Yummmmmm.

Remember Andrew Speaker?

He’s that Atlanta lawyer and globe-trotting tuberculosis patient who made headlines back in 2007 by traveling from the U.S. to Europe for his wedding and honeymoon, and then flying back and re-entering the country after health officials told him to stay put.

At the time Speaker said he knew he had TB, but wasn’t aware that it was thought to be a particularly dangerous, drug-resistant strain. (After Speaker was quarantined, it was later determined that he had a less-severe strain than originally thought.)

Speaker — who later apologized to air passengers he may have put in danger — flew into Montreal and drove to the border, where he was allowed back in the country after a border inspector disregarded a computer warning to don protective gear and stop him. That incident, and another in which a Mexican national known to have a contagious strain of tuberculosis was able to repeatedly enter the country during the year, prompted questions about the U.S.’s ability to prevent people from bringing dangerous diseases across the border.

This week, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on the problem, stressing that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services should further strengthen their efforts to coordinate and share information.

But a Louisiana State University scientist reminds us that humans aren’t the only beings capable of carrying disease around the world on flights. In fact, a combination of global climate changes and stowaway mosquitoes could explain the recent spread of malaria to the United States and Europe, which some researchers have begun calling “airport malaria.” According to a statement from American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene:

The report from the Tropical Medicine society doesn’t offer numbers on exactly how often “airport malaria” strikes. But we figured it was worth a heads up.

Photo: Getty Images

An update to a closely-watched report on airline quality showed low-cost carriers such as JetBlue, Southwest and AirTran performed well in customer-service metrics through the first half of 2008.

Large network carriers, among them American and United, were among the worst-performing airlines in the categories used to compile the report, according to a joint statement from Wichita State University and Saint Louis University, which jointly produce the annual Airline Quality Rating (AQR) report, the final version of which is due to be published in April. The statement says:

Note — “best” here means the airlines reported the least mishandled bags, bumped customers and so on.

There are few earth-shattering findings in the preliminary report, which analyzes consumer data collected by the Department of Transportation through June 2008.

But the authors do indicate that airlines will likely record improved operations in the coming months, due to significant cuts in capacity. That jibes with the trends we’ve seen at the Terminal, where those improvements show up in recent consumer data from the Department of Transportation.

September On-Time Rankings, from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics

With fewer flights operating daily, airlines have become more punctual.

The share of flights arriving on time jumped in September, a month when carriers implemented the bulk of the large capacity cuts announced at the height of the summer’s oil-price surge.

Carriers had said most of those cuts in the number of seats flown would come out of the system after Labor Day. And pulling out some of those seats seemed to grease the skids of the aviation system. In August, 78.4% of all flights arrived on time. That figure rose to 84.9% in September, according to the Department of Transportation’s monthly consumer air-travel report, published Friday.

Of course, seasonal ebb in demand usually translates to improved on-time arrivals between August and September. In 2007, on-time arrivals made an even larger percentage-point leap from 71.7% in August to 81.7% in September. Still, the airlines’ nearly 85% on-time arrival performance last month is better than the September on-time rate in recent years. That rate was 76.2% in September 2006, 82.7% in 2005 and 83.9% in 2004.

All major carriers showed month-to-month improvement. And some airlines reported especially good results. American Airlines’ on-time rate, among the worst in the industry this year, rose from 70.6% in August to 81.5% in September. JetBlue, which ranked dead last in August with a 64.7% on-time arrival rate, improved to 80.8%. (We previously posted on JetBlue’s operational snags here.) This boost likely stems from improvements at New York’s Kennedy airport. In August, JetBlue reported 4,811 arrivals at Kennedy, of which 60.2% were on time. The number of arrivals dropped to 3,891 in September, and the on-time percentage rose to 76.3%.

Middle Seat readers, have you noticed whether flights seem to be more punctual lately?

It’s strange that no one’s showing huge interest in monthly airline traffic numbers this week. It’s almost as if there’s something else going on in the news.

