Posted by Seth on March 18, 2010 under News | 
Two of the worst airports in the country for tarmac delays are in the New York City area: Newark and JFK. And the carriers with the most operations out of those airports, Delta, American Airlines, jetBlue and Continental, have significant exposure to the impending DoT rule regarding 3-hour delays on the tarmac. The response of those carriers has been two pronged, one in the public and one to the government. The carriers are very publicly stating that they will be canceling more flights rather than risk the fines and they are also applying for exemptions from the rule at those airports.
The exemption applications started with Delta and jetBlue last week. American submitted a similar request a couple days later. And now, feeling a bit left out, Continental has now submitted an even broader request, claiming that all three NYC airports should be treated equally because the runway construction at JFK will have a cascading impact on the entire airspace, not just on JFK directly.
As ridiculous as I think the rule is, the way the airlines are responding is even more ridiculous. I fully expect that United Airlines will be applying for an exemption at Dulles US Airways at Philadelphia (they each more 3+ hour delays than Newark did last year) just to round out the party. I also don’t expect the DoT to grant the exemptions. If they do it will be an admission that the rule was never intended to actually be enforced in the first place.
Yes, flights will be cancelled. Yes, passengers will suffer for that. And there’s even a decent chance that a flight or two will actually cross the magical three hour limit and the carrier will suffer for it. But the cry-baby attitude that the airlines are displaying is pathetic.
No matter which way the DoT rules on these applications, the situation is a joke.
Related Posts
Posted by Seth on March 2, 2010 under News, Trip Reports |
A few months back the news came out that the Department of Transportation would be issuing significant fines against airline operators when they had flights delayed more than three hours between the runway and the gate. The rule hasn’t actually done into effect yet – there are a couple weeks left until enforcement begins – but several airlines appear to be already running their operations in line with the new rules? The net effect of the change in the airlines’ behavior? Thousands of canceled flights across the country.
This should not come as much of a surprise to the traveling public but apparently it is. It seems that the airlines are choosing to cancel flights much more aggressively now when faced with a severe weather situation and they are doing so without any real obligations to their customers. It is not a good thing at all. But it is apparently what society thought they wanted so it is what we’re now faced with.
It is interesting to hear the spin that airlines are putting on their new policies. Take the line from Continental President and CEO Jeff Smisek about the company’s Operations Center policies:
During difficult weather our [Operations] team … works to pre-cancel flights in order to minimize inconvenience for our customers.… [The plan] not only allows Continental to minimize disruptions for passengers during irregular operations, it also permits us to return our operations to normal as quickly as possible after a weather event.
And there is no doubt that parts of this is actually true. It does appear that the airlines are able to get back to normal operations generally pretty quickly after a weather event, though it isn’t completely obvious that it is any better than before. There are, however, some parts that don’t seem to quite live up to the expectations being set. Things like the airlines simply canceling out all of their regional and express operations for a days at a time are not good for customers. When the ability to actually complete travel is frequently delayed two or more days from the weather event it is hard to see how that is minimizing disruptions for passengers. When airlines are unwilling to pay the cost of accommodating their customers on the airlines that are operating the situation becomes even more difficult, especially when the reasons given for the cancelations are less than wholly accurate.
And it isn’t just one or two airlines that take the wholesale cancelation approach. In the past month there have been a number of weather events in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States and many carriers have taken this approach to handling the situation. Southwest, Delta, jetBlue, United and US Airways have all done it at one more more airports for one or more days. That’s hundreds of thousands of passengers displaced because of thousands of flight cancelations.
But it could be worse. More troublesome than just canceling all the flights and telling everyone to go home is when a carrier cancels all their flights across the board and then starts putting a few back into operation. There are simply too many moving bits to keep track of to keep everyone informed. At Newark last Friday I watched as thousands of passengers, self included, were given the run-around while flights were reinstated, moved to new gates, delayed or canceled again and otherwise left with misinformation.
For my own flight a call from the lounge to the gate indicated that I was the only passenger who had not yet boarded the flight and that they were getting ready to depart without me. A quick sprint to the gate showed a much different reality. They were still trying to find a full crew to get on the plane and get us out of there. I’m not sure if the agent in the lounge just didn’t want to deal with me anymore, if the woman at the gate was less than truthful or if no one knew what was going on at all. But it truly sucked from a passenger perspective.
And I was one of the lucky ones. I actually made it on to my flight with only a 5.5 hour delay and with an upgrade. Two other friends in the airport had no reasonable choice other than to cancel their travel plans completely. Ditto for two other guys supposed to make the trip out to Las Vegas for the weekend with us. So what is good for the customer about these new policies?
