Fly America Act
Nearly 3,000 U.S. diplomats have urged United Airlines to extend to them a waiver from its more expensive and “unfriendly” new pet travel policy that the carrier has granted the military, the diplomats’ union said. While it took United just days to exempt the military, it has been mulling the State Department’s request for weeks.
The biggest hurdle appears to be the lack of understanding by United’s management — as is the case with most people — what the Foreign Service does, and why diplomats’ service to their country is no less important than the military’s. That’s exactly why — long before this issue arose — I decided to write my upcoming book “America’s Other Army.”
“Our immediate goal is for United to extend the waiver they have granted our military colleagues to civilian federal employees traveling on official ‘permanent change of station’ orders,” said Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). “This would allow federal employees assigned to embassies and missions abroad to continue to ship companion animals not eligible to travel in cabin as accompanied baggage at excess baggage rates, and makes use of professional pet shippers, freight forwarders, or cargo handlers optional.”
AFSA first sent a letter to United’s CEO Jeff Smisek on March 2, the day before the new policy took effect, Johnson said. The policy, known as PetSafe, had been used by Continental Airlines for more than decade, according to a former Continental employee whose daughter is in the Foreign Service. After the United-Continental merger was completed, the combined carrier’s pet policy followed what Continental used to do — just like almost everything else, including the reservations system, about which I wrote earlier this month. Smisek was Continental’s CEO.
Under the old policy, which was similar to that of most other airlines, pets that were too big to take in the cabin could be checked as excess luggage handled by the carrier, at an average rate of about $250 per each way. PetSafe requires that those animals be treated as cargo. In many countries, all cargo is subject to inspections and other customs formalities, which are typically handled by third-party vendors. The fees for those services range from hundreds to thousands of dollars.
Following the military’s outcry late last month, United quickly decided to allow personnel traveling to a new station to check pets as luggage and avoid a third-party provider — and the higher fees. However, United spokeswoman Mary Ryan said in an e-mail message, “We do not have plans to extend this exemption to anyone beyond military members who are traveling on orders or permanent change of station only.”
Mike Oslansky, senior manager for cargo marketing, customer service and business systems, responded to AFSA’s letter to Smisek, saying that United developed the waiver for the military “in recognition of the commitment made by members of our military and the family members (including the four-legged ones) who share in their sacrifice” and intends to limit this “special process” to military families only, Johnson said.
It seems United’s management doesn’t think that American diplomats make any sacrifices when serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, the Congo and many other extremely dangerous places. Not all diplomats are posted to London and Paris — not that those “cushy” in most people’s minds posts are not dangerous, judging by the 2005 London terrorist attacks or last week’s murders in the French city of Toulouse.
By many accounts, PetSafe has been very successful domestically. United takes care of the pets without using third-party vendors, it automatically transfers the animals to connecting flights on its own aircraft and keeps them in air-conditioned facilities during layovers. Although the pets are checked in as cargo, there are no customs or other bureaucratic formalities, so the service is not too expensive.
However, that doesn’t work internationally most of the time. Very few diplomats take a nonstop flight to their new post. In some cases, they make two or even three connections. In each city, they are now forced to leave the passenger terminal, walk or take a taxi to the cargo terminal, collect their pets, recheck them in — often on a different airline, which could add more fees — then return to the passenger terminal, go through security again, and finally arrive at their next gate. By the time all that happens, they may well miss their connecting flight. Even worse if a single parent with small children is trying to accomplish those tasks.
Because of the so-called Fly America Act, the federal government must book its employees on U.S. carriers — on full-fare tickets. Foreign Service members and their families often end up on United, and many of them are elite MileagePlus members. The State Department and its 50,000 employees around the world have supported United for decades. Not to mention that one of the missions of the Foreign Service is to help create and expand business opportunities for U.S. companies, and airlines tend to benefit from that significantly.
The State Department is not seeking a waiver from the new policy for all 50,000 employees. In fact, more than 30,000 are locally hired foreign nationals who don’t travel as much as the American officials. At issue are only the 12,000 Foreign Service members — a fraction of the overseas military personnel — and only when they change posts, not Washington-based officials who may travel several times a month. After all, anyone moving from Bolivia to Uganda would find PetSafe very challenging, indeed.
Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, has spoken with Marc Anderson, United’s senior vice president of corporate and government affairs, Johnson said, but that conversation has yet to produce results. More than 2,800 AFSA members have sent e-mail messages to Smisek and other United executives, she added.
“I love the Foreign Service,” an officer in Southeast Asia told me, “but moving my family is getting harder and harder.”
