US Conde Nast Traveler Publishes their Reader's Top 10 Airlines

[SelectSys]

International Routes:

 

1) Singapore, 2) Emirates, 3) Virgin Atlantic, 4) Cathy Pacific, 5) JAL, 6) Air New Zealand, 7) Thai, 8) ANA, 9) Qantas, 10) Korean

 

Domestic Routes:

 

1) Virgin America, 2) JetBlue, 3) Midwest, 4) Hawaiian, 5) Sun Country, 6) Frontier, 7) Alaska, 8) Continental, 9) USA3000, 10) ExpressJet

 

No surprise that US carriers didn't crack the top 10 for international travel. European carriers other than Virgin didn't make the cut either. I guess it also isn't too surprising that Asian carriers dominated the rankings.

 

A bit more surprising to me is that CO was the only major legacy to crack the top 10. Some of the choices on the domestic front are also a bit strange - very small presence like Virgin, Sun Country, USA3000 and even lists a carrier that is no longer flying branded service - Express Jet. I guess the readers also don't seem to care much for Southwest.

[paul929207]

It just shows the sad state of US airlines. Most people could only name two or three of the top 10 in the US.

[sunsetme]

what is it based on? most times they are rating business or first class. Economy sucks on most lines now.

[nho9504]

Because they all depend on what kind of feedback they receive.

 

How many readers of Conde Nest return the survey cards? I for one, never return one. I never quite understand the objectives of that magazine - it seems to gear for upscale, snobbish travellers by way of the contents (which by the way, has gone down to drain - now it has twice advertisement pages than contents and hardly any worth-reading articles). How many such imaginary travellers would actually pay attention to the magazine, especially in its current state? Years ago, it was a good travel magazine. It stopped being so long ago. Years ago I subed it, and eagerly read it when it arrived. Now my copy is free (forgot from what source) but it can be laid on coffee table for weeks on end without being read a page.

 

I also found survey results can be as meaningless as it can be - ever since I realize people do surveys for reward currency, and too often, they rigged the answers in order to either attract more surveys sent their ways, or to simply finish the survey quickly, like only 5 minutes for the 20 minutes expected, if you really read each question and give it your true feeling.

[parody]

what is it based on?

 

The airline rankings were based on the results of how 32,633 readers of their magazine rated the airlines according to a scale of excellent, very good, good, fair and poor. (Given that they had 783,782 subscribers in 2005, this represents about 4%. However, their estimated readership base is 3,235,000, implying a response rate of about 1%) The methodology that they used determined scores based only the average of the percent of respondents who said excellent and very good. The actual ranking and scores are given here. In addition, some minimum number of responses were required for inclusion in the rankings. Since they don't say what these minimums are, it is probably safe to assume that large carriers such as AA and UA met the minimums and since they are not included in the final rankings they scored poorly. Conversely, it is quite likely that some very small carriers did not meet the minimums and thus are not included in the rankings even if they otherwise scored very high.

 

While Condé Nast Traveler identifies the criteria used to rate other aspects of travel (hotels, resorts, cruise lines, etc.), they do not for airlines. We can certainly assume that they reflect first class, business, and coach travel, but to the extent that readers of the magazine tend to be more frequent travelers and maybe proportionately more likely to be first class travelers, the results may indicate a bias in that direction. If one was interested in rankings for quantifiable factors such as on-time performance, one would need to refer to the statistics published monthly by the US DOT.

[MMDown Under]

I'm about to check whether Singapore Airlines has maintained its well deserved reputation. So far, it looks like it does from all the special features listed on its website.

 

Letter to the Editor this weekend complained about Emirates removing the footrests (to save fuel (?)) and how the passenger's legs dangled uncomfortably when she/he tilted the seat back, so was unable to sleep. Suggested the footrests need to be put back, or the seats totally redesigned for comfort.

[ohioNCLcruiser]

Letter to the Editor this weekend complained about Emirates removing the footrests (to save fuel (?)) and how the passenger's legs dangled uncomfortably when she/he tilted the seat back, so was unable to sleep. Suggested the footrests need to be put back, or the seats totally redesigned for comfort.

 

Do you know if she/he was on the A380? I know the removed the footrests and inflight mags to make up for the weight for the first class shower's water tank.

[keltic]

I don´t think Emirates or any other airline in the Gulf, needs saving money. Costs over there are irrelevant. Money flows in a constant way into their money lossing airlines.

 

Surveys are simply surveys. Not real base in the method, just oppinions. I wonder how many of the people who voted had travelled in all of the ones he or she voted for. We all know Singapore is great, but simply because we have been told or read about it.

 

I do find other European airlines as good as Virgin Atlantic.

[Globaliser]

I don´t think Emirates or any other airline in the Gulf, needs saving money. Costs over there are irrelevant. Money flows in a constant way into their money lossing airlines.

Um, is this based on any facts, or are you just having a fact-free rant?