Nevertheless, here at the Terminal, it’s our sworn duty to keep you abreast of the latest airline affairs. Major carriers’ traffic figures — reported this week for October — are holding up fairly well so far, despite signs of coming economic softness across the country. Usually the fortunes of airlines are closely tied to the gyrations of GDP. But this economic slowdown comes with a significant drop in fuel prices, which have fallen far from last summer’s vertiginous heights, when the price of a barrel of crude oil flirted with $150.

According to JP Morgan analyst Jamie Baker, the airline industry has reaped the greatest costs improvement “ever witnessed,” thanks to the drop in oil prices, which are currently hovering at less than half their summer peak, according to a Dow Jones Newswires story from Ann Keeton. She writes:

Unfortunately for travelers, airlines’ solid financial footing comes largely because carriers seem dead set against engaging in the kind of head-on competition that delivered dirt-cheap tickets to fliers in recent years. As Keeton writes, United Airlines is shrinking domestic capacity by 12% this year. And U.S. airlines, including low-cost flier Southwest, have said they’re committed to raising ticket prices to cover any higher costs.

IATA

Two separate reports compare September travel numbers with the downturn that accompanied the SARS scare of 2003.

First off, the International Air Transport Association put out a strongly worded press release this morning headlined “Alarming Drop for September International Traffic.”

“The deterioration in traffic is alarmingly fast-paced and widespread. We have not seen such a decline in passenger traffic since SARS in 2003,” said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO.

Another analysis — from business consultant Deloitte — this one from the British hotel industry also references the SARS era, saying “September was the worst month since August 2003 when SARS scares reduced travel.”

As we’ve gone through the thick of airlines’ earnings season over the last couple weeks, we’ve heard from several carriers about weakness in different parts of the globe. For example, Northwest suggested that it saw weakness on routes to China. And American parent AMR noted softening demand in New York, for example.

Clearly it seems a consensus is growing about a slowdown in global travel — along with the worldwide economy. But even so, there are a couple things worth pointing out about IATA’s press release. For one, IATA is in the midst of making a pronounced push for governmental change on airline regulation, so airlines might have an interest in painting a dark picture of the industry as they urge politicians to act. But sinking traffic might also be due, in part, to higher fares from carriers, which could actually result in better financial prospects for airlines — even if planes are emptier.

News you may already know, if you’ve been traveling lately: Domestic airline tickets were, on average, about 12.5% more expensive in September than they were in September 2007, according to a report late Monday from the Air Transport Association.

That’s a very sharp jump in one month. Domestic ticket prices, measured as the average passengers paid to fly one mile, were up 6.4% in August. But schedule cuts kicked in strongly in September, and airlines pushed prices a lot higher.

Across the Atlantic, the average yield was up 9.1% last month compared to the year-ago period, and travel between Latin America was up a whopping 23.2%. Asia was 7.0%, the ATA said.

Higher fuel prices drove the chopping of schedules this fall, and while fuel prices have fallen back to 2007 levels lately, airlines may have actually timed their capacity reductions well given the shocks the economy is suffering.

Companies are reporting moves to cut back on travel spending. Declines in economic activity will reduce business travel for airlines; tight budgets may well reduce vacation travel as well.

The multi-billion question facing the industry is whether it can sustain the kind of ticket price increases it pushed through in September, or will weakening demand force more fare sales and price cutting? Stay tuned. It’ll be fascinating to see if airlines ended up well-positioned for the economic woes, or whether they pushed prices too high, didn’t cut enough capacity and end up with more huge losses.

Southwest Airlines Co. reported a net loss for the third quarter, its first red-ink period in 17 years. The culprit: fuel hedges.

With the declining price of oil, the value of Southwest’s hedges has declined, and the company took a $247 million write-down. That resulted in a $120 million net loss for the quarter.

Southwest’s results have risen and fallen with the price of oil for some time, but they’ve mostly risen. For the past several years, rising prices have resulted in strong hedging gains, keeping the carrier in the black. Without the hedges, Southwest would have been losing millions, similar to other airlines that aren’t nearly as well-hedged on fuel. Indeed, even in the most recent quarter Southwest had cash settlement gains of $448 million on its hedges that matured. If the airline had to buy oil at spot market prices without hedges, it would have posted operating losses anyway.

