absolutely alex’s adventures & times

Twenty years ago, air travel was exciting, fun and exotic.

Taking a plane to one’s destination was part of the journey and signaled the start of the vacation. People would dress well to board a plane. The flight attendants were courteous and helpful. Meals were not great, of course, but it was not the joke that it is now, if one even gets meal services on board these days.

Planes would take off on time and get to the designation on schedule, or at times, even early. The state of the airplanes’ interiors was usually immaculate, seats would recline smoothly and things on the plane actually worked.

Upon disembarkation, bags that were checked would show up at the designated carousel and the passenger goes off to continue with the business or vacation that the plane had pleasantly taken him to.

But of course, things are no longer these rosy scenarios anymore.

Air travel passengers nowadays are forced to start their journey hours before the time the plane is scheduled to depart, often having to arrive at least two hours ahead so that they could go through the chaotic scenes and long lines at the check-in counters, endure the mind-numbingly tedious process of airport security, stripping off jackets/ outerwear, shoes, belts, watches and what-nots, putting up with rude TSA officers and “random checks”, rushing to the gate, only to find that the flight is, inevitably, delayed.

Once the passenger is lucky enough to get on the plane, he might be trapped on the tarmac for easily half to an hour waiting for the plane’s turn to take-off, tolerate more surly service from the flight attendant who won’t give him a glass of water, cramped in a seat that was built for anorexic midgets.

Upon surviving the flight where one had to pay for a drink and meal, luggage retrieval could induce more blood pressure elevation as the passenger realizes that the checked luggage is lost.

Why do we endure the nightmare of air travel anymore?

Why has it become so painful?

Is there hope of things getting better any time soon?

Just recently, Delta and Northwest announced their merger and claim that they had to, in the face of higher oil prices and better weather more turbulence ahead for the industry. More airlines are reportedly following in their footsteps, such as United and Continental. 

But it does not look like mergers are the answers.

What benefits are there for passengers when there are fewer choices and fuller planes from reduced flights as airlines cut back duplication? Isn’t competition usually an incentive for lower prices and better service?

But with the mergers, prices are likely to go up while service could get worse. Passengers will soon be slapped with $25 surcharge for checking a second bag. What choices have they but to cough up and swallow the anger, since five out of the six major airlines are introducing it?

Mergers do not make for better in-flight service either. In fact, already substandard service by flight attendants might get worse as discontented employees feel more enraged by worse deals foisted on them from the mergers and their unions get more toothless, losing members’ benefits and pensions.

Flights are even less likely to be on schedule, as disgruntled pilots pay the companies back for the lousy deals and lower pay they might get after mergers by enacting legal work slow-downs and other industrial action. 

The state of air travel does not have to be such a disaster. US carriers could take a leaf from Asian carriers, who are constantly beating them in service, punctuality and price. Even with the heightened fears of terrorism, foreign airports put in place security checks that are a lot more discreet and hassle-free than those in US airports. Why not make flying less painful if it is possible?

Governments at all levels could also play a part by either building or upgrading more runways so that more planes can take off on time (bad for the environment, unfortunately), or stop airlines from cramming too many flights into existing airports, which make schedules impossible to keep and delays or cancellations the norm.

While the US works out an improvement in air travel, it is high time to revisit the introduction of a high-speed, efficient railway system that could serve as an alternative to flying.

Good models include the Swiss, French or Japanese systems. Those methods of traveling within the country are truly a breeze — show up at the station just a few minutes before the scheduled train, hop on and arrive in the middle of the destination city, not some outlying airport that requires a long drive to get to. The same way the will to build the nation’s systems of roads and freeways was summoned could be duplicated to create railways and tracks.

In the meantime, almost everybody has to fly one time or another, be it for leisure or business. It might not go back to the magical experience it used to be, but flying really does not have to remain in the sad state it has sunk to. Here’s another thought — if US airlines don’t shape up soon, the open-sky agreement that has just come into effect with Europe might make more travelers chose European carriers. Then, no amount of merger would be able to save them from their lousy business models or laughable lack of service standards. 

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Oh boy, here we go again.

