Plane Overshoots Runway in Jamaica
Copyright By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 23, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/23/world/AP-US-Flight-Overshoots-Runway.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Heavy rain fell as passengers were evacuated from the plane.
KINGSTON, Jamaica (AP) -- An American Airplanes flight carrying 154 people skidded across a Jamaican runway in heavy rain, bouncing across the tarmac and injuring more than 40 people before it stopped just short of the Caribbean Sea, officials and witnesses said.
Panicked passengers screamed and baggage burst from overhead bins as Flight 331 from Miami careened down the runway in the capital, Kingston, on Tuesday night, one passenger said.
The impact cracked the fuselage, crushed the left landing gear and separated both engines from the Boeing 737-800, airline spokesman Tim Smith said.
Crews evacuated dazed and bloodied passengers onto a beach from a cabin that smelled of smoke and jet fuel, passengers said. Rain poured through the plane's broken roof, one said.
Some 44 people were taken to hospitals with broken bones and back pains and four were seriously hurt, airport and Jamaican government officials said. American Airlines said two people were admitted to the hospital and nobody suffered life-threatening injuries.
Heavy turbulence on the way to Jamaica had forced the crew to halt the beverage service three times before giving up, Pilar Abaurrea of Keene, New Hampshire, told The Associated Press by phone. The pilot warned of more turbulence just before landing but said it likely wouldn't be much worse, she said.
''All of a sudden, when it hit the ground, the plane was kind of bouncing. Someone said the plane was skidding and there was panic,'' she said.
U.S. investigators will analyze whether the plane should have been landing in such bad weather, Smith said, adding that other planes had landed safely in the heavy rain.
Passenger Natalie Morales Hendricks told NBC's ''Today'' that the plane began to skid upon landing and ''before I knew it, everything was black and we were crashing.''
''Everybody's overhead baggage started to fall. Literally, it was like being in a car accident. People were screaming, I was screaming,'' she said.
''There was smoke and debris everywhere,'' after the plane halted, she said. ''It was a mess. Everybody could smell jet fuel.''
Passenger Robert Mais told The Gleaner newspaper of Jamaica that he had heard the engine's reverse throttle but that the plane didn't seem to slow as it skittered down the runway.
The plane came to a halt about 10 to 15 feet (3 to 5 meters) from the Caribbean Sea and passengers walked along the beach to be picked up by a bus, Mais said. Rain came through the roof of the darkened jet and baggage from the overhead compartments was strewn about the cabin, he said.
The plane originated at Reagan National Airport in Washington and took off from Miami International Airport at 8:52 p.m. and arrived in Kingston at 10:22 p.m. It was carrying 148 passengers and a crew of six, American said. The majority of those aboard were Jamaicans coming home for Christmas, Jamaican Information Minister Daryl Vaz said.
Smith said there were two ''significant'' cracks in the fuselage, and the engines are designed to separate from the wings during an accident as a safety measure.
The airport reopened early Wednesday after officials had delayed flights because of concerns that the plane's tail might be hindering visibility.
Some 400 passengers waited for their flights to be cleared for takeoff, Security Minister Dwight Nelson told Radio Jamaica.
Heavy rains that have pelted Jamaica's eastern region for four days are expected to dissipate by Thursday. Authorities said the rains washed away a 7-year-old girl on Tuesday and led to a bus accident in which two people died.
Associated Press writers Danica Coto and Ben Fox in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Howard Campbell in Kingston, Jamaica, Carol Druga in Atlanta and Sofia Mannos in Washington contributed to this report.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
With defeat near on health care, Republicans focus on attacks for 2010 elections
With defeat near on health care, Republicans focus on attacks for 2010 elections
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Copyright by The Washington Post
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122200864.html?wpisrc=nl_politics
From Capitol Hill to the White House, Democrats on Tuesday began celebrating the imminent approval by the Senate of an overhaul of the nation's health insurance system. The measure cleared a second procedural hurdle and Republicans agreed to cut short the debate, setting the stage for a final vote Thursday morning.