There are plenty of problems in the airline industry today but this new approach doesn’t solve many of them, other than to avoid DoT fines. Thanks for looking out for the consumers there. Y’all screwed up on this one pretty good.
Related Posts
Posted by Seth on February 10, 2010 under News |
The Mid-Atlantic US coast is suffering some of the worst snow in years today. The airline industry is experiencing the most cancelations on a single day in over 8 years – over 4,000 flights canceled today according to USA Today, and that doesn’t even include Southwest’s schedule. Needless to say that tens of thousands of customers are affected and the airlines are all responding to the storm. Of note, however, is that each airline is responding somewhat differently. Sure, they’ve all put out a press release essentially stating that customers can make changes “for free” to affected itineraries. But just how free are those changes?
It turns out that for most carriers the “free changes” are anything but. Getting a seat could cost hundreds of dollars and the airlines aren’t particularly cooperative or sympathetic in many cases. Even when the changes are truly free there are limits and caveats the customers face. Just how different are the policies? Here’s a quick summary.
At the most liberal end of the spectrum is New York City-based jetBlue. The carrier has implemented a no fee, no fare difference policy for affected customers. The main caveat is that all travel must be rebooked prior to the original scheduled departure time. But other than that the policy is quite friendly. Customers can book until until February 28 to reschedule their trips. Not too shabby.
American Airlines is up at the same level as jetBlue though they are somewhat more restrictive in rescheduling of the travel. AA is not charging any change fees or fare differences for changes so long as the rescheduled travel occurs by February 14.
Delta has matched AA’s policy. No change fees and no fare differences assuming the origin/destination are the same and travel is completed by February 14th.
Closely following these three in customer-friendly policy is United Airlines. United is permitting a waiver of change fees across the board and also of fare differences for travel rescheduled within 48 hours of the originally scheduled flight. For travel pushed farther than that any fare differences are borne by the customers. So a cheap advance-purchase ticket that is rebooked for a week from now may incur a significant charge to make the change as the cheaper fare buckets are unlikely to be available.
Three other major carriers – Continental, US Airways and Southwest – have implemented a no change fee policy (Southwest never charges one anyways). In each case, however, the airline is requiring that the same class of service be available for rebooking without charge. Lacking that availability customers must either pay the fare difference – potentially hundreds of dollars per ticket – or fly standby and hope to grab a seat. Neither is particularly appealing. The details of the policies for those carriers are spelled out here: Continental, US Airways, Southwest.
Are such variations in policies enough to drive your booking tendencies? And are they fair? After all, it isn’t the customer’s fault that mother nature decided to assault the mid-Atlantic this week, right?
Posted by Seth on February 4, 2010 under News |
The rapid decline of Delta’s operations at their former hub in Cincinnati is somewhat unparalleled. In a roughly ten year span the carrier has slashed daily flight operations by a two-thirds and the total number of passengers passing through the airport is down over 30%. Those cuts aren’t quite as bad as the effects of their decision to de-hub Dallas-Ft. Worth but they are still rather significant. And the hits just keep on coming.
The carrier notified its pilots last week that they intend to close the 767-300ER pilot base at the airport at some point in 2010. This move comes as Delta shifts its planes around in the network, moving most of the 763ERs toward the northwestern United States to offer service to Asia from there. The move will affect over 200 pilots who are currently based at CVG. It is expected to have limited effects on the overall operations at the airport, however, as there is currently only one intercontinental destination being served from there – Paris – and that route is expected to remain in service.
It cannot come as much of a surprise that the service is shifting away from Cincinnati. The airline has another hub in Detroit, just 230 miles away, thanks to the merger with Northwest Airlines and that hub has historically been much stronger. In the end there had to be cuts made in order for the merger to result in profits and Cincinnati was pretty much always looking down the barrel of that gun. It seems that Delta has finally decided to pull that trigger.
Related Posts
Posted by Seth on January 5, 2010 under News |
Airline bankruptcies are never a good thing and it is certainly a terrible way to start the new year. But such a filing was made by Mesa Air Group this morning with the carrier seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Dan over at Things in the Sky has a pretty good review of the filing and potential impact it may have. Most notable is that the regional carrier seems to think that this will help them receive legal relief (or at least resolution) more quickly in cases they have pending against Delta and United Airlines regarding the larger carriers terminating regional services. But even if Mesa wins those lawsuits I’m not sure the cash is enough to help them deal with the large number of regional jets they’ve got lying around now with no customers.
