Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:22 am Off topic but an observation worth mentioning. All Indians I have ever met have always been cheerful. friendly and courteous. They seem to be naturally optimistic.

I suspect it must be something genetic because even the Indian Moslem fanatic I once talked to, who believed that Islam had a sacred duty to rule the world by conquest, was also friendly and courteous. I couldn't help liking him even though he scared me to death.

Indians tend to run small family businesses, work hard for long hours. Personally I'm inclined to support such businesses

I second this notion. Most that I have dealt with are ethnic Hindus. I have met a Muslim from India and he is no different in nature than most arabs. By the way, MOST arabs are alright, too.

I guess EVERY nationality has it's members that nobody wants to talk about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 77_pf.html

Failing Airlines, Failing Government

By David Ignatius

Sunday, June 22, 2008; B07

Surveying the decline of the airline industry, retired American Airlines CEO Bob Crandall said something this month that both presidential candidates should take to heart: "The United States used to be good at solving problems. These days, we don't seem up to the job."

Crandall was talking specifically about our national failure, in the 30 years since deregulation, to build an air transport system that works. What we have now is a complete mess -- a system that bankrupts carriers, embitters workers and infuriates the traveling public. But hold off on airlines for a moment and ponder his larger point.

Take any big issue that matters to the public -- from immigration to energy to health care to fiscal policy -- and what you see is a failure of government. The logjam in Washington is so complete that Congress and the executive branch are paralyzed, unable to do the public's business. That problem has been growing for several decades, but now it's a national disaster.

Politicians spend their time railing about the evils of Washington insiders, but the truth is we could use a few more of those inside-the-Beltway Lucifers right now -- at least the kind who know how to pass legislation and make things work. As things stand, we are devaluing the tools of public policy and losing our ability to solve problems.

Back to the airlines, which offer an especially interesting case of public-policy failure: When the industry was deregulated in 1978, most airlines were opposed, arguing that the air transport system was a kind of public utility and that although competition might cut prices, it would erode service and forestall capital spending for new, more efficient planes.

Crandall argues that the critics' worst fears have been realized. "Our airlines, once world leaders, are now laggards in every category, including fleet age, service quality and international reputation. Fewer and fewer flights are on time. Airport congestion has become a staple of late-night comedy shows. . . . Airline service, by any standard, has become unacceptable," he said in a speech on June 10 to the Wings Club in New York.

Sharply rising jet fuel costs, the airlines' latest catastrophe, have prompted new desperation measures, such as charging for checked luggage. That's a stunningly bad idea because it will encourage customers to bring ever-larger carry-on bags, making flight attendants even crankier and travel more unpleasant. But that's where this industry is -- in a perpetual downward spiral.

The industry's woes are documented in statistics gathered by the Air Transport Association (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/relat ... informline). Since deregulation, nearly 200 airlines have come and gone -- most of them the low-cost, nonunion carriers that were going to be the industry's salvation. Turns out they didn't have the capital to survive. The high-cost "legacy" carriers such as United and Delta (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/relat ... informline) have cut labor costs (in part by using the bludgeon of bankruptcy), but those savings have been devoured by higher fuel costs.

You can argue that consumers have benefited from the mess in that ticket prices remain fairly low. The cost of domestic travel has gone up just 52 percent since 1978, compared with a 218 percent increase in the consumer price index. But otherwise, the U.S. industry has been a total loser. The market capitalization of Lufthansa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/relat ... informline) today is 60 percent greater than that of American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, United and US Airways (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/relat ... informline) -- combined.

Crandall's answer is a modest version of re-regulation, which recognizes the public-utility aspect of air transport. He would require that ticket prices cover the full cost of all the connecting flights -- a measure that would probably doom the cumbersome "hub-and-spoke" system he once championed. He would also control the proliferation of takeoff slots at crowded airports and prevent carriers from using bankruptcy laws to impose changes on their workforces. Interestingly, the big airline unions basically agree with Crandall, a man they once despised as a management bully.

We see what's wrong with the air transport industry every time we go to the airport. It's dying a slow, painful death -- and we're all caught in the downdraft. But how could it be otherwise? We have no national energy policy that could moderate fuel costs; we have no national transportation policy that could rebuild an efficient, well-capitalized system. We just watch, and complain, as it all gets worse.

We speak of the airline industry as a market failure, but in a deeper sense, it's a political failure. The next time you're stressing in an airport, ask yourself why government doesn't start helping to fix this mess.

The writer is co-host ofPostGlobal (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/), an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com (davidignatius@washpost.com).

Delta actually earned a profit this year, but its write offs hide that fact. United States airlines with a strong international presence are in a good position this year.

Daughter (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:56 pm I would like to apologize for the awful experience you had. I work for a major airline, and regardless of what's going on with the company you work for, there is never an acceptable excuse for providing your customers with bad service. It is unfortunate, however, that not everyone feels this way. Personally, I do whatever I can to help out my passengers. Unfortunately, due to the rules we are restricted by, sometimes there's not much we can do.