"The finish line is in sight," the bill's chief architect, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), declared shortly after the Senate voted 60 to 39, along caucus lines, to advance the $871 billion health package. "We're not the first to attempt such reforms. We will be the first to succeed."
Hours later, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confidently announced: "Health-care reform is not a matter of if. Health-care reform now is a matter of when."
Even Senate Republicans appeared ready to admit defeat, as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) cut a deal with Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to hold a final vote on the Senate bill at 8 a.m. Thursday, allowing senators to head home hours earlier than expected. Under Senate rules, Republicans could have forced senators to stay at their desks until nearly 10 p.m. during what will be the Senate's first Christmas Eve session since 1963.
Unable to block the bill, Republicans argued that they had done all they could to shine a light of harsh scrutiny on the package and the many side deals Reid cut to win over wavering Democrats. Polls show that a majority of Americans are highly skeptical that they will benefit from the president's top domestic initiative, and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said the most effective strategy is to let senators face the wrath of their constituents back home.
ad_icon
"The very best thing that can happen to this bill is for us to go home and let the people of this country tell the congressmen and the senators what they think about the taxes, the Medicare cuts and the sweetheart deals," Alexander said, "so when we come back in January, we can stop this train and take a different course. We still have time to go down a different road, rather than pursue a political kamikaze mission toward a historic mistake."
If the Senate approves the health package, attention will return to the House, which last month passed a much more generous plan to expand coverage to the uninsured, in part by creating a government-run insurance plan. During several painful weeks of negotiations, Reid demonstrated that the "public option" could not pass the Senate, and House liberals signaled Tuesday that they may be willing to settle for other concessions, such as launching the bulk of the reforms in 2013, a year earlier than the Senate bill now prescribes.
"It would sweeten it somewhat if they speed up the coverage mechanism," Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said in an interview with the blog the Plum Line.
The reconciliation of the two bills is expected to take place in January, with the aim of sending a bill to the White House for President Obama's signature before he delivers his first State of the Union address. Instead of negotiating in a formal conference committee, senior Democratic aides in both chambers said they expect to hash out a bill in informal negotiations, push it through the House and send it back to the Senate for final approval, a strategy that would give them broad flexibility to rewrite policy provisions in search of a compromise.
With the threat of snow and ice storms in the Midwest adding a sense of urgency among senators hoping to get home for Christmas, Reid and McConnell also agreed to vote Thursday on a plan to increase the government's legal debt limit to $12.4 trillion. The temporary increase is projected to get the Treasury through another two months. In exchange, Republicans won the right to stage a full debate on the debt limit in late January, when lawmakers will have to approve an even larger increase to accommodate record deficits.
Republicans view the soaring national debt as a potent political issue heading into the 2010 congressional elections and want to use a lengthy Senate debate to focus attention on the issue just as Obama is preparing to address Congress and unveil his second budget request.
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Copyright by The Washington Post
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122200864.html?wpisrc=nl_politics
From Capitol Hill to the White House, Democrats on Tuesday began celebrating the imminent approval by the Senate of an overhaul of the nation's health insurance system. The measure cleared a second procedural hurdle and Republicans agreed to cut short the debate, setting the stage for a final vote Thursday morning.
"The finish line is in sight," the bill's chief architect, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), declared shortly after the Senate voted 60 to 39, along caucus lines, to advance the $871 billion health package. "We're not the first to attempt such reforms. We will be the first to succeed."
Hours later, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confidently announced: "Health-care reform is not a matter of if. Health-care reform now is a matter of when."
Even Senate Republicans appeared ready to admit defeat, as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) cut a deal with Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to hold a final vote on the Senate bill at 8 a.m. Thursday, allowing senators to head home hours earlier than expected. Under Senate rules, Republicans could have forced senators to stay at their desks until nearly 10 p.m. during what will be the Senate's first Christmas Eve session since 1963.
