The coach-class mystery meat on Continental flights was never going to win any awards but it was usually served warm-to-hot and represented a service gesture for passengers. Moreover, Continental found the food a unique point of differentiation for several years and touted it with advertising. But that time has passed. “Our traditional free-food model has served us well for many years, but we need to change to reflect today's market and customer preferences,” Compton said. Ending the free food could also accomplish another goal for Continental – pressing business travelers to spend more to get themselves to the front of the plane.

Here’s a small sampling of the comments at Traveler’s Check:
777 Plc: “Lighten up America. Fix the broken airline and the ATC system rather than ruining a kid’s day with dad!”
CJ: "Get a grip people. It appears we have lost our humanity. Leave it alone Big Brother!"
Rhys Bowman: “I think it is ridiculous that the controller was even suspended! There was no safety risk, the kid did a top job and I think the world needs to wake up to itself and stop being so paranoid.”
Gary: “I think the news media and those posting high drama need to go have their head examined.”
Joel: “America is just being paranoid and is overreacting! The kid was being supervised by his father who was with him the whole time.”

The Federal Aviation Administration was not amused and suspended the employee and his supervisor. An FAA spokesman said Wednesday the agency had “nothing to report” yet about its investigation. I would agree that no one was endangered by the controller’s son – and by his daughter, the following day, if media reports are true – talking to airplane crews. Nor would I argue that the employee should be fired over the incident. A slap on the wrist, a stern lecture from an FAA boss or a week or two off without pay seems sufficient to ensure it won’t happen again. But why did it happen at all?

The day that I rely on government to help this industry you should make sure that I get fired. Look, my goal in Washington is just to prevent them from doing more harm. And candidly what I’d like them to do is just leave us alone for a while. Because every time they try to make things better they just make things worse.

An example of that is long tarmac delays. That’s solving a problem that doesn’t exist. I mean long tarmac delays are extremely rare. They do occasionally occur, there’s no question about it. But having a rule that requires us to cancel flights at three hours or suffer a fine of $27,500 per passenger, is inane. And so what we do in the face of a fine like that is we’re going to cancel a lot of flights. Which means customers who would have gone at two hours and 45 minutes – and by the way they’re being held on the tarmac … the reason they’re on the ground is because we use the very finest 1950s ground-based radar technology in our air traffic control system.

So the government sticks us on the ground because they refuse to invest in the highways in the sky, right? Because no Congressman ever looks up, as far as I can tell. And then they fine us when, as a result of their incompetence, we’re held on the ground, right. And so we’ll cancel flights. Well, many passengers at two hours and 45 minutes, they really want to go to LA or Mumbai or wherever, but the government by God says, ‘We’re going to fine you $27,500.’ So guess what we’re going to do? We’re going to cancel the flight. And with the loads we’ve got today you’re not getting there for maybe days. And so the government is inconveniencing more passengers by passing what is candidly a very stupid rule. Ask me how I really feel."

So are travelers doomed to endless days in airports pleading for a seat on the next flight to Frankfurt or Omaha? I’m not terribly worried because a hub-and-spoke airline operation like Continental’s – and all its major domestic rivals – requires planes to be at certain spots at certain times. When they’re not, it is most often due to the kind of extreme winter weather much of the country experienced in February – and a safe airline won’t fly then anyway. So when the poor weather passes the planes move as quickly as possible and an airline suffers disruption costs as a result. The outdated U.S. air traffic control system is a handy villain (which, of course, requires replacement) but is not a terribly compelling culprit for a problem that is so extremely rare. Airlines have already become far more aggressive about canceling ahead of foul weather and I consider that just smart.

Based on the vitriol in Smisek’s condemnation, I think the tarmac delay rule is a rare instance when industry lobbying was completely demolished by a new administration’s need to do something perceived as consumer friendly. The size of the fines was clearly surprising. One might also consider Smisek’s aside a calculated effort to nudge the Dept. of Transportation toward approving some waivers for the rule at New York’s three main congested airports, one of which serves as a Continental hub. The rule takes effect April 29 and JetBlue and Delta are requesting leniency at JFK for rule compliance, citing the runway construction there that is scheduled to last until July.

Smisek is a colorful, blunt fellow who is cast far more in the mold of predecessor Gordon Bethune than the just-departed Larry Kellner. For example, here’s Smisek’s description Tuesday of Delta, Continental’s former partner in the SkyTeam alliance: “It was a lot like being married to a woman who wants to poison your food. It’s just generally not a good idea.” Well, neither is spooking passengers about flight cancellations. But I do think it’s refreshing to see a CEO publicly unshackle his tongue once in awhile.

Business travelers will rejoice: Expense the up-sell and end the exit row battles. But I suspect plenty of Continental flight attendants may be rolling their eyes, resigned to the fact that some passengers in those rows – receipt in hand – will need to be told they’re not fit occupy the exit row. “That would be where you would expect that management would give some directives to their flight attendants on how to handle the situation,” Corey Caldwell, a spokeswoman for the Association of Flight Attendants wrote in an email. (The AFA does not represent Continental flight attendants.)