 

Just because I happened to read it yesterday:-

Flight Interview: Emirates' Tim Clark

 

Date:12/08/08

 

...

 

While Emirates and its Gulf rivals have often seemed "bulletproof" to the world's economic cycles, Clark is quick to acknowledge that the airline is not immune to the escalating cost of fuel. Steps are being taken to address this with the capacity across the network being tweaked and recruitment being slowed as part of a broader effort to reduce costs.

 

Clark says that the carrier had "sufficient pilots until next year" and that while regulatory requirements provide little room for adjusting staffing levels of operating crew, "all [other] recruitment is under the microscope".

 

The fuel price has pushed the airline away from the cost curve it had been tracking and the effort is under way to redress that, says Clark. He said in April that Emirates would have to look again at cost-savings targets, and raise them from the $100 million figure it set out last year. "The target is now more like $500 million," he says.

 

...

[keltic]

Well yes, of course the situation in the Gulf have evolved from GulfAir only to a deep competence and multi hubs, multioperators. Of course they have been hiring western management teams, and profits will be foreseen, but on a long term basis. Having to support of the Gulf Monarquies behind which pump huge sums of money to create huge fancy fleets, profitability will be second.

 

The battleground seems to be now from Emirates and Ethihad, in a smaller extent Qatar Airways, as GulfAir seems to have turned into a secondary operator. Emirates started in 1985 as something regional and although the private shareholding is the biggest in the Gulf, there will be used as much as needed to beat competitors.

 

I am having 2007 figures which showed a robust growth and strong profits. Things have deteriorating for the current slowdown, but I think also, for the oversizing of their fleet, and quite quick growth in destinations. Let´s remind from two initial planes, they want to operate 112 in 2010 with more than 150 destinations, which seems to be a bit risky for the area. Specially taking into account the massive number of A380 (about 50 of them).

 

Of course they will cut corners, but I don´t think they will concerned for the statal backup, and fuel price in the area. I do see clouds in the stability of a volatile area, and the competition of other airlines, with such a close number of hubs.

[Keith1010]

Yes, this is not a scientific poll. But, in the end it does provide nice feedback because it represents the views of those who took the time to fill out the survey. One could always argue should this one or that one be first or should this one be in the top ten or should this one have been in the top ten. But in reality it probably gives a good indication of what the readership thinks. I am not surprised that none of the USA carriers would be left off a top ten list because I can't think of any who deserve to be on the list. It is a sad fact that USA airlines do not provide the level of service that they once did many many years ago.

 

Keith

[keltic]

Keith1010, which US airline would you recommed for a trasatlantic crossing: Delta, Continental (not sure I would enjoy a B757 transcon flight) or American Airlines, United or US Airways?

[Keith1010]

Keith1010, which US airline would you recommed for a trasatlantic crossing: Delta, Continental (not sure I would enjoy a B757 transcon flight) or American Airlines, United or US Airways?

 

As I mentioned, I think many of the International Airlines provide a better flying experience when compared to USA airlines.

 

I think the selection from the airlines you mentioned would come down to schedule/availability and say price.

 

There is one airline on your list that I primarily fly but that is due to availability as they have a hub at the airport that serves our area.

 

Keith

[SelectSys]

Yes, this is not a scientific poll. But, in the end it does provide nice feedback because it represents the views of those who took the time to fill out the survey. One could always argue should this one or that one be first or should this one be in the top ten or should this one have been in the top ten. But in reality it probably gives a good indication of what the readership thinks...

 

Agreed, it is an indication of what a segment of their readership thinks. What I find surprising is that the LCC carriers dominate the top ten list for domestic airlines given nho9504's statemement regarding the magizine's target demographic - "upscale and snobbish"

 

...How many readers of Conde Nest return the survey cards? I for one, never return one... it seems to gear for upscale, snobbish travellers by way of the contents (which by the way, has gone down to drain - now it has twice advertisement pages than contents and hardly any worth-reading articles). How many such imaginary travellers would actually pay attention to the magazine, especially in its current state? ...

 

I never return survey cards of any kind either. I subscribed to help out my kid's middle school fund raiser. I think it is an OK magazine although I agree with you regarding the "aspirational" advertisements as I am not really in the market for $20k watches. I am not sure what you mean by "imarginary travellers", but I find some of the content interesting and it has given me a few ideas.

[Lewis/Klitschko]

NCL booked me for Lufthansa. Nowhere to be seen, d'oh!

[FlyerTalker]

I think the selection from the airlines you mentioned would come down to schedule/availability and say price.

Beg to differ. There are significant differences between the USA airlines on their international services, both in coach and business. One place to start is to look at seating, both in terms of seat size and pitch, but also the amenities available while in those seats, such as AVOD IFE vs the old ceiling projector and programmed audio loops. Further, there are questions of meals and beverages, along with issues on the gateway airports and connections into those hubs. Plus considerations of airline partners in Europe, European hubs, and frequent flyer mileage earning. Quality of service, both inflight and on the ground also come into play.