Unable to block the bill, Republicans argued that they had done all they could to shine a light of harsh scrutiny on the package and the many side deals Reid cut to win over wavering Democrats. Polls show that a majority of Americans are highly skeptical that they will benefit from the president's top domestic initiative, and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said the most effective strategy is to let senators face the wrath of their constituents back home.
ad_icon
"The very best thing that can happen to this bill is for us to go home and let the people of this country tell the congressmen and the senators what they think about the taxes, the Medicare cuts and the sweetheart deals," Alexander said, "so when we come back in January, we can stop this train and take a different course. We still have time to go down a different road, rather than pursue a political kamikaze mission toward a historic mistake."
If the Senate approves the health package, attention will return to the House, which last month passed a much more generous plan to expand coverage to the uninsured, in part by creating a government-run insurance plan. During several painful weeks of negotiations, Reid demonstrated that the "public option" could not pass the Senate, and House liberals signaled Tuesday that they may be willing to settle for other concessions, such as launching the bulk of the reforms in 2013, a year earlier than the Senate bill now prescribes.
"It would sweeten it somewhat if they speed up the coverage mechanism," Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said in an interview with the blog the Plum Line.
The reconciliation of the two bills is expected to take place in January, with the aim of sending a bill to the White House for President Obama's signature before he delivers his first State of the Union address. Instead of negotiating in a formal conference committee, senior Democratic aides in both chambers said they expect to hash out a bill in informal negotiations, push it through the House and send it back to the Senate for final approval, a strategy that would give them broad flexibility to rewrite policy provisions in search of a compromise.
With the threat of snow and ice storms in the Midwest adding a sense of urgency among senators hoping to get home for Christmas, Reid and McConnell also agreed to vote Thursday on a plan to increase the government's legal debt limit to $12.4 trillion. The temporary increase is projected to get the Treasury through another two months. In exchange, Republicans won the right to stage a full debate on the debt limit in late January, when lawmakers will have to approve an even larger increase to accommodate record deficits.
Republicans view the soaring national debt as a potent political issue heading into the 2010 congressional elections and want to use a lengthy Senate debate to focus attention on the issue just as Obama is preparing to address Congress and unveil his second budget request.
Doctors No One Needs
Doctors No One Needs
By SHANNON BROWNLEE and DAVID GOODMAN
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/opinion/23brownlee.html?th&emc=th
FOR anyone who has had to wait a long time to schedule a medical appointment, it might seem as if the world needs more doctors, and that training more of them would be a good idea. An amendment that teaching hospitals are pushing to include in the health care legislation before a final vote is taken in the Senate and the House would do just that. It would add 15,000 medical residency slots to the 100,000 residencies the federal government now finances, most of them through Medicare.
This amendment is being heavily promoted by several doctor specialty societies and the Association of American Medical Colleges, a group that represents the nation’s major teaching hospitals. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It would raise Medicare’s bill for residencies, which is already $9 billion a year. More important, since the cost of health care follows the supply of doctors, the added slots would substantially increase the national health care bill. And the measure would not address the underlying reason that patients are forced to wait to see doctors.
Over the past 20 years, the number of doctors in relation to the American population has risen by 30 percent. Yet in many parts of the country, more doctors has simply meant more doctors, not better access for patients, not better communication among a patient’s health care providers, and not better results. The truth is that regions with the highest number of doctors per capita tend to deliver lower quality care at a higher cost.
Increasing the number of doctors would make our health care system worse, not better, because the United States doesn’t actually need more doctors. What we do need is for primary care to reclaim its central role in the delivery of medicine, to provide the preventive care, chronic disease management and coordination of services that is lacking in so many parts of the country. Primary care doctors can help patients avoid unnecessary visits to specialists, hospitals and emergency rooms, thus lowering health care costs.