The Mesa operation in Hawaii, go! Airlines, is excepted from the filing so that operation is running as normal right now. That seems strange but I’m sure there is a legal reason to do it that way.
Posted by Seth on December 29, 2009 under Trip Reports |
I sit in the airport in Luxor, Egypt pondering the absolute insanity of the trip I’m beginning. Nothing quite like a 36+ hour adventure to travel from Luxor to Barcelona, Spain. It is just across the Mediterranean. It really isn’t that far. But I’m crossing the Atlantic Ocean twice – three hours apart – to make the trip. Yeah, it is crazy.
versus
Back over the summer Delta offered up a sale for flights to Spain so we bought a couple for the weekend over New Years. Celebrating in Barcelona seemed like a good idea. A few months later, we learned that my wife got a few extra vacation days for the time between Christmas and New Years. Use ‘em or lose ‘em, so we used them. A quick search of various reward inventory showed Egypt as a destination with premium cabin seats available and a destination where the country doesn’t shutdown over the Christmas period. Plus, it is a pretty soft introduction to travel in Africa. We were sold, and the trip was phenomenal.
But we still had to be back in New York City in time for our flight to Spain. No need to spend any extra time there. Three hours should be more than enough for an international to international connection. So we’re off.
We’ve got an 11:10pm flight from Luxor to Cairo followed by a 3:30am flight from Cairo to Istanbul and then a 10:30am flight from Istanbul to New York’s JFK airport. All in premium seats including the first class suites of the Turkish Air 777-300 wet-leased from Jet Airways. That should be quite nice. We follow that up with coach seats on a Delta 767-300ER. Probably one of the worst long-haul products out there today that crosses the Atlantic (likely still better than a Lufthansa 747-400 in the back), but the price was right. And there is plenty of potential fun and crazy along the way. Just the way I like to travel.
Images from Great Circle Mapper
Posted by Seth on December 23, 2009 under Flying, News |
The weather last weekend from Washington, DC to Boston was pretty miserable for folks looking to fly. I had a blast watching the almost foot of snow pile up on the back deck and then wandering through Manhattan the following morning but I know that the airports, airlines and passengers didn’t fare so well. Just how badly they fared, however, is interesting to look at.
In Washington, DC, both United and Delta cancelled all of their flights in and out for the duration of the storm. They didn’t have much choice as the airports were shut down for several hours. United got back up and running pretty quickly while Delta was a bit slower to get started. It makes sense as Dulles is a major hub for United. Plus, Delta did send in a few extra planes late on Sunday to help move passengers around.
In New York City there were also a large number of flights canceled. Delta, United, jetBlue and Continental all had to cancel a number of flights. jetBlue seemed to keep operating the longest, running flights into JFK well after the others had stopped on Saturday night. Yes, it was still snowing, but the airport had their ground operations crews working hard to make sure that the runways were safe and jetBlue had just a few extra planeloads of passengers that they didn’t end up stranding. Again, it is a hub operation so it makes sense that they were focused on keeping things operating as much as possible.
JFK is also a hub for Delta, however, and they didn’t come out of the snow too well there. They canceled the vast majority of their transcontinental flights out of JFK on Sunday (only 2/11 flew) while the other carriers operated about 80% of their transcon routes. Delta didn’t send one single plane from JFK to Florida on Sunday. After the snow had stopped. They should have had crew available since those folks didn’t fly on Saturday. Ditto for aircraft. Yet they didn’t. Why not?
The icing on the cake for Delta, of course, is that with all the cancelations and the increased load factors in play right now – a function of the holiday travel season and significant capacity cuts in the industry – they aren’t able to get passengers rebooked very easily. This came to a head yesterday when police were called to handle passengers delayed 3 days trying to get back to Haiti. When the folks think that Haiti is better than the service and facilities you’re providing you know there are some serious issues. At least Delta finally stepped up and added a special flight for today to get those folks home.
Continental seemed to come out of the mess relatively unscathed. Sure, they canceled a bunch of flights just like everyone else, but they didn’t seem to have too many crises come out of the efforts. And they were able to get up and running on Sunday morning with a pretty full schedule operating.
US Airways proved true to form from a customer service perspective. They were boarding and upgrading non-revenue passengers rather than paying customers. They told standby passengers that flights were full and then sent the flights out with empty seats. Bad form.
