Video: The last mainline Midwest Airlines flight

[Teller1900]

http://www.alpa.tv/DesktopModules/UltraVideoGallery/UltraVideoGallery.swf?vId=281&portalId=14

 

[bbchien]

So sad. This will not change until we stop selecting flights by "lowest fare".

 

[nddons]

Thank you, Teller. This has been a sad situation. If there was one airline that I thought did it all pretty well, it was Midwest Airlines. Certainly the best airline that I've ever had status on.

Midwest's 2x2 configuration of the Boeing 717, from a passenger standpoint, was the best aircraft I have flown on a regular basis. Then, CRJs started showing up, which I knew was the beginning of the end.

My daughter is on the "new" Midwest's route to/from Boston this weekend. Of course it was on a Republic jet - some type of Embraer. And add a "2" to the flight number.

And of course "Midex" is gone. It is now "Brickyard."

 

[Everskyward]

As someone who is not very familiar with the story, I noticed that this video was made by ALPA. However, I'm thinking that this is not one of their success stories since it ended with all the pilots losing their jobs... or is there something I am missing?

 

[121Dispatch]

I went through this with an airline in 2004. It's always tough when a relatively small company goes out of business. There were many great people there that worked very well together, and they were probably closer with these folks than with many of their family members. For some it will certainly be the end of the line in the industry, but for others, it will be the beginning of great opportunities (hopefully) - although probably none will feel quite as good as what they've just lost.

 

[flyersfan31]

So sad. This will not change until we stop selecting flights by "lowest fare".

And, uh, why should we do that?

If there is perceived value in a service, people will pay for said service.

 

[maddog52]

As someone who is not very familiar with the story, I noticed that this video was made by ALPA. However, I'm thinking that this is not one of their success stories since it ended with all the pilots losing their jobs... or is there something I am missing?

You're right. It wasn't a success, but that is why they made the film. It demonstrates what can happen when management quits looking for quality and goes looking for the lowest bidder. It's meant as a wakeup call to pilots and a call to action to try to stop the race to the bottom.

Unfortunately, the pilots at Frontier are probably next in line for Republics brand of whipsaw management.

Another sad day in the industry! Good luck to all the real Midwest pilots.

 

[Everskyward]

You're right. It wasn't a success, but that is why they made the film. It demonstrates what can happen when management quits looking for quality and goes looking for the lowest bidder. It's meant as a wakeup call to pilots and a call to action to try to stop the race to the bottom.

What do you think pilots should do?

Unfortunately, the pilots at Frontier are probably next in line for Republics brand of whipsaw management.

I hope not because I know quite a few people (pilots and others) who work for Frontier.

Another sad day in the industry! Good luck to all the real Midwest pilots.

+1

 

[ggroves]

So sad. This will not change until we stop selecting flights by "lowest fare".

Isn't that the point? Just sayin....

 

[sba55]

This isn't about management at all. It's not about them sacrificing quality or anything along those lines. I really wish people would quit making management responsible for things that it isn't responsible for.

It's a very simple supply and demand problem. There wasn't enough demand for the better service at their price point. That's the consumer saying that he doesn't want to pay a higher price, even if the service is better.

I can't blame them. If I fly privately, I always book the cheapest fare.

-Felix

 

[SCCutler]

I never flew them, but heard nothing but good things about their service.

Still confounded am I, at the aggressive campaign waged against the proposed acquisition of Frontier by Southwest, in favir of Republic's deal; I cannot imagine Republic has a different plan for Frontier. Maybe I'll be wrong this time, but it would not make sense.

And Doctor Bruce, you might note: Southwest is not always the cheapest, but they do treat passengers as valued customers, shown in a number of key policies, and yet their people are now among the best-paid in the industry.

 

[Everskyward]

Still confounded am I, at the aggressive campaign waged against the proposed acquisition of Frontier by Southwest, in favir of Republic's deal; I cannot imagine Republic has a different plan for Frontier. Maybe I'll be wrong this time, but it would not make sense.

I know we discussed this earlier and since then I have spoken to more Frontier pilots and I have not heard even one of them say they wish they had gone with Southwest.

 

[SCCutler]

I know we discussed this earlier and since then I have spoken to more Frontier pilots and I have not heard even one of them say they wish they had gone with Southwest.