Make no mistake, Southwest’s successful hedging strategy has made the airline billions of dollars and allowed it to operate without fees. Last year, Southwest had cash hedging gains of $727 million. It earned $645 million for the year. In 2006, cash hedging gains were $675 million, and net earnings were $499 million. Without the hedging, Southwest likely would have had to cut more capacity, enact bigger fare hikes and maybe even start charging baggage fees. In other words, it would’ve been forced to behave like other airlines.

But the hedging isn’t going away. Today, Southwest’s hedging portfolio is still worth $550 million, the company said. It has 85 percent of its fuel for the fourth quarter locked in at the equivalent of $62 a barrel. For next year, it has 75 percent of estimated fuel consumption protected at the equivalent of $73 per barrel. For 2010, half of its expected fuel is locked in at $90 a barrel – if oil goes back to $147 a barrel, that’ll be a big advantage. If it doesn’t, Southwest won’t have that edge over other airlines.

When prices were cheap, Southwest loaded up on fuel because Chief Executive Gary Kelly figured the price was likely to rise. He had the cash and the credit and the smarts to do what no other airline did. As the best hedges mature – Southwest bought lots of oil below $40 a barrel – costs will likely go up. But lower prices today may present more buying opportunities – Southwest says it is currently building positions into 2013.

Competitors have long groused that someday Southwest’s hedges will be gone and the airline will look a lot like its competitors financially. But Southwest won’t stop hedging. It may not be as potent as in the past, but as volatile as oil prices have been, don’t bet that Southwest won’t place more good bets of its own.

ComScore

Southwest’s publicity push to sell itself as the “anti-fee” airline may be helping the carrier grab a bigger share of online ticket sales, according to an online market research group.

Last week, research firm ComScore published the results of a study of online ticket sales among large U.S. airlines. The research captured numbers for fares plus applicable fees, such as airport security charges.

The big finding? Between the second quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2008, Southwest boosted its already sizable lead in online sales among major carriers.

The Dallas-based no-frills carrier jumped from controlling 28.1% of online ticket sales — in terms of dollars spent, not the number of transactions — during the second quarter of 2007 to 32.8% in the second quarter of 2008. ComScore notes that part of this growth “coincides with the imposition of additional fees for services such as checking luggage and in-flight beverages charged by the majority of the competing suppliers. Meanwhile, Southwest Airlines has launched a marketing campaign promoting its ‘Freedom from Fees’ policy.”

While ComScore explains Southwest’s growth by pointing to its anti-fee stance, other factors come into play. Perhaps foremost among those factors is the carrier’s overall second-quarter growth, which came as other large carriers such as American and United cut capacity. Those gains led to larger overall market share for Southwest, likely reflected in ComScore’s online numbers.

At any rate, Delta came in second in ComScore’s second-quarter results, with a 13.3% share of online ticket sales — down 0.9 percentage points — just ahead of Continental, which rose slightly to 12.3% of online sales. By ComScore’s reckoning, American, Northwest and United all saw their share of online ticket sales slip by over two percentage points.

Interestingly, ComScore also quizzed 1,082 respondents on their thoughts regarding some of the fees carriers have imposed in recent months. The survey listed a range of fees and asked respondents to say how likely they would be to pay extra for such services. Few seemed particularly enthusiastic toward the notion of paying extra for anything — no big surprise there. For instance, no more than a quarter of the respondents indicated they’d be likely to fork over extra for any of the services — such as meals, luggage checking or blankets.

Still, according to the survey, some fees are more palatable — or perhaps less repellent — than others. Oversized bag fees, charges for internet access and second-bag surcharges seemed the most acceptable. The least? Fees for non-alcoholic beverages, window or aisle seats, phone bookings and pillows and blankets. In each case, at least 75% of respondents said they would be somewhat unlikely or not at all likely to pay up.

Readers, has Southwest’s no-fee campaign worked for you? What, if anything, have you changed about the way you book travel online?

We’ve written plenty about carriers’ cutting capacity as part of their plan to paddle through the financial rapids.