And lest anyone think the troubles were isolated to the United States, folks over in Europe didn’t fare much better. Combining two package tour companies going out of business in the past week and some storms there and things are not good. Brussels was closed for several hours as were the London airports. Fortunately British Airways had some spare wide-body aircraft around to help cover for the cancellations but things aren’t pretty there either.
With predictions of a White Christmas in NYC this year we could be looking at a repeat performance again this weekend. I’m glad to be flying out on Thursday evening before the fun really starts.
Posted by Seth on December 21, 2009 under Flying |
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced this morning that the Department of Transportation (DoT) has established a “Passenger Bill of Rights.” These new rules cover a number of things, from the amount of time – 3 hours – that passengers can be held on an airplane on the ground before the airline must permit them to deplane to ground service requirements and handling chronically delayed flights. Failure to comply will expose the airlines to a fine of $27,500 per passenger on board. The following is the meat of the DoT rule:
The final rule requires that each plan include, at a minimum, the following: (1) an assurance that, for domestic flights, the air carrier will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours unless the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related impediment to deplaning passengers (e.g. weather, air traffic control, a directive from an appropriate government agency, etc.), or Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations; (2) for international flights that depart from or arrive at a U.S. airport, an assurance that the air carrier will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than a set number of hours, as determined by the carrier in its plan, before allowing passengers to deplane, unless the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related reason precluding the aircraft from doing so, or Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations; (3) for all flights, an assurance that the air carrier will provide adequate food and potable water no later than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of a departure) or touches down (in the case of an arrival) if the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command determines that safety or security requirements preclude such service; (4) for all flights, an assurance of operable lavatory facilities, as well as adequate medical attention if needed, while the aircraft remains on the tarmac; (5) an assurance of sufficient resources to implement the plan; and (6) an assurance that the plan has been coordinated with airport authorities at all medium and large hub airports that the carrier serves, including medium and large hub diversion airports. Failure to do any of the above would be considered an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. §41712 and subject to enforcement action, which could result in an order to cease and desist as well as the imposition of civil penalties.
Most interesting to me is that they have chosen to declare that any violation of this rule is “considered an unfair and deceptive practice.” That is the same rule that the DoT used when announcing fines against Continental, ExpressJet and Delta’s Mesaba subsidiary earlier this year, the first time they issued a fine related to a tarmac stranding event. Such an approach, while permitting the government to do something, seems to be a bit of a stretch in terms of “unfair and deceptive.” Still, the rules have now been filed in the Federal Register and will be going into effect 120 days from today, just in time for the Passover holiday travel rush.
The penalties defined above only apply between the carriers and the DoT. There is still the issue of how passengers will be compensated (or if they should be) in such cases. The DoT doesn’t specifically answer those questions but they do define the systems by which airlines will be required to hear complaints from customers and what the airlines must do in response.
In this regard, we agree with ATA that we need not require carriers to receive complaints by telephone. In reaching this conclusion, we do not mean to imply that carriers should not have in place some mechanism for resolving consumer problems in real time, and failure to do so may require us to revisit this decision in the future. We also do not see the necessity in requiring carriers to accept complaints by fax. As a result, this rule only requires carriers to provide passengers their email or web-form address and their mailing address.
We have decided to adopt a rule along the lines set forth in the NPRM. The Department believes that 30 days to acknowledge a complaint and 60 days to provide a passenger with a substantive response represent standard practice in the industry and should allow carriers adequate time to investigate and respond appropriately. By “substantive response” we mean a response that addresses the specific problems about which the consumer has complained. This type of response often results in a resolution of the complaint. We are also clarifying that by “complaint” we mean a specific written expression of dissatisfaction concerning a difficulty or problem which the person experienced when using or attempting to use an airline’s services and that contains sufficient information for the carrier to identify the passenger.
So the airlines don’t have to accept complaints via telephone (good for you, US Airways and United Airlines) but they do have to actually respond to them (watch out, Continental) and in a substantive way that actually addresses the problem. This should be good for consumers overall.
Another positive move from this action is that the airlines will be forced to publish not only the generic on-tie percentage of their flights but also the number of severe delays (> 30 minutes) and to highlight if that happens on more than half the monthly operations of a flight. The airlines will also be forced to publish if flights are canceled more than 5% of the time in the previous month.
…[T]he Department views the posting of the percentage of arrivals that were more than 30 minutes late as important because consumers are particularly interested in significant delays as these delays are the kind that are likely to result in missed connections and other serious problems. The Department is also requiring special highlighting of flights if they are late more than 30 minutes of scheduled arrival time more than 50 percent of the time to enable consumers to make more informed travel decisions.