I fervently hope it continues to be thus... and even if Republic ends up doing them wrong, does not mean a joinder with Southwest was the right thing.

What makes me worry so much is that there is nothing uniquely different about the Midwest employee group, or Midwest's operations, that would make them more dispensable than those of Frontier.

As a practical matter, because SWA's management were never going to do a deal without the blessing of both pilot groups, it was never to be.

In other news, SWAPA just approved a new contract... my neighbor, the Captain, is very happy.

 

[bbchien]

Southwest is not always the cheapest, but they do treat passengers as valued customers, shown in a number of key policies, and yet their people are now among the best-paid in the industry.

Policy doesn't do squat if you can't motivate people. UAL has this policy and that policy and look at what they deliver.....

And to Gregg: "ayup".

 

[Everskyward]

I fervently hope it continues to be thus... and even if Republic ends up doing them wrong, does not mean a joinder with Southwest was the right thing.

Yeah, I wish that they had been able to stay independent but the bankruptcy did them in. Too bad the credit card company changed the terms on them.

 

[SCCutler]

Yeah, I wish that they had been able to stay independent but the bankruptcy did them in. Too bad the credit card company changed the terms on them.

Often a triggering event like that...

...it was some similar stuff (including collusion by AA) that did-in Braniff in May of '82.

 

[Ted]

The problem is people don't know what they are or are not getting for the price they're paying. What they know is that they're paying less money. Whether or not they're getting better quality service (more experienced pilots, better maintenance practices, etc.) I don't believe enters the minds of most people. They all assume it's equal. This is simply not true, but people believe it to be.

I never flew on Midwest, but I try to avoid flying commercial if I can. When I flew commercial to Europe and back a few weeks ago was the first time in a year that I have. I still don't like it.

 

[Everskyward]

The problem is people don't know what they are or are not getting for the price they're paying. What they know is that they're paying less money. Whether or not they're getting better quality service (more experienced pilots, better maintenance practices, etc.) I don't believe enters the minds of most people. They all assume it's equal. This is simply not true, but people believe it to be.

The thing is, though, that the price of your ticket doesn't necessarily correlate with better service or more experienced pilots. The price of your ticket is based on how competitive the route is, both the day of the week and the time of day you fly, and how far in advance you purchase your ticket. Your ticket on a regional airline with less expensive labor costs could easily be more than a ticket on a mainline carrier, not to mention the fact that for some destinations you have very little choice.

When I buy a ticket for myself I first look at the flights available at the times I want to travel and then at the price. It's strange to me how there can be a large difference in price for different flights at different times of the day on the various airlines. On some days it's better to take airline X and on other days airline Y. In my mind the service and amenities may be a bit different but not better or worse. There is not a large differentiation which would warrant an increase in price. Some airlines still give you peanuts, some have TV available (which I don't watch) and some charge for baggage. Not only that, people on the same flight can be paying very different prices, and I'm talking about airlines without a first class. I guess it depends on how quickly they fill up the cheap seats, then they raise the price.

 

[Ted]

Agreed, and nobody's saying to spend more money for the sake of spending it. My point is people don't make themselves aware of safety record, etc. when choosing a carrier, unless there was recently a crash in which case they don't fly that carrier at all. That, however, says nothing about the safety records of the remaining carriers. The main thing I get is some people who don't want to fly on those "little planes", referring to the prop planes that people like our friend Mr. Teller fly.

People look at cost since that's the easy thing. When was the last time you saw a box that said "This carrier has a safety rating of..." on Travelocity?

 

[wsuffa]

Policy doesn't do squat if you can't motivate people. UAL has this policy and that policy and look at what they deliver.....

And to Gregg: "ayup".

The difference, Bruce, is that WN believes that superior customer service and making the customer feel that they get value will lead to more customers. Witness, for example, the no-fee-for-baggage policy at WN compared to the price for a checked bag at UA.

UA outright lost me as a customer years ago when I needed to be home that night for a client breakfast meeting the next morning. The Lincoln-ORD flight was posted "on time", but there was no plane in evidence. TW had a flight from Lincoln to DCA via STL leaving shortly before the UA flight. I asked the gate agent about the ORD flight, and explained the situation and how critical my breakfast was. He assured me the flight would be only a couple of minutes late, and the connections would be good. One minute after TW closed the doors, he posted a 90 minute delay. I looked at him and said: "I asked you nicely, but you knew about the delay, didn't you?" His response: "Yes, but if I'd told you, you would have flown TWA and we would have lost the revenue".