I don't know why your original flight was delayed, but the circumstances determine whether or not the airline will pay for your hotel/meals. If the flight delays or cancels due to an uncontrollable circumstance, such as Weather, No. We will not pay for a hotel or meals. However, should the aircraft be broken, or if we had a crew member show up late, or what have you, and we cannot transport you to your final destination same day, then yes we would offer at least hotel accomodations.

I understand that customer service in the airline industry is on a downward spiral, and fast. A big part of that isn't that we aren't treated well as employees, but that the selection of potential employees really sucks. In the past three months, we have hired seven people. Of those, we have one left. It really irritates me how people lack work ethic and the general common sense ideal to treat others the way you'd like to be treated. It's just so hard to find quality customer service employees. It bothers me, because I do work hard, and I do care about what happens to people, and it makes me look bad when others don't.

Anyway, I'll not harp on.. Just know that there are those of us who do care. We too have been in your shoes.

Back in the '60's, when I went to work for IBM in a customer service position, one of the first things I was told was, "There are only two kinds of people in business, sales people and bean counters. There are very few bean counters. How you tell the difference is that if anything you say or do, or do not say or do not do, can piss off a customer, YOU ARE IN SALES! The product you are selling is the company you work for."

The thing that made IBM at the time was not it's products but it's outstanding customer service. It didn't get into trouble until later when a new generation of management, looking to increase revenue, forgot that. It's a lesson that all levels of management and employee in our "Post Industrial Economy" need to re-learn.

...

Blaise (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:55 pm I am glad to see the airlines retire many old planes. Some of them were not efficient and were never efficient. I don’t know what we need to do but the cost of fuel might make us consider comparing costs of various forms of transportation.

...

I predict that turboprops will have a renaissance. They always were much more efficient that equivalent jets, but with the low fuel costs in the 1950s and 1960s, when most of the airliners in service were conceived, the cost of maintaining propellers and gearboxes, plus the slower speeds and resulting longer flight times, outweighed the fuel cost savings. Not so today. With the current cost of fuel the airlines will be willing to trade a one-hundred mile per hour reduction in speed, and a slight increase in maintenance cost, for a 30 to 50 percent reduction in fuel consumption.

coinflipper_21 (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:51 am I predict that turboprops will have a renaissance. They always were much more efficient that equivalent jets, but with the low fuel costs in the 1950s and 1960s, when most of the airliners in service were conceived, the cost of maintaining propellers and gearboxes, plus the slower speeds and resulting longer flight times, outweighed the fuel cost savings. Not so today. With the current cost of fuel the airlines will be willing to trade a one-hundred mile per hour reduction in speed, and a slight increase in maintenance cost, for a 30 to 50 percent reduction in fuel consumption.

Wow, I had not thought of that. I don't like flying the turboprops because they tend to fly in weather rather than above it and that is not pleasant in Louisiana. But for a good price, I would endure flying them. I recall how, I think, Braniff Airlines bought the Lockheed Electra just before the first jets arrived. They had to upgrade service to meet competition, because they could not phase out the new planes. I would put up with slower and slightly less pleasant travel if that means I can afford to fly.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06 ... meback.php

coinflipper_21 (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:16 am Back in the '60's, when I went to work for IBM in a customer service position, one of the first things I was told was, "There are only two kinds of people in business, sales people and bean counters. There are very few bean counters. How you tell the difference is that if anything you say or do, or do not say or do not do, can piss off a customer, YOU ARE IN SALES! The product you are selling is the company you work for."

The thing that made IBM at the time was not it's products but it's outstanding customer service. It didn't get into trouble until later when a new generation of management, looking to increase revenue, forgot that. It's a lesson that all levels of management and employee in our "Post Industrial Economy" need to re-learn.

After my awful experience with Dell, I fully agree with you!

coinflipper_21 (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:16 am Back in the '60's, when I went to work for IBM in a customer service position, one of the first things I was told was, "There are only two kinds of people in business, sales people and bean counters. There are very few bean counters. How you tell the difference is that if anything you say or do, or do not say or do not do, can piss off a customer, YOU ARE IN SALES! The product you are selling is the company you work for."

The thing that made IBM at the time was not it's products but it's outstanding customer service. It didn't get into trouble until later when a new generation of management, looking to increase revenue, forgot that. It's a lesson that all levels of management and employee in our "Post Industrial Economy" need to re-learn.

The diluting of customer care for sure hurt IBM, but that was really a symptom of a larger problem. IBM was able to offer the outstanding care it did because customers were willing to pay a huge premium for it. IBM racked up fat margins on hardware, software and support contracts. Then along came the PC evolution, which led to commodity hardware and almost free open source software solutions. That was a margin killer. IBM still does well selling commodity solutions, but the fat margins that enabled them to throw huge resources at customer hand holding are but a fond memory.

When I bought the last Dell, the one that failed, I could have bought from other computer makers. I could have gotten an Apple. I thought that I preferred the PC. Well, live and learn and hope to have another chance! I really hate Dell.

I don't know why we don't have safe, clean nuclear power.