So it is mostly a good thing. And there is still the great loophole for the airlines, “unless the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related impediment to deplaning passengers (e.g. weather, air traffic control, a directive from an appropriate government agency, etc.), or Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations.” There will still be plenty of opportunities for passengers to be stranded on the tarmac. And if they are then all the DoT will require is that the airline pay a fine to the government; there is still no requirement of compensation or accommodation to the customers for violations. Such an approach does not seem so great for the passengers on the surface.
I just hope that next time we’re number 4 for takeoff after a 3 hour hold no one turns the plane around and heads back to the gate. That guarantees a cancelation instead of a 3:15 delay and I know that the latter is worse. And now that the DoT has addressed this problem maybe they can get back to work at addressing the underlying source of the problem – the antiquated FAA Air Traffic Control system – and help create a system where the flights can actually operate on time rather than needing to worry about punishment for when they don’t. The ridiculous slot and flow control issues that the FAA and airports have today contribute more to the problems than any airlines’ operational desires. No airline WANTS to keep passengers out on the tarmac for hours. But when the system cannot handle the number of flights passing through it then the system has to be considered part of the problem.
Related Posts
Posted by Seth on December 13, 2009 under News |
The negotiations of the USA-Japan open skies treaty have been ongoing for quite a while now. This latest round of talks, held last week, was actually extended by a day to allow for the final details to be ironed out since they were so close. And ultimately the deal that they struck seems to be a very fair and very good one for the airlines and for customers.
Tokyo Service
With the exception of Tokyo all destinations in Japan are now accessible with unlimited frequencies by all American and Japanese carriers. That is a significant step forward. The Tokyo market, however, is key to pretty much all service to Japan and the agreements reached on that front are quite interesting. Both airports – Haneda and Narita – will remain slot controlled due to the significant demand for service to those airports. And the number of slots that US-based carriers have at Narita will actually decrease a tiny bit. But there’s a good reason for that.
Tokyo’s Haneda airport – the more convenient and desirable destination for most passengers headed to Tokyo – is opening up to more international flights starting in 2010. Some of those flights will be potentially operated to the United States under this deal with as many as four daily flights permitted. That is going to be a very significant benefit for whichever carrier manages to secure those slots. There are a number of restrictions on the new Haneda slots, including late night departure times which aren’t particularly ideal. But it is better than nothing.
Anti-trust Immunity
There are some other interesting nuggets that came out of the agreement as well. Anti-trust immunity (ATI) will be permitted on the US-Japan routes for the first time ever. While there will still be specific applications required for such operations the ATIs will permit coordination of schedules, service and fares for partner carriers on routes between the two countries. The Star Alliance carriers of ANA, Continental and United Airlines are best position to take advantage of the ATI opportunities and they’ve already announced their intentions to do so. The three carriers expect to be able to better coordinate their offerings and streamline operations. In addition to the Star Alliance three, JAL will likely take advantage of the ATI opportunities once they figure out which suitor they’re going to dance with in the bankruptcy/bailout recovery effort. Both Delta and American Airlines are still pursuing the carrier aggressively and being able to apply ATI policies to the operations following whatever deal might be reached will be rather beneficial to whichever partnership comes out of that deal.
Extra Freedoms
Finally, both countries will be removing restrictions on fifth freedom routes. Fifth freedom flights are some of my favorites because the routes seem strange when viewed out of context. They are flights operated between two countries, neither of which the airline is based in, where the airline is permitted to sell seats only on that route. There are a number of such flight in Asia particularly, such as Air France flying between Bangkok and Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City. And there are a few in the USA, like Cathay flying from Vancouver to New York City’s JFK airport. As part of this agreement fifth freedom flights will the permitted without restriction by Japan or the United States. This is great for carriers that want to grow their route maps onward from Japan or the USA. These “add-on” segments generally help to make flights that might otherwise not be profitable happen, so there is an increase in service between markets. Plus there is the opportunity to grab the “other” flight generally rather cheap and have some fun flying on different carriers.
The loser on this bit is most likely Delta which acquired a number of route authorities ex-Tokyo when they bought Northwest Airlines recently. That purchase gave them a number of slots and authorities from Tokyo and now all the other carriers who desire such will be able to get in the game on those flights, assuming they can find the slots. Also, the third country will still need to approve the fifth freedom flights so it isn’t completely open, but there are many more opportunities now for many more carriers.