That's cost UA about $500,000 in revenue from me over the last 10-12 years.

I just did my first UA flight in 10 years recently because I needed to do a day trip to Denver - no one else, not even Frontier - offered that opportunity. In that case, UA offered more value to me than the others.

Delta (formerly one of my favorites) is headed down the same road. Why should I pay $800 more for exactly the same product in steerage than I can pay on Continental - when Delta won't offer me even the chance of an upgrade at that price, and CO will (in the end CO provided it)? Or where you select a flight and price and upon entering your credit card info the price is raised $1000 (happened to me and others - that is classic bait-switch).

To the legacy carriers, passengers are "marks" to be "fleeced". The upstarts like WN realize that the customer will come back if they're treated reasonably well. That's why Virgin, JetBlue, and Southwest do pretty well. It is the same lesson that Detroit has learned the hard way from Honda and Toyota (and their premium brands).... and is one reason that I was opposed to the bailout of GM and Chrysler. Ford seems to be coming around, though some of their dealers have not.

The issue now is how many folks do "upsell".

The real issue is delivering value, not cheapest price.

 

[steingar]

So sad. This will not change until we stop selecting flights by "lowest fare".

Unfortunately, the most relevant issues are often opaque to the consumer. I want an aircraft that is maintained properly, but can't see the maintenance schedules. I want a seasoned flight crew, but don't know who's piloting the thing. At the end of the day I have price, where and when the jet is going, with few choices in between. As such, I pick the lowest flight, since I truly can't differentiate between the players based on my experience.

I think it takes a significant amount of inside information for the average consumer to make an informed decision.

 

[Everskyward]

Unfortunately, the most relevant issues are often opaque to the consumer. I want an aircraft that is maintained properly, but can't see the maintenance schedules. I want a seasoned flight crew, but don't know who's piloting the thing. At the end of the day I have price, where and when the jet is going, with few choices in between. As such, I pick the lowest flight, since I truly can't differentiate between the players based on my experience.

I think it takes a significant amount of inside information for the average consumer to make an informed decision.

The thing is that airplane accidents are so rare that it's hard to make any kind of statistical comparison. As far as seasoned pilots go, I would bet that the laptop guys would have fallen into that category...

 

[Ghery]

Lowest fare that meets my business needs. That's my company's policy. And we have negotiated deals with some airlines. Guess which ones I ride? It's our bottom line.

I've heard nothing but good things about the service on Midwest. Never had an occation to ride them. Sorry to see them go. But, that's business. I'm sure that if our competitors offer a better product at a better price, we'll feel it. We have in the past. Keeps us on our toes. But offering a better product at a better price is what free enterprise is all about.

 

[steingar]

The thing is that airplane accidents are so rare that it's hard to make any kind of statistical comparison. As far as seasoned pilots go, I would bet that the laptop guys would have fallen into that category...

Laptop guys successfully landed their aircraft.

 

[John Baker]

So sad. This will not change until we stop selecting flights by "lowest fare".

The only business's that can survive are the ones who can sell it the cheapest. Wall Mart is a success for that reason. They can purchase in huge volume from places like China and get unbelievably low per unit costs. Americans have voted Wall Mart to be the best, with their voting dollars. The idea of quality is a quaint notion from bygone days.

At one time, flying commercial was downright fun, hot meals, hot looking stews, blankets, pillows, drinks. No longer.

Sure we all want first class service, but we don't even want to pay coach prices, we want cargo prices.

I can see the day coming when that is what we will get, cargo prices. We will be loaded into cargo pods and stacked into the belly's of ugly gray cargo planes that don't even have a crew, they will be fully automated, from takeoff to landing.

We vote with our dollars about what we want from private industry, then we ***** because that is what we get, the cheapest thing possible.

There is nothing like aluminum siding to make your house a home.

John

 

[tdager]

And, uh, why should we do that?

If there is perceived value in a service, people will pay for said service.

No they will not.

We have moved from "fair price" for a service or good to CHEAP, period.