More trouble from the world’s biggest passenger jetliner, the Airbus 380, the seven-storey tall behemoth of an airplane that could seat 449 passengers in its double decks.

Singapore Airlines, currently the only carrier to operate the aircraft, had to announce mechanical problems of the plane today for the second time in one week, which is also the fifth incident since it started flying the plane last October.

In this latest incident (Saturday evening Singapore time), the plane’s take-off was delayed by over an hour due to a problem in its fuel line, which carries fuel between the aircraft’s respective fuel tanks.

The plane was bound for Sydney from Singapore.

This latest incident comes at an awkward time for SIA. It had just claimed, in a damage control media blitz in Singapore, that the A380 has one of the best introduction record among all the types of aircraft it had brought into service.

SIA was also quick to dismiss its highly-publicized woes with the A380 as teething problems it would smooth out.

As for compensation for affected passengers, such as those who had their A380 flights canceled, SIA claims that the amounts are not substantial to the airline.

SIA has on hand three of the 29 A380s it ordered from Airbus.

It must be praying hard that the new craft that have yet to be delivered would somehow be less problematic than the ones already in operation and spare it from having to issue more embarrassing announcements of glitches.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

You would think that a company as financially-savvy as Singapore Airlines would have thought long and hard before making the decision to be the first airline to fly the super-sized jumbo jet, the Airbus 380. In retrospect, it seemed to be a decision driven by vanity over other factors.

The aircraft, which seats 470 under SIA’s configuration, might have given SIA the bragging rights to be the world’s first carrier to operate the plane. But it has also been providing the world’s most profitable airline a lot of unwanted publicity recently.

Just on Tuesday, SIA was forced to make the embarrassing announcement of grounding its A380 from making its Singapore to Sydney flight, and scrambling to place the stranded passengers on other planes to Sydney. Passengers were reportedly left high and dry for six hours before they could get alternative flights.

The fanfare and media coverage SIA received from being the only airline operating three A380s from Singapore to Sydney, London, and soon, Tokyo, very quickly turned into damage control operations, as the A380s have already generated four well-publicized failures in the few short months it had been in service since October.

The most recent incident was attributed to a pump failure. It suffered other mechanical issues, such as rolling off the tarmac in January, a fuel pump defect in February and an issue with its brakes in early March.

SIA is putting a brave face on these glitches, saying that the aircraft’s reliability had been “generally excellent”. “Its entry-into-service record has been substantially better than any other new aircraft type that we’ve received. While there will be teething issues, we will treat them carefully and cautiously – and won’t be rushing to put a plane into the air which isn’t 100 per cent good to go,” an SIA spokesman told the media.

It had better work out these teething problems and get a grip on them quickly.

SIA’s selling point and its differentiation with a lot of other airlines is its well-deserved reputation not only for first-class service and a young and well-maintained fleet of planes, but importantly, its reliable punctuality. These attributes keep it ahead of the competition, enabling it to charge a premium that many other airlines cannot. If SIA keeps having to issue press statements about one mechanical failure or another of its A380, those are not the kind of publicity that would be helpful to its reputation nor its bottom line.

The A380 flights had reportedly been attracting brisk business due to the novelty factor. But this series of negative public relations is bound to hold potential passengers back from jumping on the A380 bandwagon. No one likes facing flight delays, especially not if they had to pay a premium to get a seat on the A380. What a nightmare it would be to have to reschedule meetings or other arrangements due to the delays.

The delays could also be costly to SIA. Not only do they have to find capacity in a hurry to take care of grounded customers while the plane is being worked on, they would also have to compensate them, if not monetarily, at least for goodwill, in the form of vouchers or other gifts. Let’s hope they have set aside a sizable budget to deal with contingencies like these.

SIA has ordered another 16 A380s, with an option for more. Looking at SIA’s experience with its A380s, other airlines must be glad they did not plunge first into getting the bragging rights of operating the largest jumbo jet ever.

