May 7, 2026

On the Road: To Keep Fares Low, Airlines Charge for the Extras

YOU couldn’t hear the American Airlines gate agent mumbling into his tinny microphone about yet another delay at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport because he was being drowned out by the voice of the woman who makes those annoying security announcements.

That didn’t matter, though, since my plane was not going anywhere for another couple of hours early Friday evening, as the air travel system lurched through the final days of systemwide delays caused by the furloughs of air traffic controllers.

Late that night, as we finally approached New York, the captain made a cheery announcement, which I hoped was also accurate. “Well, the worst part of the day is behind us,” he said.

And on Sunday, flying back home to Tucson from New York with a connection in Dallas, all delay-free, it appeared that the latest air travel crisis had abated.

So welcome back to the old normal — to long flights without food in coach, to overhead storage bins crammed like the roof of a Bangladesh bus, to cramped planes filled to capacity on every flight, to a general annoyance that is perhaps illustrated by my deep resentment of that large man in the row ahead of me with a head the size of a pumpkin who cranked his seat all the way back, reducing my personal space to about nine inches.

One big aspect of the old normal is airline fees, of course. Airlines cannot get enough of them. Last week, for example, US Airways, currently navigating a merger with American Airlines that will ultimately leave USAir in charge, announced that it would follow the lead of United Airlines and raise the penalty fees for changing most coach tickets to $200 from $150, and to $300 from $250 for some international flights.

It was not apparent on Monday whether Delta Air Lines and American Airlines were planning to match these increases. But change penalties are big revenue producers for airlines, which collected $2.4 billion in such penalties in 2011. The total rose about 7 percent for the first three quarters of last year, the most recent period for which data has been reported by the Transportation Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

The airlines justify the rising fees — for changing flights, checking bags and a host of other services like better (or less awful) seats in the coach cabins — as a necessity if they are to remain profitable in the face of intractable passenger demand for the lowest competitive fares. “We can continue to offer low fares by segmenting customer demand,” said Scott Kirby, the president of USAir, at the airline’s annual media day.

Increasingly sophisticated pricing is behind that segmenting of demand. Here is an example from my flight from Tucson to New York over the weekend on American Airlines. The round-trip coach fare, booked by a corporate travel office for last-minute travel, was $916.66 When I checked in, my assigned seat on both legs was 29E — a middle seat, one of the worst possible in the rear of an MD-80 aircraft. All the aisle or window seats in the dreaded back of the plane were shown as unavailable.

Ah, but I did have options. For an extra $36, I was able to choose a less-awful aisle seat. On the return trip, the surcharges for better aisle coach seats ranged up to $106. Yet on both trips, I saw that a few aisle seats in the back of the plane (which I would have opted for without paying a charge) were actually unoccupied. A spokesman for American said that those seats are often kept open for traveling employees and families that want to sit together, and not to encourage others to pay extra for better seats.

These are the realities as the airline industry consolidates globally. With ever more numerous layers of fees, airlines have essentially figured out a way to raise fares from business travelers, who are far more likely to choose to pay a little extra for a little less discomfort. Corporate travel managers are increasingly inclined to approve such extra charges on expense accounts, Derek Kerr, the US Airways chief financial officer, told me last week.

As it merges with American (the merger is expected to formally close this fall), US Airways’ management, which will run what it calls the “new American,” will be operating a giant global airline with more than 1,500 aircraft making 6,700 daily flights to 336 destinations in 56 countries. Under the American AAdvantage brand, its combined frequent-flier program will have more than 100 million members.

Given the enormous complexity of the merger, USAir officials say they are not contemplating introducing a lot of basic changes. But fees for new levels of service will certainly become more common.

At its corporate event in Scottsdale, Ariz., last week, US Airways had a display of one of its new products, called DineFresh. It’s a premium boxed meal with a small bottle of wine, available as an upgrade from the free coach meals on international flights to Europe, the Middle East and South America. The meals looked enticing enough to pay extra for, from a chilled charcuterie with salad and cheesecake to a vegetarian orzo with portobello mushrooms. But the price was bracing.

I caught Doug Parker, the chief executive of USAir, as he passed by. “Doug,” I said, “great-looking choices — but $21.99 for a meal in coach?”

“Heh-heh,” Mr. Parker said.

E-mail: jsharkey@nytimes.com

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/business/to-keep-fares-low-airlines-charge-for-the-extras.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Congress at Impasse Over F.A.A.