People want CHEAP....and CHEAP comes with low wages, cattle car setups in airlines, no amenities, etc. People will *****, moan, and complain, and then pay the CHEAPest fair the can.

That is why I, for one, get tired of "what the people want" as a way to run anything. The people "want" big houses, fancy cars, a *rich* lifestyle and life, but also want someone else to pay for it. Sorry but as a group....the "people" are lazy idiots.

 

[CT Arrow]

That's why Virgin, JetBlue, and Southwest do pretty well. It is the same lesson that Detroit has learned the hard way from Honda and Toyota (and their premium brands. The real issue is delivering value, not cheapest price.

Well said!

You get what you pay for

 

[SCCutler]

No they will not.

We have moved from "fair price" for a service or good to CHEAP, period.

People want CHEAP....and CHEAP comes with low wages, cattle car setups in airlines, no amenities, etc. People will *****, moan, and complain, and then pay the CHEAPest fair the can.

That is why I, for one, get tired of "what the people want" as a way to run anything. The people "want" big houses, fancy cars, a *rich* lifestyle and life, but also want someone else to pay for it. Sorry but as a group....the "people" are lazy idiots.

I respectfully disagree.

The most successful airlines today are delivering excellent value - which is not nearly always the lowest price. By way of illustration, I will pay a higher fare to fly on Southwest, for the same itinerary, than I would to fly on AA, especially for business travel. First off, if my plans change, the fare is fully valued, never forfeited as is routine on other carriers, and there is no re-booking fee. Secondly, if I have to check a bag, no added charge. In my experience, widely disrupted operations are less likely, because the carrier does not rely upon a mega-hub at which aircraft can be choke-pointed.

I don't get penalized and relegated to a middle seat, and there is no "cattle call" boarding (not that it was any worse then traditional carriers before the new boarding system), and I don't have to wait while every passenger loads-up their "biggest bag the law allows" into the overhead to avoid the baggage-check fee.

All that said, of course...

...I still prefer to fly myself.

 

[wsuffa]

IMHO, Spike is right.

The major airlines have long subsidized the cheap travelers with the revenue from business fares. They "know why you fly" and since the belief is that a business traveler "has to be there", they charge same out the wazoo. Meanwhile, they sell cheap seats to try and fill the plane. In the old days, that was incremental revenue - they still made money on the "rich" businesses. They saw "value" to the business traveler as "getting there conveniently", and they saw "value" to the leisure traveler as "just getting there". (Socialism, if you will, from the same guys who claim that they subsidize GA.... If you consider Southwest's policies "freedom", just goes to show how freedom and choice can kill off socialism. But I digress).

Hence all the restrictions on less expensive tickets (sat night stays, etc, etc).

The so-called low-cost-carriers had a different value proposition. More convenient point-point flights which didn't require catering and other services.

The legacies could keep to their version of "value" because the low cost guys weren't big enough to make a difference.

Enter today. The legacies still think they can justify ridiculous prices for business travelers. Yet every business I know is clamping down on travel costs. Take the lowest cost airline. Take steerage instead of up-front. Some of the bigger airlines started to respond, but some (notably Delta) have restricted upgrades to the higher fares. Almost all maintained the differential between F/J seating and Y. For an international trip, a business class seat will set you back $8-$10K. The cheapest coach ticket might be $400-$500. On Delta, an upgradable coach ticket is $3000 - yet on some other airlines you have a "copay" to upgrade (an additional $200-800 on top of your coach ticket price).

A business owner can afford to send a business traveler a day early in a coach seat, put 'em in a NICE hotel for the night, and still come out ahead financially.

The airlines also know that they're operating a commodity market at the low end. They can't raise the price - they won't fill the seats. At the high end, the customer has decided that the value proposition doesn't work. And the customer is right: I hate paying change fees, but over the course of a year, the few times I have to change a flight works out to be far cheaper than buying refundable tickets. Why pay more for the same seat?

The airlines have put an end to the secondary market in tickets - the whole ID check started as a revenue protection concept - the airlines were more than happy to have TSA take over ID checking.... they could blame the government (took heat off them). What other businesses don't allow you to give away or scalp tickets?

And they hate the internet. That's part of the reason for the plethora of fees: to make it much, much harder to comparison shop.