Perhaps the A380s’ mechanical problems are not surprising, given the two-year delay in the delivery by Airbus of the A380 due to various wiring setbacks. The first generation release of any new product has always been and will always be problematic. All this should have been harbingers for SIA. It might now have learned its lesson and be reminded to be more circumspect before rushing to buy new untested planes and putting them into operation.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Tata Motors’ launch this week of the Nano, a little car that can seat 5 and costs $2,500, has attracted much attention for its potential to bring mobility to the masses.

Technologically, it is significant, capitalizing on India’s plentiful labor and cheaper materials to build a car that could be affordable to people of lesser means.

Aesthetically, it is pleasing, with its cute design that’s somewhat reminiscent of Swatch’s Smart car. Its small size suggests easy handling, especially in the crowded and chaotic streets of India, and of course, breezy parking on narrow streets.

For India, the birthplace of the car, the success of the Nano could boost national pride and translate into even stronger economic growth than it is already enjoying.

The vehicle is also priced attractively enough so that a family which could previously afford only a two-wheeler, such as a motorcycle or scooter, could seriously consider going for the Nano instead.

But therein lies the rub – is it progress or regression with the Nano’s imminent introduction to the market?

As the world worries about global warming and increased greenhouse gases and tries to work on solving the issue, the Nano could throw a spanner in the works, possibly causing car ownership to balloon worldwide as its accessible price attracts those who had previously never had the means of affording a car.

Furthermore, with India’s relatively less stringent fuel emission standards, this could mean the nightmare of even more greenhouse gases produced and more pollution to deal with. Even as many parts of the world fret over future air quality and tries to promote public transport as an alternative, is that endeavor doomed to fail as the Nano’s success condemns the efforts of reversing the damage done to the earth?

With more cars, imagine also the strain on the infrastructure of developing countries, which are primarily the Nano’s target markets. Existing roads, usually in poor condition with maintenance virtually non-existent, are already laboring to keep up with the present number of vehicles. I do not wish upon already frazzled motorists more traffic and congestion as too few roads and infrastructure fail to keep up with more cars in circulation. Traffic is already notoriously bad in places like Bangkok, Beijing, Mexico City and New Delhi. How much worse might it get if more cars were on the road as they get cheaper?

Safety is yet another dimension that could easily be compromised with a surge in the car population. Developing countries are often quite lax on the criteria for getting a driver’s license – if it is even strictly necessary. In Mexico City for instance, one only has to be 18 and above and have the fees ready to pay for the license, with nary a driving test in sight. The New York Times reports that in India, standards are similarly loose, with a license easily procured as long as one could afford it. More worryingly, the Nano reportedly falls short of US safety standards.

How about the price of oil? $100 per barrel is already upon us. How much more is gas going to cost in the longer term as demand for it becomes even more insatiable? And what consequences will that have on geopolitics, especially in the Middle East?

Like it or, Tata is pushing ahead with the Nano and it is likely to be successful, given that cars are status symbols in many countries. Which probably means that all the emission cuts that have been envisioned or agreed upon is likely to disappear into thin air.

Mexicans must be be the most patient people in the world. They have to be. There’s just no choice.

It’s not just the sheer numbers – 20 million people living in the greater Mexico City area, 4 million vehicles circulating on the city’s roads.

Part of it also has to do with the tyranny of the minority, as the city is susceptible to protests and demonstrations which could shut down parts of the city.

Just today, disruptions came in the form of protests in the city by government employees, led by teachers, against reforms in the public employees’ health and pension systems.

picture by El Universal

This didn’t just create chaos on the city’s major arteries like Contituyentes and Paseo de la Reforma, it also suspended important public transport services like the Metrobus. Some schools arranged for early dismissals so that children won’t be caught in the anticipated spiraling traffic jams.

Mexican friends tell me that it doesn’t take many people to close down roads and cause major disruptions – just 5 people protesting is enough.

And while many Mexico City residents get annoyed or feel like they’re “held hostage” to protests, demonstrations or shut-downs, most just adopt a resigned attitude to it. “Putting a happy face to disasters,” as one of my friends put it.

it’s heartening to see healthy democracy at work. It’s even more admirable the patience displayed by Mexicans. I know I’m not even half as saintly. But trust me, there are occasions when I really wish there was less of a fatalistic attitude here.