Ask the pilot

Passengers don't expect to be pampered when they fly. But clean lavatories, more comfortable seats and Wi-Fi wouldn't hurt.

Editor's note: Part 2 of a two-part series. Read Part 1 here.

By Patrick Smith

Read more: Technology & Business, Business, P. Smith, Ask the Pilot

July 28, 2006 | To recap from a week ago, America's loathsome giants are beginning to get the message and ratcheting up their service levels. They haven't much choice, frankly, especially with a growing focus on international markets, where, almost without exception, U.S. carriers are heartily outclassed by their foreign competitors. It'll be a long, slow climb, so don't expect hot towels in economy just yet. But if nothing else, the airlines have acknowledged the problem and hope to arrest any further downward slide.

How we got to such a shameful position in the first place is the subject of debate. What are the roots of our problem? The fallout of deregulation? A general decay of the service culture in America? Most folks place the benchmark at or around the moment when President Jimmy Carter attached his signature to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1979. From that moment on, the argument goes, it was a race to the bottom, the new competitive skyscape inspiring a battle so fierce that from the airlines' perspectives, undercutting the competition became more important than pleasing customers. All the while, feisty opportunists like Southwest began to smell blood.

"The general collapse in service did to some extent precede the major advent of low-fare airlines," says Peter Miller, marketing director for SkyTrax. This is a twist of conventional chicken-or-egg wisdom that holds the budget carriers responsible for stealing away millions of passengers merely by dangling cheap tickets, when to some degree business was driven toward them by the incompetence at the old guard. "Even today we come across long-serving middle management at some American carriers," says Miller, "whose mind-set is firmly fixed 20 years ago. There's a general reluctance to accept that benchmarks exist for a reason. It is not just that [foreign] airlines are adhering to newer trends, but consumers themselves are more savvy than ever."

But if you ask me, there's something systemic at hand that transcends the basic profit/performance correlation. The airline business is nothing if not cyclical, and it's easy to assume that with a falloff in profits comes a falloff in the quality of your product. But it's crucial to note that a general decline in service has not necessarily correlated with the industry's bottom line. What we have today is the nadir of a prolonged slide that was ongoing even through the mid-1990s -- the most profitable period for airlines in the history of commercial aviation. Overseas it works much the same way: Many of the most consistently stable carriers, a number of them subsidized by their governments, are among the worst performers. Conversely, financially struggling companies are often able to uphold their reputations. For example, Malaysia Airlines, one of only four names at SkyTrax to maintain a perfect five-star quality ranking, will soon be laying off up to a fifth of its employees in response to intense pressure from low-cost upstart AirAsia.

Looking around the interior of a U.S. jetliner, you'll often see that they are filthy and neglected in ways that minimal upkeep and common sense could remedy. The incentive to pick a gum wrapper off the carpet, wipe away a coffee ring or reattach a piece of molding should have nothing to do with whether the ink is running black or red. For want of a better term, it's a culture thing.

"I suppose the key difference is that many non-U.S. carriers simply will not tolerate sloppy service," submits Miller. "I am sad to say that many U.S. carriers provide their best service on those routes where they have a higher proportion of overseas-based flight attendants."

"Service," of course, is a contextual thing that speaks to its time. Nobody in 2006 is lobbying for a return to the prissy pretensions found aboard planes in decades past. What the airlines haven't quite figured out, and one hopes they will, is that good service needn't be anachronistically elaborate. The average passenger doesn't want or expect to be pampered -- and why should he or she be, when a cross-country ticket costs as little as $99? What a passenger wants and expects are respectful employees, clean facilities, convenience, a modicum of comfort and, what the hell, maybe a dash of flair. Ask a traveler what most disappoints her at 35,000 feet, and the answers consistently focus on the smallest, simplest tangibles: dirty lavatories, water bottles that are too small, broken tray tables, crappy entertainment options. Letters received in response to Part 1 of this series confirm a widespread feeling that airlines are missing the mark:

"For all their billions of dollars spent since the dawn of the jet age," voices one reader, "no commercial airline has yet to achieve the level of comfort and service provided by Starbucks. Setting aside the obvious difference in the seats, Starbucks provides a simple menu of on-the-go food, coffee, water and juice; Internet access; pleasant decor; a bathroom. What else do you really need?"

Plenty would concur. One of the reasons so many people enjoy Lufthansa is because of the in-flight Wi-Fi it provides. For an airline, the key to success is perfecting the art of distraction. Not everyone carries a laptop around, but for those who do, what could be a more useful time killer than the Internet? Even if it weren't free, what would you rather pay a few bucks for -- a cheap plastic headset to watch a rerun of "Everybody Loves Raymond" or, for instance, a chance to peruse the Ask the Pilot archives while high above the Pacific?

Next page: The true bane of the economy-class experience is not a lack of pillows, blankets, food or free cocktails