Another example: Virgin runs transcons from Washington to LAX. Last one I priced was about $900 each way for a seat in the front cabin. It was about $200 for a basic coach seat. Much better differential - the same flight on AA was about $1500 for a seat in F, and about $200 for a seat in back. VX is a much nicer flight. JetBlue is in the same price range at the low end, higher if you want a refundable ticket.

Southwest isn't perfect. They offer a basic service, and a service that costs a bit more for the advantage of early boarding and ticket refunds. But even on the basic service (where you can't get a refund), canceling a flight will simply keep your money as a credit with no punative change fees. That is delivering value, and it's one reason I chose Southwest when I was doing a weekly commute from San Antonio to DC: if I had to cancel, I didn't lose money. Southwest was NOT cheaper per-ticket, but it did work out MUCH cheaper in the long run (esp. when they offered a non-stop vs connecting in ATL or DFW).

 

[Ghery]

One reason I'm happy when the low cost option winds up UA - E+. As a 1P member of their frequency flier (rider) program I get that without paying extra. That extra 4-5 inches of legroom is a lifesaver, especially on a trans-Pac flight. Now, tomorrow? I burned some upgrade certificates and am riding up front, on a coach ticket that I paid for as my employer cut off travel funding for my professional society board meetings. Now there's a cost savings for them - let the employee pay for travel they used to support.

 

[Everskyward]

Enter today. The legacies still think they can justify ridiculous prices for business travelers. Yet every business I know is clamping down on travel costs. Take the lowest cost airline. Take steerage instead of up-front. Some of the bigger airlines started to respond, but some (notably Delta) have restricted upgrades to the higher fares. Almost all maintained the differential between F/J seating and Y. For an international trip, a business class seat will set you back $8-$10K. The cheapest coach ticket might be $400-$500. On Delta, an upgradable coach ticket is $3000 - yet on some other airlines you have a "copay" to upgrade (an additional $200-800 on top of your coach ticket price).

I'd like to know who can justify spending $8-10K rather than $400-500 for a seat in the same airplane. Then again, I have never bought a first class ticket and the company always sends us in the cheapest seat too.

 

[wsuffa]

I'd like to know who can justify spending $8-10K rather than $400-500 for a seat in the same airplane. Then again, I have never bought a first class ticket and the company always sends us in the cheapest seat too.

Or even $3000 for the exact same seat in the airplane with a chance at the upgrade lottery.

There's a reason that there were 10 passengers in the entire business class section of the 747 I was on from NRT-ATL this past summer. I managed to get the upgrade on a $2000 coach ticket, and the upgrade was worth it for that flight. And a reason that over half the business class cabin was filled with non-rev airline employees going to Eastern Europe last year.

I have paid for an international business class ticket - but that was when said ticket was discounted so as to be only slightly more than coach (and much less than an upgradable coach ticket on DL). I've also had the company pay for a domestic F ticket, again, that ticket was discounted, refundable and cheaper than the available refundable coach ticket (I knew there was a very good chance I was going to have to change the flight).

 

[cowtowner]

At the rate this administration is going, we will see airlines re-regulated in the near future. The unions will demand it, and the administration will go along coming up with an excuse it will be the only way for the industry to survive.

 

[tdager]

At the rate this administration is going, we will see airlines re-regulated in the near future. The unions will demand it, and the administration will go along coming up with an excuse it will be the only way for the industry to survive.

I am not so sure that some sort of re-regulation is not a bad idea.

 

[silver-eagle]

There will always be people who won't pay for quality. Just think of all the people you know who have to go to the airport. You have those who take the subway. Those who "use" a friend. The purpose line airport bus. A taxi. A limo. Once at the airport, they use the skycap or trudge to the counter, or speed check-in at the local computer terminal.
Management sees the growth of cheap airlines as a "trend" of what all people want, which couldn't be further from the truth. There is still a huge majority out there who would pay for what they want. But if you use an online service for tickets, you get cheap first.
Another trend I've noticed is selling of tickets based on location in the plane. When I wanted a particular seat, I found it was 10% more than the ticket I'd bought.

