulence. But it is one of the most preventable injuries that can befall a traveler. The FAA says virtually all the injuries happen to people who aren't wearing their seat belts.

So just make sure you observe those illuminated seat belt signs and you'll be OK, right? No—with clear air turbulence the normal warnings to stay strapped in when rough weather is approaching may not arrive in time. In recent years, as better weather detection has helped avoid the more common storm related turbulence, it's the clear air kind that you hear about. Of the 255 passengers and ten crew who were on the DC to LA flight, 17 travelers and four flight attendants were reported to be injured—and none was belted in. The plane landed in Denver and those who were composed enough to go before cameras compared the experience of the sudden drop in altitude as akin to "falling down an elevator."

So you know those warnings you get from the crew—the ones you tend to tune out as the plane taxis out for take-off? The message from the industry and the FAA is:  Do keep your seat belt buckled for the entire trip. If you have to get out of your seat for any reason, pay attention to the pilot—because the captain on this flight did warn passengers moments before the plane took its unplanned dive.

"If passengers are seated and properly secured, the risk from turbulence is essentially zero," said Alison Duquette, a spokeswoman for the FAA. She reports in that in five of every six turbulence accidents, just one person is seriously injured and most often that person is a flight attendant who by necessity is moving about the aircraft.

She adds that no on-duty pilots have been injured in turbulence since at least 1962—and they are, of course, seated and secure.

Click the image for the FULL SIZE version of this graphic which ran with the story, "This Could Be Your Last Resort" in the November 1999 issue of Condé Nast Traveler
Illustration: John Grimwade / Condé Nast Traveler

The American airlines passengers who landed on an obscure isle in the Aleutians instead of Tokyo last weekend probably didn’t know they were performing a public service.

But indeed they did. The very mention of Shemya, where the pilot of the 777 jet landed the plane mid-flight due to a malfunctioning fire warning light was a reminder of an ongoing controversy that has been raging for years:  How far to allow twin engine jets like the 777 to fly over vast stretches of water.

I covered this story for Condé Nast Traveler when the FAA was considering loosening restrictions on extended over water operations  -- or ETOPS,  to use the acronym aviation buffs are fond of--back in November of 1999.

At the time, airlines were supplanting the four-engine 747 on many transoceanic routes with more and more 767s and 777s, .

Airbus was stirring the pot because its four-engine A340 was a rival to ply these routes.   Airbus not-so-subtly played on consumers’ fears of flying by suggesting they were a lot safer over water in a four engine plane.

But the costs saved by flying twin engines on long stretches were so compelling that many airlines made the switch.  And Boeing and others argued successfully that twin engine jets were so reliable that it made little sense to restrict them. 

And a plane can fly on one engine, of course - though a pilot would want to get to the nearest runway as soon as possible.

This is where Shemya and a host of other ‘diversion’ airports that you really don’t want on your itinerary come in.  No Pacific paradises these--in fact, many of them offer such harsh conditions that they may not even be usable for much of the year.  Several in Siberia experience temperatures as low as 40 or 50 degrees below zero.   King Salmon, in southwestern Alaska, is prone to volcanic eruptions.  And Midway, the former naval base of WWII fame, is also a protected sanctuary for the albatross which reportedly are such a danger to planes that landings can only be made safely at night for half of the year.

Originally airlines were only permitted to fly twin engine planes no more than sixty minutes from the nearest airfield.  The limit was extended in increments and finally, three years ago the FAA said it was OK for airlines to take the most direct route possible, as long as their planes were ETOPS--approved-meaning that their engine's passed stringent tests on reliability and their holds carried extra emergency equipment.

I hope the emergency stash on that American flight included sweaters.  Temperature highs on Shemya Island in the height of summer hover in the mid-40s.

It wasn’t long ago that you’d have thought all airline passengers were merrily Tweeting and Facebook-ing their way through otherwise tedious domestic flights--at least that’s what the ongoing hype over this new travelers’ toy suggested. Mile-high celebrity hijinks have only fueled this image--like the time Kim Kardashian tweeted to the world that she was sitting next to a sky marshal, apparently oblivious to the fact the guy was working undercover.

So now comes the inevitable dose of cold water--a slew of stories claiming that virtually no one is logging on inflight. This week USA Today ran a story citing some analysts saying that fewer than 10% of passengers are taking advantage of it. The problem seems to be both the cost--ranging from $5 to $14 per flight, depending on the duration--and the cramped space in coach.

It’s hard to know what the true number is because, as of now, the availability of the service is spotty and unpredictable--only two airlines, Air Tran and Virgin America, offer WiFi on all of their flights. Larger rivals, such as American, Delta and Southwest, are wiring their planes--but that process won’t be completed until next year, at least.

But according to Virgin, they’ve had a lot more success with it than the latest reports would suggest. I recently spoke with Porter Gale, a marketing executive at Virgin America, who said that half of the line’s passengers carry their laptops on board with them and 25% are online at any given time during a flight. It doesn’t hurt that Virgin has run various promotions to get us addicted.