Granted, the teaching hospitals and others lobbying for more doctors would have Congress designate some of the new residency slots for family practice, pediatrics and internal medicine. But there are already plenty of residency openings in those areas that currently go unfilled. And since the amendment would not prohibit the positions going to specialists, that is who would fill them. If the past is prologue, these newly minted specialists would most likely gravitate toward cities like New York, Los Angeles and Miami, which already have plenty of doctors — and relatively poor care.
Our national problem is that primary care doctors are leaving their practices in droves, driven out by their low pay (relative to that of specialists), long hours and mountains of paperwork. Some of them go to work in emergency rooms or hospitals, others become specialists, and many simply abandon medicine. The idea that there’s a supply-side solution to this problem is a little like thinking you can fill a bucket with holes in the bottom by pouring in more water.
Increasing the number of residency slots would also mean that the United States would continue to rob other nations of their doctors. More than a quarter of American residencies are filled by graduates of foreign medical schools, more than half of them from poor countries. After training here, many stay, leaving the people of their own countries holding the bill for their training. In a kind of reverse foreign aid, the president’s Global Health Initiative is poised to invest millions in medical education in Africa and elsewhere, while American academic institutions expect to employ more of their medical school graduates.
Before adding residency slots, Congress should demand that academic medical centers come up with a plan to improve the disorganized, fragmented care that plagues much of the country. Insurers and Medicare should pay family-practice doctors and general internists enough to keep them in the field. And federal financing for medical education programs should hinge on their plans to train more primary care doctors and fewer specialists.
Otherwise, we’ll simply end up perpetuating a system in which too many doctors provide poor-quality care at too high a price.
Shannon Brownlee, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, is the author of “Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.” David Goodman is a professor at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.
By SHANNON BROWNLEE and DAVID GOODMAN
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/opinion/23brownlee.html?th&emc=th
FOR anyone who has had to wait a long time to schedule a medical appointment, it might seem as if the world needs more doctors, and that training more of them would be a good idea. An amendment that teaching hospitals are pushing to include in the health care legislation before a final vote is taken in the Senate and the House would do just that. It would add 15,000 medical residency slots to the 100,000 residencies the federal government now finances, most of them through Medicare.
This amendment is being heavily promoted by several doctor specialty societies and the Association of American Medical Colleges, a group that represents the nation’s major teaching hospitals. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It would raise Medicare’s bill for residencies, which is already $9 billion a year. More important, since the cost of health care follows the supply of doctors, the added slots would substantially increase the national health care bill. And the measure would not address the underlying reason that patients are forced to wait to see doctors.
Over the past 20 years, the number of doctors in relation to the American population has risen by 30 percent. Yet in many parts of the country, more doctors has simply meant more doctors, not better access for patients, not better communication among a patient’s health care providers, and not better results. The truth is that regions with the highest number of doctors per capita tend to deliver lower quality care at a higher cost.
Increasing the number of doctors would make our health care system worse, not better, because the United States doesn’t actually need more doctors. What we do need is for primary care to reclaim its central role in the delivery of medicine, to provide the preventive care, chronic disease management and coordination of services that is lacking in so many parts of the country. Primary care doctors can help patients avoid unnecessary visits to specialists, hospitals and emergency rooms, thus lowering health care costs.
Granted, the teaching hospitals and others lobbying for more doctors would have Congress designate some of the new residency slots for family practice, pediatrics and internal medicine. But there are already plenty of residency openings in those areas that currently go unfilled. And since the amendment would not prohibit the positions going to specialists, that is who would fill them. If the past is prologue, these newly minted specialists would most likely gravitate toward cities like New York, Los Angeles and Miami, which already have plenty of doctors — and relatively poor care.
Our national problem is that primary care doctors are leaving their practices in droves, driven out by their low pay (relative to that of specialists), long hours and mountains of paperwork. Some of them go to work in emergency rooms or hospitals, others become specialists, and many simply abandon medicine. The idea that there’s a supply-side solution to this problem is a little like thinking you can fill a bucket with holes in the bottom by pouring in more water.