Continental spokeswoman Julie King says the airline will put explicit language on its Web site outlining the FAA requirements and will refund the fee for the seat if a flight attendant orders a passenger to relocate

To enjoy the space of an exit row, the Federal Aviation Administration requires that you be able to hear and understand flight crew instructions in case of an emergency. You need to be able to hoist an aircraft door – usually 25 to 50 pounds – and be able to assist passengers if the crew orders an evacuation. You also cannot occupy the exit row if you need a seatbelt extension. (Alaska Airlines does a fine job spelling out the rules on its Web site.) You cannot be blind or under 15 or lack “sufficient mobility, strength or dexterity in both arms and hands, and both legs to expeditiously reach the emergency exit.”

The federal regulations are one reason US Airways – a fervent contender in the industry’s race for new revenue – does not sell exit row space. For one thing “we can’t prescreen people through the Web site,” says Todd Lehmacher, a spokesman for US Airways, which sells what it calls “Choice Seats” but not in extra rows. AirTran Airways also sells exit row seating for $20 but a spokesman says it is “extremely rare” for flight attendants to encounter an unfit passenger seated there. “People that typically buy that extra row are more frequent fliers and they know what’s required of them,” Christopher White said. Moreover, flight attendants enforce the rules vigorously since they don’t know when an FAA or company inspector might be on the flight, he said.

George Clooney’s “Up in the Air” character might have made loyalty programs cool but Petersen was there first – and turned them into a big business. He is the airline and hotel industry’s acknowledged guru on loyalty programs, the esoteric mileage earning and redemption schemes that only the hardiest road warriors ever master. You almost never read a story on airline or hotel loyalty programs without a quote from Petersen, and few players in the hospitality industry impose major changes in their loyalty programs without consulting him, often as a safeguard against consumer backlash. Petersen says his decision to pull the plug on the Freddies has caused him no shortage of grief from marketing executives and fellow travelers since the word spread in recent months. The final awards were announced in April 2009, with Petersen donning a formal tuxedo, flip flop sandals and a Hawaiian shirt.

“This industry, I get it now, they’ll never let me retire,” Petersen said Thursday in a telephone interview from his office in Colorado Springs. Until this year, March was the peak of the annual preparations for the awards, the month after nearly every hotel and airline had staged often-elaborate "get-out-the-vote" campaigns among travelers. “I hear it every time I travel," he said. "I run into my readers. I guess I’m their guy and that’s cool.” Among travelers’ chief concerns: “Who’s going to motivate these guys, how’s the industry going to stay honest?” Petersen said.

“This lapse in judgment not only violated FAA’s own policies, but common sense standards for professional conduct,” FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said in a statement Wednesday. “These kinds of distractions are totally unacceptable.” FAA officials declined to comment Wednesday beyond their prepared statement on the matter. The incident was first reported Tuesday by WFXT television in Boston, which broadcast portions of the audio recordings of the boy speaking to pilots on JetBlue and Aeromexico flights. “That's what you get guys when the kids are out of school,” an adult male says at one point. A further oddity: The FAA records all air traffic communication and, in fact, you can even listen on the Internet if you want. Everyone involved knew there was a taped record. The founder of one such Internet site, Dave Pascoe, told CNN on Wednesday that the incident had been "blown out of proportion." I think many travelers would disagree.

Commercial flying in the U.S. has become a matter of routine due to technology and operating standards that have crafted an enviable safety record in recent years. Computers perform a staggering amount of the workload for flying and the safety and reliability of such automation cannot be overstated. However, the JFK tower incident is at least the third troubling episode in six months for the aviation industry. In October, two distracted Delta pilots, deeply engaged in conversation, flew some 100 miles past their Minneapolis destination and later had their licenses suspended. On Jan. 19, a 50-seat regional jet flown for US Airways aborted takeoff in Charleston, W.Va., with investigators suspecting a lack of pilot focus and cockpit conversation unrelated to the takeoff, the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 9, citing industry officials familiar with the investigation. (You can see photos of the damaged jet here.)

No one was injured in any of these incidents. And I think it’s likely that the sheer outré nature of a young boy talking to commercial aircraft at the world’s 18th busiest airport may jar many in the industry. (One hopes.) If there's any good to be had, maybe this bizarre episode will inspire pilots, traffic controllers and regulators to bring a new sense of professionalism to their often humdrum daily work.

To cope, airlines have agreed not to ramp up their summer schedules until July, keeping their total JFK daily operations (an operation is one departure and one landing) at 1,050 per day during the construction instead of the typical 1,300 during the summer peak. JetBlue will stay at 150 daily departures, 30 fewer than its summer schedule; American will keep to 90, deferring until later in the summer a handful of new flights it plans at the airport. Delta will trim 10% of its schedule.

As a result, some have suggested that airlines will be able to exploit that four-month curb on seating capacity to achieve higher fares. In fact, ticket prices “are likely to soar,” an AOL blogger warns today.

Before its demise in May 2008, British premium airline Silverjet had lavatories that were designated for women only. It even advertised the offering with a highly suggestive, immensely memorable television commercial.