But is the price really that big a problem? Surely it’s not that much to pay for a service that was never offered free to begin with  (unlike other airline fees that transformed formerly complimentary perks into new revenue streams.) But judging from the commentary on message boards like flyertalk.com, the price is definitely a hindrance because most companies won’t reimburse their employees for this expense, and it can really add up.

Also there’s another hurdle: Travelers are getting used to logging on at airports free of charge. A recent survey of 84 of the world’s largest airports by the Airports Council International revealed that 96% of these facilities offer WiFi connections, and 73% of them have them throughout their terminals.  About 45% offer this service for free; the rest charge an average of about $8 an hour.

At least ten airlines in North America, including American, Delta and Southwest, are wiring their planes for internet access and major foreign lines like Lufthansa are introducing new technology that will let customers connect on long transoceanic flights.  [Inflight calls are still verboten on most flights although several airlines, including Emirates, have been testing calling on shorter trips. ]

But don't expect any of them to go the Starbucks route on pricing.  It might set a dangerous precedent  -- who knows, fliersnext  might start demanding free pillows and hot meals.

Photo: Flickr/dan paluska

Travelers, winding like cattle through airport security checkpoints, quick to hurl threats, verbal assaults, or the odd carry-on towards security screeners may find themselves on what is currently a very short list.

In 2007, the Transportation Security Administration implemented the Workplace Violence Prevention Program that includes a discreet database cataloging details and personal information of those linked to airport security episodes. The list of unruly events has recently caught the ire of privacy advocates.

The program can "collect information about individuals involved in incidents of actual or alleged workplace violence as aggressor, victim, or witness," explains the administration’s Privacy Impact Assessment [PDF]. The plan is to learn from past altercations. "The program helps identify trends and threats," says TSA spokesperson Lauren Gaches, "to stop violence and keep employees safe."

But this seemingly innocuous effort to curtail workplace disputes has caused concern over how the information it tallies will be secured, accessed, and shared. Asking if this could become a "baby watch list," ACLU lawyer Michael German told USA Today "there’s a potential for the misuse of information or the mis-characterization of harmless events as potential threats."

Details on how the TSA protects its tally of personal information—and when can it be shared— are vague. "Data is currently stored in a database accessed by the program director," the privacy assessment states, "IT specialists may be granted access ... related to software or hardware maintenance." With minimal elaboration, the document states that anyone granted access must undergo "TSA-mandated privacy training," and that privacy risks are tempered by "limiting the sharing ... to those who have an official need to know it."

Each incident is investigated individually, making it impossible to determine whose eyes, and how many, see what the TSA has on file. The information is "used exclusively for workplace violence prevention," Gaches reiterates.

In reality, how likely is this obscure database going to affect everyday travelers? Not very, statistics suggest. For starters, "the TSA collects a lot of data that doesn’t often serve any useful purpose," says Patrick Smith, a pilot since 1990 and author of Salon.com’s Ask the Pilot column. Secondly, roughly 85 percent of the list can be found on the TSA payroll.

Gaches said that airport security checkpoints screen approximately two million passengers daily. Yet the database in question consists of roughly 240 incidents dating back to 2007, including a mere 30 involving passengers and other airport personal not employed by the TSA or Homeland Security. The compilation, Gaches stressed, is not a watch list of travelers.

"There is serious stuff going on, and there hasn’t been a backlash calling for the TSA to get its act together," Smith tells me of more pressing security challenges, the tiny number of passengers on this particular watch list notwithstanding.

Should disruptive travelers retain the right to keep their information private? And with so few records on hand, is there even a need for the outcry?

—Jeff DiNunzio

The airline alliance phenomenon has been around for a while—a fact that hit home when Skyteam hosted a media blitz this week to mark its ten-year anniversary. If, like some of us, you're having trouble keeping the players in these partnerships straight, that's the one founded by Delta and Air France/KLM—and also encompasses a diverse array of lines like Kenya Airlines and Aeroflot.

But as I watched the ritual multi-national parade of flight attendants from the new members—among them Vietnam airlines, Romania's Tarom and Air Europa, it hit me—now that the reigning trio of airline societies have picked off the low-hanging fruit—ranging from heavyweights like Singapore and Air France to flag carriers like South African and JAL—how many airlines are there in the world that are deemed suitable for these clubs?

Apparently, a lot.  With Skyteam's latest surge in members (China Eastern apparently will be the next recruit), just over 50 airlines worldwide belong to one of these extended families. But first, a quick tutorial—unless you've sworn off air travel for the past decade, you've encountered an alliance somewhere; other than Skyteam, with 13 airlines, there are oneworld, anchored by British Airways and American and nine other members, and the inevitable 800-pound gorilla, Star Alliance, which boasts on its website that its 27 members collectively flies more than 4,000 planes.

The deal is this: Airlines get many of the benefits of a merger without, of course, all the headaches of trying to get one past various government authorities. So they share codes, frequent-flier programs and airport lounges, among other things, all to bring in more consumers than they'd attract on their own. But as they get bigger, though, these groupings seem more like a motley result of a speed-dating session than the seamless network of equals that was their original purpose. Take a look at Star's bulging roster, for example: Along with founding members Lufthansa and United (later joined by Singapore and Continental), they've signed up Egyptair, Croatia Airlines, Spanair, TAM, and some really small fry like Blue 1, a Scandinavian line with just 12 planes. Plus it has some "provisional" members like Air India that are still trying to get up to the "standards" of the full-blown membership.