Increasing the number of residency slots would also mean that the United States would continue to rob other nations of their doctors. More than a quarter of American residencies are filled by graduates of foreign medical schools, more than half of them from poor countries. After training here, many stay, leaving the people of their own countries holding the bill for their training. In a kind of reverse foreign aid, the president’s Global Health Initiative is poised to invest millions in medical education in Africa and elsewhere, while American academic institutions expect to employ more of their medical school graduates.
Before adding residency slots, Congress should demand that academic medical centers come up with a plan to improve the disorganized, fragmented care that plagues much of the country. Insurers and Medicare should pay family-practice doctors and general internists enough to keep them in the field. And federal financing for medical education programs should hinge on their plans to train more primary care doctors and fewer specialists.
Otherwise, we’ll simply end up perpetuating a system in which too many doctors provide poor-quality care at too high a price.
Shannon Brownlee, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, is the author of “Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.” David Goodman is a professor at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.
Is There a Real McCain?
Is There a Real McCain?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/opinion/23dowd.html?th&emc=th
WASHINGTON
The Maverick’s buck stops here.
John McCain is no longer the media’s delight and his party’s burr, bucking convention with infectious relish.
The man used to be such a constructive independent that some of his Republican Senate colleagues called him a traitor. Now he’s such a predictable obstructionist that he’s in the just-say-no vanguard with the same conservatives who used to despise him.
On Tuesday afternoon on the floor, Senator Mitch McConnell, who contemptuously fought McCain’s campaign finance reform bill all the way to the Supreme Court, oozed admiration toward his Arizona colleague, as McCain did yet another grandstanding fandango on the health care bill.
Watching him, one can only wonder: Is McCain betraying his best self? Who is the real McCain?
Even some of McCain’s former aides are disturbed by the 73-year-old’s hostile, vindictive, sarcastic persona — a far cry from The Honorable Man portrait so lovingly pumped up in books by his former aide and co-writer Mark Salter.
After he lost to W. in a nasty primary battle in 2000, McCain delighted in poking at the new Republican president. But he was a trenchant critic of W.’s budget-busting tax cuts and other policies because his objections were consistent and honestly felt. (Or so we thought.)
Now he delights in attacking another man he ran against and lost to: a new Democratic president who had once hoped, based on McCain’s past positions, that his former Republican rival might be of help in such areas as the economy, national security, immigration and climate change.
With President Obama, McCain’s objections seem motivated more by vendetta than principle.
He angrily turned on his former base, the news media, during his campaign when his lame performance on the economy and his irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin got panned.
In 2000, McCain would devilishly point out Tom Brokaw or a Times journalist to town hall audiences as “one of the last Trotskyites, left-wing, Communist, pinkos of the American media.”
In 2008, he snarled to political aides about journalists whom he had once admired, like Brokaw and Charlie Gibson, and he cut off The Times completely. He talks about the media betrayal with the same outsize scorn that he once reserved for his Viet Cong captors.
The famous twinkle is gone, replaced by an infamous bitterness.
After his 2008 race against Obama — a campaign that too often took the low road in toadying to the right and painting Obama as a socialist and terrorist fellow-traveler — the capital eagerly waited to see which McCain would return to the Capitol.
Would McCain be the new lion of the Senate, putting “Country First” for a historic final chapter to his long career? Or would he morph into the sort of knee-jerk Congressional partisan he had once loathed?
Sadly, despite the scary trellis of problems America faces, the unorthodox, brave and cheeky McCain failed to show up.
Part of his sharp turn to the right may be motivated by his primary challenge for a fifth term from J.D. Hayworth, a conservative, anti-immigration talk-show host and former Republican House member (who has also been anti-Times at times).
But he has said himself that it’s more about philosophical differences with President Obama.
Unlike his pal Lindsey Graham, who voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, McCain seemed motivated by revenge when he voted against Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.
“An excellent résumé and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court,” McCain sniffed.