The one-sex bathrooms won’t be offered on smaller planes flying internationally, A320s and 737s. ANA says the women-only rule will be rescinded when a male passenger is sick “and a personal emergency requires such use” and when a flight has very few women and the designation is lifted on that flight.

The top ranked airport was Indianapolis (above), which scored 777 in the small airport category, those with fewer than ten million passengers per year. Detroit (705) was the top-ranked large airport and Kansas City (742) the top medium airport. For the big airports, Detroit was followed by Denver (701), Minneapolis-St. Paul (701), Orlando (700), Phoenix (699), Charlotte Douglas (697), Dallas-Fort Worth (692), Houston-Bush Intercontinental (685), Las Vegas McCarran (682), Atlanta-Hartsfield Jackson (666), and Seattle-Tacoma (666). The large airport average score was 665.

On Feb. 1, the FAA proposed that American Eagle pay a $2.5 million penalty for operating at least 154 flights between January and October 2008 when baggage weight loads did not agree with the weights entered into the company’s computerized weight and balance calculation system.

In the latest incident, the FAA says American Eagle flew at least 1,178 flights with four Bombardier jets with landing gear doors that had not been repaired according to specifications in a federal order that was issued in August 2006. The “airworthiness directive” required airlines to inspect the doors for cracks and other damage, including fasteners that were loose or missing, according to the FAA. American Eagle found damage on four planes and repaired them but did not remove them as the directive mandated. The agency said the company flew 961 flights unaware of that situation – and 217 additional flights once it knew of the improper repairs. American Eagle later removed the doors and repaired them in accordance with the order, the FAA said.

American Eagle is "disappointed" by the proposed penalty and “looks forward to meeting with the FAA” to discuss the issue, airline spokeswoman Andrea Huguely said in an emailed statement. “Eagle self disclosed to the FAA that the repairs on certain aircraft may have been performed while the landing gear doors remained on the aircraft,” she said. “Subsequent to Eagle’s self disclosure, the FAA and the aircraft manufacturer approved the process for Eagle to repair the landing gear doors while they remained on the aircraft, therefore, we do not believe that this case involved a safety of flight issue, or that a civil penalty is warranted."

AMR Corp., the parent of American Eagle and American Airlines, has 30 days to respond and appeal the FAA’s proposed penalty. The company is also facing a civil penalty over repair work on wiring in the wheel wells of its large fleet of MD-80 jets. American was forced to cancel nearly 3,000 flights in April 2008 after an FAA audit found that the airline had not properly followed requirements of a directive on how to secure the wire bundles. The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press have reported that AMR could face a penalty of more than $10 million from that incident, although FAA spokesman Lynn Lunsford said Wednesday that “the lawyers have not arrived at any dollar amount for a proposed civil penalty in that case.”

But let’s forget about Smith for a minute – what about the majority of American air travelers who share his weight problem? If current trends hold, the U.S. stands to pack on even more weight in coming years barring some sort of national slimming-down effort that actually works. What’s to be done then? Sell everyone two seats? (Smith, incidentally, says he usually buys two seats for himself on Southwest flights because the fares are cheap and he can easily afford it.) Change the seating configuration of the typical domestic airplane from a 3x3 seating to one that has two seats on each side, or maybe a 3x2, as on the older MD-80s? Many airlines currently shuffle seating for larger customers. "I think there's a lot of things you can do before forcing somebody to buy a second seat," AirTran (AAI) spokeswoman Cynthia Tinsley-Douglas said.

Such scenarios are not realistic, since the whole point of an airplane is revenue generation and the dictum that more seats equals more money. Passenger size is not a factor. Will it ever be? In all likelihood, not for quite some time, if ever, says Greg Powell, a vice president at BE Aerospace, the Florida company that makes the seats for Southwest’s 737 fleet. Airlines are not clamoring for wider seats – just lighter ones, to reduce fuel burn. That’s why modern airplane seats have become notably thinner in recent years but seat width has not kept pace with that of Americans’. “We would not want to spend our money developing a wider seat if there’s no demand for it,” Powell said Tuesday.

This decision is either great news or terrible, depending on your perspective. Delta and US Airways, plus a number of smaller cities from Pensacola to Buffalo, cheer the proposal as a way to maintain air service in those secondary towns. Consumer groups, meanwhile, saw the proposal as a way for the companies to cement their lock on airports where they already have a heavy presence. Both airports are restricted due to congestion, which means that entry is difficult and fares are higher than at nearby airports.

For business travelers, the JAL decision keeps the status quo, with more flight choices and fares that are more likely to remain stable than if U.S.-Japan traffic had become split between SkyTeam and Star Alliance.

Southwest claims it is stealing market share from the majors, poaching the people who resist bag fees by taking their business elsewhere. And the company is probably right. But there’s a corollary to that statement from the legacy airlines’ perspective: Southwest’s gains are bound to look oversized next to the collective downside of the five big players. And when you consider the fee amounts involved – hundreds of millions of so-called “new” dollars per year – Southwest can crow all it wants about booming traffic and the competition won’t mind much.