For four years and counting, Congress has been unable to approve long-term authority for the agency’s budgets and capital spending plans. Twenty temporary spending measures, some of them lasting just a few weeks, have come and gone.

Last week, Congress again failed to resolve the impasse that has held up an agreement, including battles over subsidies for flights to rural airports and — something dear to the hearts of out-of-town lawmakers — adding more flights at Reagan National Airport near Washington.

So last week, Congress scrapped attempts to approve the 21st temporary spending plan before the last one expired on Friday — thereby shutting down a large part of the F.A.A.

The agency stresses that it has enough money to keep airports open and planes safely in the air. But it cannot work on long-term projects. It has furloughed 4,000 employees, stopped work on construction projects employing thousands more and halted research on next-generation air traffic control systems.

The F.A.A. is not some esoteric financial concept like the debt ceiling — an issue that has some lawmakers proclaiming the end is nigh while others bluster that it does not really matter. The aviation agency holds the lives of hundreds of thousands of travelers in its hands every day, overseeing the nation’s airports and the air traffic controllers who make sure that tens of thousands of flights a day take off and land safely.

“It’s amazingly aberrant behavior on the part of our lawmakers that they haven’t been able to get a bill approved since 2007,” said Marion C. Blakey, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, who from 2002-7 was the F.A.A. administrator, the agency’s top official.

The issue is not merely a question of whether the F.A.A. might have to delay some spending on little-used airports in the districts of powerful legislators. Their dependence on a stream of short-term F.A.A. allocations has led airports to have to bid out projects one small chunk at a time, raising costs and inconveniencing travelers.

“This is not a good way to do business,” Randy Babbitt, the current F.A.A. administrator, said in an interview. “It is a terribly inefficient use of the taxpayer dollar.”

Without authorization from Congress, the F.A.A. cannot collect taxes on airline tickets that pay for much of its operations. The federal government is losing about $30 million a day from the loss of the ticket tax.

For a Congress whose members routinely discuss the importance of adding jobs and constraining spending, an F.A.A. shutdown that lays off workers and makes projects more expensive would seem to go against common sense. Members of both parties and house of Congress blamed each other for the problem.

“I was appalled that the House went through on its dangerous threats last week to hold the entire F.A.A. bill hostage to their politics,” Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, a West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, said on Monday.

Representative John L. Mica, a Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Transportation committee, shot back: “To put people back to work and restart F.A.A. programs, the Senate needs to adopt the F.A.A. extension passed by the House last Wednesday.”

As they did in the two previous sessions of Congress, the House and the Senate each passed bills that would give the F.A.A. its long-term authorization. But they have been unable to reconcile their versions.

One of the sticking points has been the Essential Air Service program, which pays subsidies to provide for regularly scheduled flights to rural airports that would otherwise be too unprofitable to operate. Each house wants to tighten the restrictions, but they differ on how to do it.

Those services played a part in the failure of Congress to approve even a short-term spending plan last week. The 20 stopgap spending measures passed over the last four years included no extraneous changes in budgeted programs. This time, however, the House inserted language that would end subsidized service to small airports in Nevada and Montana, states represented by high-ranking Democratic senators, among others.

Another disagreement is over the number of long-distance flights that are allowed each day at Reagan Airport, which is the closest to Capitol Hill of the three major airports in the region.

Members of Congress from Western states want more direct flights from Reagan Airport to their home states. Members from Virginia, and some in Maryland, want to protect their constituents from the noise the additional flights would create.

Those issues have been sticking points for years. A more recent disagreement is an ideological debate over how to administer union elections.

Last year, the National Mediation Board, which settles labor disputes in the airline and railroad industries, adopted a rule saying that a vote by a company’s employees on whether to certify a union would be decided by a majority of those voting, rather than by a majority of employees eligible to vote. The change was supported by the two board members appointed by President Obama, and opposed by the lone Bush appointee.

Republicans in Congress and many airline and railroad companies have criticized the change, saying it overturns decades of precedent. Democrats and labor leaders say it puts those industries on the same footing as unions in nearly every other industry in the country. The House F.A.A. bill contains a provision to repeal the rule.

After failing last week to approve the most recent F.A.A. short-term reauthorization, many members went to the airport and flew home.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8257414cad291bc68d6d2e2b44c51cb7