For a change of pace, check out this snapshot of the busiest new international city-to-city routes, ranked by the number of available seats. Some 2,092 new routes were launched or reinstated between October 2007 and October 2008, and here are the most robust of the bunch:

The list was published Thursday by airline schedule researcher OAG to coincide with the group’s route-development conference being held this weekend in Kuala Lumpur. A chart from the release is below. (The “Weekly flights” rubric above the number on the right, is a typo, should be “Weekly Seats.”)

Interestingly, Texas-to-London flights seemed to do well over the last year, with a British Airways/Continental route from Houston’s Bush Intercontinental topping the list and a BA/American flight to London from Dallas-Ft. Worth not far behind. I wonder if this is an example of synergy between the sizzling energy sector — Irving,Texas-based Exxon Mobil is right outside Dallas, for instance — and the equally high-flying — until recently — financial industry in London.

Other items that caught our eye were three new flights to Iran that made the list. One, operated by British Midland/Iran Air, runs between London Heathrow and Tehran; another, an Iran Air/Lufthansa trip, runs between Frankfurt and the Iranian capital. A route between Tehran and Istanbul, Turkey, also ranked highly on OAG’s list. Also, given the sizzling growth in Asian economies (very recent history excepted, of course), it’s not surprising that Hong Kong, Shanghai, Mumbai and Seoul show up as anchor cities on other growth routes.

The puzzler, for your humble correspondent anyway, was a flight between Newark Liberty and Toronto operated by Porter Airlines. Chances are, many domestic fliers have never heard of the carrier, so company spokesman Brad Cicero was good enough to run down the outfit’s business model, even though it was going for 5 p.m. on the Friday before the start of a long weekend due to Canada’s Thanksgiving. (Hope you had a good one, eh.)

First he noted that the airline is based, not at Toronto’s well-known Pearson International Airport, but at City Centre Airport, a smaller strip on the Toronto Islands a quick ferry ride from the city itself. Cicero told the Terminal that Porter Airlines is a regional service flying Bombardier Q400 turboprops configured for 70 seats, and stressed that the airline focuses on service — real china and glasses are used for the complimentary on-board beverage service, for instance.

Besides the flight to Newark Liberty, Porter also services cities such as Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax and will begin service to Chicago in November. Has anyone out there ever flown Porter? What were your impressions?

OAG

Airlines plan to fly more than 9% fewer domestic seats in the fourth quarter than they did the same period of 2007. Now, they’re also moving trim capacity from routes across the Atlantic and the Pacific — where they’d previously planned on growth — according to a new analysis from airline schedule trackers OAG.

“The scale of the decline in the U.S. market is worse than the previous schedule analysis showed, with airlines taking 265,000 flights out of operation this quarter,” OAG CEO Steve Casley said in a company press release. “When you consider that the combined cuts from all the world’s airlines totals 451,000 flights, then it really puts America’s domestic capacity decline into perspective.”

OAG’s report, released Wednesday, is based on data compiled using the company’s schedules database. The fourth-quarter numbers represent flights through the end of the year that were published in schedules by Oct. 1. OAG says that the capacity cuts will result in some 33 airports in the U.S. losing air service altogether. November numbers from OAG put airports in Hot Springs, Ark., Bridgeport, Conn., and Bullhead City, Ariz., among those set to lose all flights.

Interestingly, given our previous posts about how economic turmoil is showing signs of hitting elite fliers on transatlantic jaunts, the OAG report also mentions shrinkage in flight capacity across the Atlantic and the Pacific. In August, OAG figures showed that routes over both oceans were showing some growth. But Wednesday’s report shows capacity dropping 2.9% for transatlantic flights for the last quarter of the year, reversing the earlier schedule analysis of 2% growth. Transpacific flights declined 3.1% compared with the previous tiny rise of 0.2%

Of course, none of this is a huge surprise. Since the summer, airlines (American, Continental, Delta, JetBlue, Northwest, United and US Airways among them) have trumpeted their plans to reduce the number of seats in the air. Still, the bottom line from this latest OAG report indicates that it’s likely fares will continue rising.