Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tanuki

(14,920 posts)
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 07:44 AM Jun 2017

Air travel discomfort results from Wall St. profit pressure

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/28/business/corporate-profit-margins-airlines.html

...."Relentless pressure on corporate America is creating an increasingly Dickensian experience for many consumers as companies focus on maximizing profit. And nowhere is the trend as stark as in the airline industry, whose service is delivered in an aluminum tube packed with up to four different classes, cheek by jowl, 35,000 feet in the air.
.........

Rich bonus packages for top executives are now largely tied to short-term income targets and fatter profit margins instead of customer service. Of course, bolstering profits — and in turn, stock prices — has always been a big part of management’s responsibility to shareholders, but making it virtually the only criterion for executive pay is new.

.......

“Fifteen years ago, airlines competed with each other over who could buy the most planes or have the most routes,” said Jamie Baker, a top airline industry analyst at JPMorgan Chase. “Executives are just as competitive today, but it’s about who can achieve an investment-grade rating first, who can be a component in the S. & P. 500, and who has better returns for investors.”

These new incentives also partly explain why airlines are packing seats more densely and squeezing more passengers into the back of the plane. “Densification is driven by the desire to sweat the assets and generate revenues without having to commit capital to building new planes,” Mr. Baker said.".......(more)

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Air travel discomfort results from Wall St. profit pressure (Original Post) Tanuki Jun 2017 OP
They'll come up with a Steerage section next. Ilsa Jun 2017 #1
Isn't that already the case greymattermom Jun 2017 #2
Hotel chains are also driven by a profit motive... brooklynite Jun 2017 #3
"discomfort" isn't the only thing they're messing with.... Locrian Jun 2017 #4
There's a long history of trying to save money on maintenance Xipe Totec Jun 2017 #5
Alaska Airlines 261 Crash Killed 88 So Company Could Save Money On Maintenance hatrack Jun 2017 #6

brooklynite

(94,679 posts)
3. Hotel chains are also driven by a profit motive...
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 07:57 AM
Jun 2017

...but customers respond to a wide range of prices and services. Excluding the special Business Class market, air passengers seem to respond solely to the lowest posted fare, meaning profits get extracted by cuts in service.

And remember those "golden eras" of air travel? The ticket prices were substantially higher than they are today.

Locrian

(4,522 posts)
4. "discomfort" isn't the only thing they're messing with....
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 07:58 AM
Jun 2017

United Faces $435,000 Fine, Accused of Flying Plane 23 Times Without Inspecting Repair, F.A.A. Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/business/united-airlines-faa-fine.html?_r=0

profits at ANY cost....

Xipe Totec

(43,890 posts)
5. There's a long history of trying to save money on maintenance
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 08:09 AM
Jun 2017

"American Airlines Flight 191 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight operated by American Airlines from O'Hare International Airport in Chicago to Los Angeles International Airport. A McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 used for this flight on May 25, 1979, crashed moments after takeoff from Chicago. All 258 passengers and 13 crew on board were killed, along with two people on the ground. It is the deadliest aviation accident to have occurred in the United States."

"Investigators found that as the jet was beginning its takeoff rotation, engine number one, on the left wing, separated and flipped over the top of the wing. As the jet began to climb, the damaged left wing, with no engine, produced far less lift (stalled) than the right wing, with its slats still deployed and its engine running at full takeoff speed. The extremely disrupted and unbalanced aerodynamics of the aircraft caused it to roll abruptly to the left until it was partially inverted, reaching a bank angle of 112 degrees, before crashing in an open field by a trailer park near the end of the runway. The engine separation was attributed to damage to the pylon structure holding the engine to the wing, caused by faulty maintenance procedures at American Airlines."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

hatrack

(59,592 posts)
6. Alaska Airlines 261 Crash Killed 88 So Company Could Save Money On Maintenance
Thu Jun 1, 2017, 08:27 AM
Jun 2017

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 was a scheduled international passenger flight on January 31, 2000 from Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico, to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Seattle, Washington, United States, with an intermediate stop at San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, California.[1]:xii The aircraft, a McDonnell Douglas MD-83, crashed into the Pacific Ocean about 2.7 miles (4.3 km) north of Anacapa Island, California, after suffering a catastrophic loss of pitch control. The crash killed everyone aboard: two pilots, three cabin crewmembers, and 83 passengers.

The subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that inadequate maintenance led to excessive wear and eventual failure of a critical flight control system during flight. The probable cause was stated to be "a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly's acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines' insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly".[1]:xii

EDIT

Extension of maintenance intervals

Between 1985 and 1996, Alaska Airlines progressively increased the period in between both jackscrew lubrication and end play checks with the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).[1] Since each lubrication or end play check subsequently not conducted had represented an opportunity to adequately lubricate the jackscrew or detect excessive wear, the NTSB examined the justification of these extensions. In the case of extended lubrication intervals, the investigation could not determine what information, if any, was presented by Alaska Airlines to the FAA prior to 1996.[1] Testimony from an FAA inspector regarding an extension granted in 1996 was that Alaska Airlines submitted documentation from McDonnell Douglas as justification for their extension.[1]

End play checks were conducted during a periodic comprehensive airframe overhaul process called a C‑check. Testimony from the director of reliability and maintenance programs of Alaska Airlines was that a data analysis package based on the maintenance history of five sample aircraft was submitted to the FAA to justify the extended period between C-checks. Individual maintenance tasks (such as the end play check) were not separately considered in this extension.[1] The NTSB found that "Alaska Airlines' end play check interval extension should have been, but was not, supported by adequate technical data to demonstrate that the extension would not present a potential hazard".[1]
FAA oversight

A special inspection conducted by the NTSB in April 2000 of Alaska Airlines uncovered widespread significant deficiencies that "the FAA should have uncovered earlier".[1] The investigation concluded that "FAA surveillance of Alaska Airlines had been deficient for at least several years".[1] The NTSB noted that in July 2001, an FAA panel determined that Alaska Airlines had corrected the previously identified deficiencies. However several factors led the Board to question "the depth and effectiveness of Alaska Airlines corrective actions" and "the overall adequacy of Alaska Airlines' maintenance program".[1]

Systemic problems were identified by the investigation in the FAA's oversight of maintenance programs, including inadequate staffing, its approval process of maintenance interval extensions, and the aircraft certification requirements.[1]

EDIT

John Liotine

In 1998, an Alaska Airlines mechanic named John Liotine, who worked in the Alaska Airlines maintenance center in Oakland, California, told the Federal Aviation Administration that supervisors were approving records of maintenance that they were not allowed to approve or that indicated work had been completed when the work had not been completed. Liotine began working with federal investigators by secretly audio recording his supervisors. On December 22, 1998, federal authorities raided an Alaska Airlines property and seized its records. In August 1999 Alaska Airlines put Liotine on paid leave,[13] and in 2000 Liotine filed a libel suit against the airline. The crash of AS261 became a part of the federal investigation against Alaska Airlines because in 1997 Liotine had recommended that the jackscrew and gimbal nut of the aircraft involved in the accident be replaced.[14] In December 2001 federal prosecutors stated that they were not going to file criminal charges against Alaska Airlines. Around that time Alaska Airlines agreed to settle the libel suit by paying about $500,000; as part of the settlement, Liotine resigned.[13]

EDIT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261#Extension_of_maintenance_intervals

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Air travel discomfort res...