Airlines Put Passengers on Forced Diets

[PARSpro]

No one likes airplane food, anyway!

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/10/tr...rtner=MOREOVER

Airlines Put Passengers on Forced Diets
By MARK BITTMAN with SUSAN CATTO



AT AUCTION: Idyllic Winter Escapes: Anguilla's Malliouhana Hotel, Los Cabos' Palmilla Resort, Santa Barbara's Bacara Resort & Spa, and more!




EW people go six or eight hours between meals without a substantial snack, but it has become a not uncommon occurrence on a day involving domestic air travel of significant distance. For in the weeks following Sept. 11, most major airlines drastically scaled back meal service, especially on routes they consider noncompetitive.

The most common change is that short-haul flights, those spending less than four hours in the air, do not include a meal in coach class. (Sometimes, meals are served in first or business class while only drinks and snacks are served in coach.) Thus a flight from Miami or even San Juan to New York or Boston may offer no more than pretzels and drinks, though the time from when a traveler leaves home to when he throws down a suitcase on a bed may easily be eight hours.

Even a relatively short flight, two hours or so, can leave you without real food unless you plan. Last month, I left my home in southern Connecticut at 11:30 a.m. for a Delta flight to Cincinnati from Bradley International Airport, near Hartford. It was scheduled to leave at 1:30 p.m. I entered the terminal just after 12:30 thinking I would have time to grab a sandwich.

But check-in took 15 minutes and security another 20; I arrived at the gate just before the scheduled boarding time, only to find that the flight had been delayed a half-hour because of bad weather in the South, where the plane was coming from. The only snack bar in the vicinity, however had a line of more than 20 people. So I sat, assuming that the first-class seat I had upgraded to using frequent flier awards would entitle me to a sandwich, at least.

The flight boarded after 2, and did not take off for at least another half-hour. At 3:30, I drank some water, and ate two half-ounce bags of pretzels that the flight attendant handed out (I had to ask for the second). I arrived at the gate in Cincinnati after 4:30, more than five hours after leaving home.

Even when meals are served, and even in the front of the plane, cuts have made the food less appealing to some.

"I flew from San Francisco to Chicago last week," said Geoffrey Drummond, an independent TV producer, "on a United flight leaving at 7. Not long ago, this flight served nicely prepared eggs and a good side plate of fruit. On this one, I got a plastic peel-off box of cereal and a roll."

Things can be even worse with connections: a friend who flew from La Guardia to Las Vegas via Pittsburgh last month was served only pretzels and drinks on both flights. The airline might have assumed that she would eat in Pittsburgh, but there was simply no time between connections. Her trip, door to door, took eight hours.

Because most travelers are arriving at airports earlier and because there is more choice in concessions than ever before, it might be argued that airplane food is less important than it once was. But as any frequent flier will tell you, early arrival does not necessarily mean a leisurely stroll through the terminal. And unlike when you could expect at least a snack on nearly all flights, now you can't count on anything.

A good indicator of the preponderance of the cuts is that the country's two largest catering companies, LSG Sky Chiefs and Gate Gourmet, each laid off or furloughed about 30 percent of its employees after Sept. 11, and they have not rehired them.

Of the six largest airlines, only Continental has not reduced its food offerings. On a recent 3-hour-9-minute flight from Houston to La Guardia, for example, Continental served a warm chicken sandwich, chips, an apple and a chocolate candy.

The other airlines have gone from eliminating meals on flights shorter than four hours (two hours for first-class passengers) to serving "bistro" or "basket" meals — a sandwich, piece of fruit and a cookie, or the like — in place of a hot meal. Continental's steadfastness may mean that eventually the competition will return to pre-Sept. 11 service levels, but if not, that is not necessarily a bad thing given that it's easier to produce a decent sandwich than a credible hot meal.

These changes are not direct consequences of Sept. 11; they are more about economics than safety. And though many of the airlines' economic troubles can be traced directly to fear of flying, profit margins were shrinking before the attacks.

Glenn Engel, an aviation analyst at Goldman, Sachs in New York, said that although "the cost of food is relatively small, airlines have been cutting back on the cost and quality of meals" for some time. In 1991, Mr. Engel said, the airlines spent about $4.50 per domestic passenger on food. In 2000, they spent about $3.

Though no airline spokesperson would be specific about current expenditures, given the recent cuts it's safe to assume that the figure is now lower.

It's still not clear that the recent cuts translate to significant savings. Raymond Neidl, an airline analyst with AMB Amro Securities in New York, says: "It's a rough guess, but food service might amount to about 1 percent of total operating costs. But while airlines were laying off workers, they felt obliged to cut costs wherever they could, and meals were a relatively easy target."

You might think that the cuts would outrage already burdened travelers, becoming a public relations nightmare that would far offset the benefits to the carriers. But Todd Burke, a spokesman for American Airlines, called the savings substantial, and said:

"We can count on one hand the number of complaints that have found their way to our office. The traveling public knows that we have to reduce costs, and this is one area they will accept."

That assessment appears to be correct: in chats with fellow passengers on nearly a dozen flights in the last few weeks, and in another dozen phone interviews and e-mail messages, there was little evidence of dismay on the part of consumers.

Bill Mosley, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said that the department received only one complaint about airline meals in November, the last month for which figures were available, compared with nine in November 2000. (He added, however, that the 2001 figure might rise, since the department had a backlog of unopened mail because of the anthrax scare.) Similarly, Nancy McKinley, the manager of consumer and industry affairs at the International Airline Passengers Association, said, "I have not had anyone complain about the changes to the meal service."