So what are these standards exactly? I posed that question to Skyteam chairman Leo Van Wijk at this week's press briefing in New York. I asked specifically about safety—since in the past, several airlines with safety issues had had to pass rigorous audits before getting admitted to one of these clubs. Van Wijk said that because the airlines are all audited by a recognized authority—IATA—"that's the easy one." The more difficult concern, he admitted, is ensuring that in-flight service standards are consistent.

"It can't be exactly the same," he said, "we have to recognize cultural differences. But we want to ensure that our customers are getting the same level of service," especially finicky business travelers paying four- or five-figure air fares.

He said Skyteam routinely sends out people to test the service and report back—sort of like mystery shoppers.

Based on the experiences I've had flying various Skyteam members—sometimes on the same trip—it's a work in progress. I remember in particular a flight on Aeroflot which, while a far cry from the consumer-hostile airline I recall from the Soviet era, was still a little erratic (in-flight entertainment either not working or only in Russian—on a flight from New York—and inedible food.)

Readers, what do you think? Have any oddball alliance stories to share?

Photo: john creasey / Flickr.com

Update (June 17): Pilots at Spirit Airlines tentatively agree to a new labor contract. Flights scheduled to resume on Friday, June 18.

Spirit Airlines scrapped all of its flights today--again--as pilots continued their five-day-old walkout.  The stalemate has stranded thousands of travelers--who have gotten little or no help from the airline. That's not surprising: Spirit's low fares come with their own price, an abject lack of service. 

But If you think that by avoiding Spirit you've avoided sharing its passengers' fate, think again: There's no guarantee that you too won't get grounded by a walk-out.  A lot of unions at other carriers are watching the standoff with interest.  With a number of major airline contracts up for negotiation this year, many experts are predicting an unprecedented amount of labor strife.

Why? In Washington the Obama administration is poised to change longtime rules that have made it extremely difficult for airline workers to strike in the U.S.  Up until now employee bargaining rights have been governed by the Railway Labor Act; the idea being that a transportation disruption is different, say, than a walk-out of restaurant workers, given the impact it could have on the country's economy.

Strikes are rare. Typically for a union to call a strike a federal panel first has to declare an impasse followed by a 30-day cooling off period.  And the president can intervene to stop a strike, which happened several times.

Contrast this with the actions of their compatriots overseas; witness the British Airways and Lufthansa labor actions earlier this year.  

There's another reason why airlines might get hit with a wave of labor turmoil--the industry appears to be emerging from a long downturn, and those workers who weren't laid off were asked to take steep cuts in pay and benefits.  So once those airlines begin to make money again, employees will want to get something back for the sacrifices they made to keep their airlines in business.  Of course airline managers see it another way:  Profits, if they do materialize, are likely to be razor-thin and airlines have to keep costs low to compete with scrappy upstarts, well, like Spirit.

So where else are flight crews most likely to walk out? Pilots and flight attendants at American have been in difficult negotiations.  Flight attendants recently voted to authorize a strike if no accord is reached.  Pilots at AirTran are similarly threatening a walk-out.  United's and Continental's workers are facing tough negotiations as the two lines nail down their merger.

Fasten your seatbelts, we could be in for some chop.

Pamir Airways

That's the question some are asking after a series of crashes around the world revealed that some governments and organizations maintain their own lists of airlines to avoid--but don't necessarily share them with the general public elsewhere.

As we reported last week, the past 12 months have seen a reversal of the steady decline in airline fatalities over the years, with more than 1,000 killed in at least ten accidents, including the crash of Air France flight 447 over the Atlantic a year ago.

"The downward trend in fatal accident rates that we've had since the beginning of aviation has leveled off," says William Voss, chief executive of the Washington, D.C. based Flight Safety Foundation.

"We seem to be encountering real problems with human factor issues," such as pilot fatigue and lack of adequate training, he says.  He says other areas of concern are whether some airlines are growing and staffing up too fast.  "It comes down to whether we have people with the right skills and right training," he says. "

The Air France investigation is still ongoing.  But in several cases, it emerged that some of the airlines and their governments' regulators had come under scrutiny for their lax enforcement of aviation safety rules well before the crashes that put them in the headlines. For example, in India, where a 737 crashed recently, it was revealed that ICAO, the UN- affiliate civil aviation watchdog, had issued a highly critical audit of the country several years ago, saying the country's infrastructure hadn't kept pace with a sharp increase in air travel.  

After Afghanistan-based Pamir Airways had a crash this year, it was reported that the U.N. did not allow its employees to fly the airline. And the State Department does not permit its foreign service personnel to fly an obscure South American carrier, Blue Wing of Suriname which recently had a fatal accident.

The European Union maintains a blacklist intended to keep unsafe airlines out of its skies   and some safety experts are urging that the effort be expanded globally.