 

For example: On DL's 767's, business is 2-2-2, with a tight seat just fractions of an inch wider than coach. CO outfits their 767 in a 2-1-2 config, allowing for a significantly wider seat. There are differences in back as well across the various carriers.

 

Yes, you can make choices simply on schedule and price. It just over simplifies it, in my opinion, and doesn't help those who don't know other considerations are available for their decision-making.

[scottbee]

1) Virgin America, 2) JetBlue, 3) Midwest, 4) Hawaiian, 5) Sun Country, 6) Frontier, 7) Alaska, 8) Continental, 9) USA3000, 10) ExpressJet

 

A bit more surprising to me is that CO was the only major legacy to crack the top 10.

 

I'm pretty sure you'll find that Alaska Air is considered both a 'Major Carrier' [the DOT call a major, one who posts $1b in revenue] and 'Legacy carrier' [existing long before deregulation]. If you're from the east coast it's easy to miss the massive route network and frequencies Alaska Air offer up and down the west coast.

[keltic]

All Business Classes are confortable. I am talking about "porky class". Which would be the most survivable one?.

[FlyerTalker]

I have a small preference for the newer A330's that NW uses. Top notch AVOD and seats that are relatively good for economy. They also have AC power in about half of the coach cabin.

 

I'd start with a look at seatmaps, both through Seatguru and the airline own websites. Look at the pitch and width dimensions. United E+ is a definite consideration if you want to either pay for the space or get the "upgrade' on status.

[hdawson]

For domestic quality service rankings, I suggest the annual rankings done by the University of Nebraska based solely on information from DOT and FAA.

 

Unbiased and not the personal opinions of a particular magazine subscriber list.

 

If you look up the rankings online you will see that the highest rankings are for the Low Cost Carriers (LCC) such as AirTran (#1), JetBlue, Southwest. This seems to be the the history of recent years.

[Shorex]

Time to chime in. The Conde Nast survey may be useful to infrequent flyers, those who are looking for a one time positive experience. However, the infrequent flyers who post on this board have one dominate criterion: price. After price come nonstop itineraries. Then maybe ontime stats. Way down their list are factors that matter very much to frequent flyers.

 

Both Virgin America and JetBlue serve my home airport, but they are not even on the radar when we plan to book a flight. Here are at least some of the weighted factors that matter to ff’s (and at 75k BIS miles per year we are at the bottom of those who are considered ff’s) and who have elite status on their airline of choice:

 

Virtually all flights either earn miles or burn miles

International award redemption rules and availability

Likelihood of domestic upgrades

Most/all fleet has a first class section

Alliance partners for earning/burning miles

Lounge access

Elite customer service phone lines

Priority security lines

Priority check-in lines

Priority seat selection (access to exit rows, aisles up front, etc.)

Interline luggage and ticketing capability

Elite baggage allowance

Frequent service to all major domestic airports

Service to most major international airports (in combination with alliance partners)

 

Given the weighted factors above, NW is our airline of choice right now. Not because it has the best inflight experience (it doesn’t) or because it consistently has the cheapest fares (it doesn’t), but because given ALL the above factors at the weight we personally assign each factor, it comes out on top – for us. Neither the Conde Nast surveys nor the Freddie Awards really take into account the entire picture for ff’s.

 

AirTran, Southwest, and JetBlue are highly ranked in various surveys because, within the limited parameters of what they do and the services they provide, they perform very well.

[SelectSys]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that Alaska Air is considered both a 'Major Carrier' [the DOT call a major, one who posts $1b in revenue] and 'Legacy carrier' [existing long before deregulation]. If you're from the east coast it's easy to miss the massive route network and frequencies Alaska Air offer up and down the west coast.

 

My definition of a major legacy US carrier is one that has multiple hubs, service to most major US cities, a widely distributed frequent flyer base, and international flight operations. I typically consider AA, UA, CO, NW, DL, and US (sort of) as the "major" legacies.

 

AS is a fine airline and is still growing but its operations don't really fit my definition of a major US carrier. I don't really consider its mexican operations as sufficiently robust on the international front as well as its ability to attract frequent flyers outside the Northwest and Alaska to use it as their primary airline.

 

All Business Classes are confortable. I am talking about "porky class". Which would be the most survivable one?.

 

I know where you are coming from! I do agree however that the latest business class offerings are far superior to the traditional lounger seat still found on some US aircraft.

[Globaliser]

For domestic quality service rankings, I suggest the annual rankings done by the University of Nebraska based solely on information from DOT and FAA.

 

Unbiased and not the personal opinions of a particular magazine subscriber list.

Yet in confining itself to measures that are capable of hard quantitative measurement, this is also not a particularly comprehensive survey. It does very little, for example, to measure the number of smiles or frowns dispensed by cabin crew on board. For many passengers, they are also important things that help to make their journey better or worse.