[PARSpro]

No one likes airplane food, anyway!

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/10/tr...rtner=MOREOVER

Airlines Put Passengers on Forced Diets
By MARK BITTMAN with SUSAN CATTO



AT AUCTION: Idyllic Winter Escapes: Anguilla's Malliouhana Hotel, Los Cabos' Palmilla Resort, Santa Barbara's Bacara Resort & Spa, and more!




EW people go six or eight hours between meals without a substantial snack, but it has become a not uncommon occurrence on a day involving domestic air travel of significant distance. For in the weeks following Sept. 11, most major airlines drastically scaled back meal service, especially on routes they consider noncompetitive.

The most common change is that short-haul flights, those spending less than four hours in the air, do not include a meal in coach class. (Sometimes, meals are served in first or business class while only drinks and snacks are served in coach.) Thus a flight from Miami or even San Juan to New York or Boston may offer no more than pretzels and drinks, though the time from when a traveler leaves home to when he throws down a suitcase on a bed may easily be eight hours.

Even a relatively short flight, two hours or so, can leave you without real food unless you plan. Last month, I left my home in southern Connecticut at 11:30 a.m. for a Delta flight to Cincinnati from Bradley International Airport, near Hartford. It was scheduled to leave at 1:30 p.m. I entered the terminal just after 12:30 thinking I would have time to grab a sandwich.

But check-in took 15 minutes and security another 20; I arrived at the gate just before the scheduled boarding time, only to find that the flight had been delayed a half-hour because of bad weather in the South, where the plane was coming from. The only snack bar in the vicinity, however had a line of more than 20 people. So I sat, assuming that the first-class seat I had upgraded to using frequent flier awards would entitle me to a sandwich, at least.

The flight boarded after 2, and did not take off for at least another half-hour. At 3:30, I drank some water, and ate two half-ounce bags of pretzels that the flight attendant handed out (I had to ask for the second). I arrived at the gate in Cincinnati after 4:30, more than five hours after leaving home.

Even when meals are served, and even in the front of the plane, cuts have made the food less appealing to some.

"I flew from San Francisco to Chicago last week," said Geoffrey Drummond, an independent TV producer, "on a United flight leaving at 7. Not long ago, this flight served nicely prepared eggs and a good side plate of fruit. On this one, I got a plastic peel-off box of cereal and a roll."

Things can be even worse with connections: a friend who flew from La Guardia to Las Vegas via Pittsburgh last month was served only pretzels and drinks on both flights. The airline might have assumed that she would eat in Pittsburgh, but there was simply no time between connections. Her trip, door to door, took eight hours.

Because most travelers are arriving at airports earlier and because there is more choice in concessions than ever before, it might be argued that airplane food is less important than it once was. But as any frequent flier will tell you, early arrival does not necessarily mean a leisurely stroll through the terminal. And unlike when you could expect at least a snack on nearly all flights, now you can't count on anything.

A good indicator of the preponderance of the cuts is that the country's two largest catering companies, LSG Sky Chiefs and Gate Gourmet, each laid off or furloughed about 30 percent of its employees after Sept. 11, and they have not rehired them.

Of the six largest airlines, only Continental has not reduced its food offerings. On a recent 3-hour-9-minute flight from Houston to La Guardia, for example, Continental served a warm chicken sandwich, chips, an apple and a chocolate candy.

The other airlines have gone from eliminating meals on flights shorter than four hours (two hours for first-class passengers) to serving "bistro" or "basket" meals — a sandwich, piece of fruit and a cookie, or the like — in place of a hot meal. Continental's steadfastness may mean that eventually the competition will return to pre-Sept. 11 service levels, but if not, that is not necessarily a bad thing given that it's easier to produce a decent sandwich than a credible hot meal.

These changes are not direct consequences of Sept. 11; they are more about economics than safety. And though many of the airlines' economic troubles can be traced directly to fear of flying, profit margins were shrinking before the attacks.

Glenn Engel, an aviation analyst at Goldman, Sachs in New York, said that although "the cost of food is relatively small, airlines have been cutting back on the cost and quality of meals" for some time. In 1991, Mr. Engel said, the airlines spent about $4.50 per domestic passenger on food. In 2000, they spent about $3.

Though no airline spokesperson would be specific about current expenditures, given the recent cuts it's safe to assume that the figure is now lower.

It's still not clear that the recent cuts translate to significant savings. Raymond Neidl, an airline analyst with AMB Amro Securities in New York, says: "It's a rough guess, but food service might amount to about 1 percent of total operating costs. But while airlines were laying off workers, they felt obliged to cut costs wherever they could, and meals were a relatively easy target."

You might think that the cuts would outrage already burdened travelers, becoming a public relations nightmare that would far offset the benefits to the carriers. But Todd Burke, a spokesman for American Airlines, called the savings substantial, and said:

"We can count on one hand the number of complaints that have found their way to our office. The traveling public knows that we have to reduce costs, and this is one area they will accept."

That assessment appears to be correct: in chats with fellow passengers on nearly a dozen flights in the last few weeks, and in another dozen phone interviews and e-mail messages, there was little evidence of dismay on the part of consumers.

Bill Mosley, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said that the department received only one complaint about airline meals in November, the last month for which figures were available, compared with nine in November 2000. (He added, however, that the 2001 figure might rise, since the department had a backlog of unopened mail because of the anthrax scare.) Similarly, Nancy McKinley, the manager of consumer and industry affairs at the International Airline Passengers Association, said, "I have not had anyone complain about the changes to the meal service."