Mostly good, but potential gotchas
Overall, agreements such as this are generally a good thing for passengers. The increased opportunities for carriers to provide service generally means that where they think there is a market airlines will try, at a lower cost than if they had to buy route authorities to provide such service. The ATIs are always a bit of a toss-up as they essentially permit collusion and price-fixing between partners. As long as there are enough non-partnered carriers in a market that generally isn’t a problem but it is something that always causes a bit of apprehension as it can lead to higher prices due to less competition. Still, there’s a lot of potential good news out of this agreement. Now we just wait to see how it actually plays out.
Posted by Seth on December 10, 2009 under points |
Ending a relationship that has spanned over 20 years, Delta and Singapore Air have announced an end to their frequent flyer partnership. As discussed by Lucky and Gary the partnership will be coming to an end on May 15, 2010. The rewards on Singapore Air used to be a great value for folks collecting SkyMiles. Now that the premium seats are much harder to find (though I’ve got a couple for Christmas!!) the value really isn’t there so much. Plus, with Delta growing their global footprint directly and also with their membership in SkyTeam and Singapore Air’s membership in Star Alliance it doesn’t really make sense for the partnership to continue from any perspective.
Get working on those redemptions if you’re still interested. The clock is ticking.
Posted by Seth on December 8, 2009 under points |
Continental announced two new benefits this evening: a new top-tier status – Presidential Platinum – that will be invitation only and System-Wide Upgrades (SWUs) for some elites. Neither of these announcements should come as too much of a surprise based on the ongoing alignment of the Continental OnePass and United Airlines Mileage Plus programs. But the details are out and they have some notable nuggets in them.
System-Wide Upgrades
The new SWUs are truly system-wide. They are valid on any flights operated by Continental, Continental Micronesia and Copa Airlines. No matter how many connections or hops it takes to get there, one certificate is valid for one direction of travel. The upgrades will book into the same buckets as mileage upgrades book into today. The SWUs will be valid through the entire following elite year which is a pretty long life.
Even better, they are valid on all published fares. Every single published fare. With no cash co-pay. No W or better like UA. No Y/B/M only like Delta. Every fare. Members who fly 100,000 EQMs in a year or 120 EQPs will get 4 SWUs. Not as generous as AA, Delta or United in quantity but the value is arguably better. Like everything else in life there is a trade-off. And there are no current plans for additional SWU earnings for more flying, but the door has been left ajar for that possibility in the future.
Presidential Platinum Status
Unlike the other elite status levels that Continental offers the Presidential Plus level will be invitation-only. Of course, the metrics for receiving an invitation are published so it actually is going to be rather well known what it takes to get there. And the numbers are somewhat staggering, at least for a guy who pays for all my own tickets and flies for fun. To be invited to the P.Platinum level one must hit the standard Platinum qualification numbers of 75K EQMs or 90 EQPs and also have $30,000 in revenue spend annually with Continental, Continental Express or Continental Micronesia. The earning calendar for this level will be annual starting January 1, similar to the regular elite earning calendar. Additionally, the spending threshold for 2010 is $30,000 but this may change in future years “in order to preserve the exclusivity of [the] program.”
The P.Platinum benefits are pretty nice. Members at this level will be prioritized at a new, higher level for the free upgrades covered by the EUA scheme. They will be added to the list at 144 hours/6 days prior to departure rather than at 120 hours/5 days like current platinum elites. Additionally they will be prioritized ahead of United Premier Executives when in line for elite upgrades on United flights when that program begins, though still behind United’s Global Services and 1K members. Members will have an exclusive phone line with dedicated representatives to handle their “unique travel needs” and the number will be accessible from around the world (implied that this access will be toll-free, though that is not explicit). Finally, the P.Platinum members living in the United States (except Hawaii) will be eligible for a fee-waived Presidential Plus MasterCard from Chase. This is the top level card that Continental offers and it includes a Presidents Club lounge membership and some other benefits as well. Members who are not eligible for the PPlus MasterCard will receive 25,000 OnePass miles instead.
Finally, the Continental Million Miler lifetime status program has been updated to grant members with 4 Million lifetime EQMs Presidential Platinum status for life rather than just “regular” Platinum for life. That’s quite a nice bump up for the carrier’s most frequent customers over the years.
Like everything else in life there are pros and cons of this program versus United’s Global Services and Delta’s new Diamond Medallion level. But it is definitely a strong entry into the space, and attracting the high spenders and very frequent fliers seems like a pretty good thing for the airlines to be doing.