 

[dmccormack]

Management sees the growth of cheap airlines as a "trend" of what all people want, which couldn't be further from the truth. There is still a huge majority out there who would pay for what they want. But if you use an online service for tickets, you get cheap first

The "majority" wants "cheap." This is why there are more Wal-Marts than [insert high end store name here]

 

[wsuffa]

There will always be people who won't pay for quality.

This is why there are more Wal-Marts than [insert high end store name here]

Or Harbor Tools as opposed to Snap-On.

Problem is that it's often hard to tell the difference between "quality" and "cheap". When you're dealing with a commodity (airline seats), the FAA Regs guarantee a minimum level of quality (maintenance/safety/etc). The differentiator(s) are on-time/cancellation record (again, FAA/DOT makes this public so airlines are downgraded for doing the right thing and holding flights for late connnecting passengers), seat pitch & comfort, schedule, customer service, and price. But since it's essentially a commodity (the basics - transportation from Point A to Point B), and the seats are essentially the same (except a steenking CRJ), then why choose on anything but price and schedule?

Another trend I've noticed is selling of tickets based on location in the plane. When I wanted a particular seat, I found it was 10% more than the ticket I'd bought.

There will be more of that. One airline tried charging a fee to redeem frequent flyer miles, another charges for credit card use. See RyanAir or Spirit airlines.

 

[Ted]

Problem is that it's often hard to tell the difference between "quality" and "cheap". When you're dealing with a commodity (airline seats), the FAA Regs guarantee a minimum level of quality (maintenance/safety/etc).

At least, that's the theory. I'm not sure I believe that the practice is completely the same. I was asking one A&P at lunch today how many airplanes he thought were completely by the books out there and he said "Somewhere around zero." I had a guy at the FSDO tell me essentially the same thing, including the FAA's own planes.

Fortunately, it seems that most of them are close enough that there's not a problem, but I would not bet that each carrier has the same maintenance schedule as each other carrier.

 

[wsuffa]

At least, that's the theory. I'm not sure I believe that the practice is completely the same. I was asking one A&P at lunch today how many airplanes he thought were completely by the books out there and he said "Somewhere around zero." I had a guy at the FSDO tell me essentially the same thing, including the FAA's own planes.

Fortunately, it seems that most of them are close enough that there's not a problem, but I would not bet that each carrier has the same maintenance schedule as each other carrier.

I think you're probably right about that - look at the AA and WN cases in the recent past. I'd contend, though, that maintenance practices are not 100% at any of the airlines. Then again, I'd also bet that the same applies to the GA fleet (side note: the FAA's planes don't necessarily have to meet commercial standards, though they do try to).

IMHO, and that's all it is - my opinion, part of the issue is the way the regs are written and overlap. The other is that each carrier sets up its own maintenance schedule and has it approved by the FAA. There are tons of waivers, progressive schedules, ADs, exceptions, etc. etc. to go around. I don't know that its a bad thing (because it means that exceptions can be made if necessary).

My point really is that there is, at least in theory, a minimum set of standards that folks are supposed to meet, and having those standards sets a "floor" on the ability to reduce costs.... while making the public believe that any carrier - even the cheapest - is as "safe" as any other.

 

[Ted]

I think you're probably right about that - look at the AA and WN cases in the recent past. I'd contend, though, that maintenance practices are not 100% at any of the airlines. Then again, I'd also bet that the same applies to the GA fleet (side note: the FAA's planes don't necessarily have to meet commercial standards, though they do try to).

Given some of the junk I see parked on the ramp, I would agree. I also didn't mean to suggest some are perfect while others aren't, I think they're all imperfect. It's just a question of how imperfect they are.

My point really is that there is, at least in theory, a minimum set of standards that folks are supposed to meet, and having those standards sets a "floor" on the ability to reduce costs.... while making the public believe that any carrier - even the cheapest - is as "safe" as any other.

I agree that there is, in theory, a minimum set of standards that people are supposed to meet. Fortunately, when they're not right, they're close enough that it doesn't seem to cause significant problems most of the time. I would say, though, that not every carrier is as safe as any other carrier. Now, how to tell which ones are safer? That part I have no idea on.

FWIW, I don't choose carrier based on perceived safety, other than sticking to carriers of major countries. I tend to figure if it's a major American or European airline, it's probably fine. My mom and I have turned down cheaper flights on certain airlines of particular foreign countries, though.