Related stories:
Foreign Service: America’s other army
Round the world in a week, without pain
Did United choose the best rez system?
United, Continental execs at odds over loyalty program
Continental shows new transparency
United executive breaks old barriers
Continue reading about Diplomats decry new United pet policy
The transparency of raw airline data in recent years has been hugely important for our ability to secure the lowest fares and build the best itineraries. ExpertFlyer.com has been a pioneer in that endeavor, and now it has taken an extra step by showing government, military and other fares that have long been a mystery to most travelers.
I first began using ExpertFlyer soon after the website launched in 2005, and was happy to pay the $100 annual fee because it has helped me save thousands of dollars.
Last year, when I left the Washington Times and started teaching seminars, I naturally decided to use the site in my classes — and I received a complimentary subscription. In the interest of full disclosure, ExpertFlyer also donated $1,000 to the book tour I’m currently on. That said, I’m not at all obligated to promote the site in this column.
I’m writing about ExpertFlyer because of its usefulness to my readers. As I explain in my book, “Decoding Air Travel,” unless you are a travel agent or otherwise have access to a Global Distribution System (GDS), you are deprived of viewing raw airline data, such as fare tariffs and flight inventory, as it’s published by the carriers — but before it’s processed by automated booking engines.
This week, ExpertFlyer made available special government and military fares, as well as student and senior fares. The last two were not exactly secret in the past and could be searched on airline websites and online travel agencies, but having access to the raw data is no doubt very useful.
Being able to see government fare data, however, is a big deal. Only federal agencies can book tickets at those fares, but even if you never benefit from them, the information is rather revealing for an air travel geek like me.
The most significant feature of government fares is that they are usually much higher than the lowest regularly published fares, because they are fully refundable and changeable — but they are much lower than the normal full-fare prices available to businesses and consumers. Some companies do negotiate contracts with airlines, but the discount they get is typically between 5 and 15 percent.
Let’s look at the current government fare from Washington to Frankfurt on United — a heavily traveled route by federal employees. Because those flights are less than 14 hours long, only coach tickets are allowed. As of today, the base fare is $718 each way ($1,436 round trip) — the fare basis is YCA, which means it’s a full Y fare, earning 150 percent frequent-flier miles and requiring fewer miles to upgrade than discounted fares, and of course no cash “co-pays.”
Now let’s compare that to the lowest published Y base fare available to any of us — it’s $4,037 round trip. These are only the base fares, but as I learned a couple of months ago when I flew on a YCA fare for the first time, the government also enjoys a big discount on fuel surcharges, which run in the hundreds of dollars.
It’s worth noting that the lowest published United fare from Washington to Frankfurt as of today is $603 round trip, but it’s very restrictive and, of course, nonrefundable. United publishes the same transatlantic fares as Star Alliance partners Lufthansa, Air Canada and British Midland, but any flights on foreign carriers must be booked as United code-share numbers under the so-called Fly America Act. The same rule applies to American and its Oneworld partners, as well as Delta and other SkyTeam carriers.
In addition to the Y government fares, U.S. airlines have begun offering equally nonrestrictive fares with fare bases that book into discounted booking classes, such as L and K. Their downside is that they don’t earn bonus miles and upgrades on them are much pricier.
I’m still learning the government airfare system, but one thing I find hard to understand is why Carlson Wagonlit, the travel company that books travel for several federal agencies, charges almost $90 every time one of its agent touches a reservation — whether to issue a ticket, change it or cancel it. So much for “free” changes and cancellations.
Related stories:
Should airline booking codes be secret?
Openness rattles airline industry
Is ‘award’-seat data held by copyright?
DOT cracks down on airfare advertising
Continue reading about ExpertFlyer boosts airfare transparency
American carriers can relax — their freedom to fly anywhere in the European Union is no longer threatened by Washington’s refusal to allow foreign control of U.S. airlines. That was the biggest news from last week’s agreement to expand the 2007 U.S.-EU Open Skies accord.
When the deal was first negotiated, carriers from both sides of the Atlantic were permitted to fly between any two cities without the previous government restrictions. However, those rights could have been lost next year, unless European companies could own controlling shares in U.S. airlines. Although that hasn’t happened, the EU agreed on Thursday to extend Open Skies indefinitely.
“It’s a big win for us,” said John R. Byerly, the top U.S. negotiator and deputy assistant secretary of state for transportation affairs. “There was a cloud hanging over the stability in the trans-Atlantic market, and now it’s gone. It was not an easy agreement. It took us eight rounds, beginning in the late spring of 2008″…
Continue reading about U.S. has ‘no desire’ to ease airline ownership rules