McCain, who once led the fight in the Senate with his pal Joe Lieberman on enacting a global warming bill, shocked many when he flipped on the issue, attacking climate legislation supported by Lieberman, Graham and John Kerry.
McCain has also descended into demagoguery on Medicare. Although he has been in favor of Medicare reductions to cut the deficit over years, he’s now adopted a rigid hands-off Medicare stance.
He rejected the idea of being a point man on immigration in the Senate, apparently preferring to stew.
A couple of times, during floor speeches on health care this month, the Arizona senator noted “that a fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed.”
It seemed to be an inadvertent recognition that he was fighting for the sake of it, not to help the country get past some of the hideous problems left by the man McCain failed to stop in 2000.
Maybe an excellent résumé and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one as a real statesman.
By MAUREEN DOWD
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/opinion/23dowd.html?th&emc=th
WASHINGTON
The Maverick’s buck stops here.
John McCain is no longer the media’s delight and his party’s burr, bucking convention with infectious relish.
The man used to be such a constructive independent that some of his Republican Senate colleagues called him a traitor. Now he’s such a predictable obstructionist that he’s in the just-say-no vanguard with the same conservatives who used to despise him.
On Tuesday afternoon on the floor, Senator Mitch McConnell, who contemptuously fought McCain’s campaign finance reform bill all the way to the Supreme Court, oozed admiration toward his Arizona colleague, as McCain did yet another grandstanding fandango on the health care bill.
Watching him, one can only wonder: Is McCain betraying his best self? Who is the real McCain?
Even some of McCain’s former aides are disturbed by the 73-year-old’s hostile, vindictive, sarcastic persona — a far cry from The Honorable Man portrait so lovingly pumped up in books by his former aide and co-writer Mark Salter.
After he lost to W. in a nasty primary battle in 2000, McCain delighted in poking at the new Republican president. But he was a trenchant critic of W.’s budget-busting tax cuts and other policies because his objections were consistent and honestly felt. (Or so we thought.)
Now he delights in attacking another man he ran against and lost to: a new Democratic president who had once hoped, based on McCain’s past positions, that his former Republican rival might be of help in such areas as the economy, national security, immigration and climate change.
With President Obama, McCain’s objections seem motivated more by vendetta than principle.
He angrily turned on his former base, the news media, during his campaign when his lame performance on the economy and his irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin got panned.
In 2000, McCain would devilishly point out Tom Brokaw or a Times journalist to town hall audiences as “one of the last Trotskyites, left-wing, Communist, pinkos of the American media.”
In 2008, he snarled to political aides about journalists whom he had once admired, like Brokaw and Charlie Gibson, and he cut off The Times completely. He talks about the media betrayal with the same outsize scorn that he once reserved for his Viet Cong captors.
The famous twinkle is gone, replaced by an infamous bitterness.
After his 2008 race against Obama — a campaign that too often took the low road in toadying to the right and painting Obama as a socialist and terrorist fellow-traveler — the capital eagerly waited to see which McCain would return to the Capitol.
Would McCain be the new lion of the Senate, putting “Country First” for a historic final chapter to his long career? Or would he morph into the sort of knee-jerk Congressional partisan he had once loathed?
Sadly, despite the scary trellis of problems America faces, the unorthodox, brave and cheeky McCain failed to show up.
Part of his sharp turn to the right may be motivated by his primary challenge for a fifth term from J.D. Hayworth, a conservative, anti-immigration talk-show host and former Republican House member (who has also been anti-Times at times).
But he has said himself that it’s more about philosophical differences with President Obama.
Unlike his pal Lindsey Graham, who voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, McCain seemed motivated by revenge when he voted against Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.
“An excellent résumé and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court,” McCain sniffed.
McCain, who once led the fight in the Senate with his pal Joe Lieberman on enacting a global warming bill, shocked many when he flipped on the issue, attacking climate legislation supported by Lieberman, Graham and John Kerry.
McCain has also descended into demagoguery on Medicare. Although he has been in favor of Medicare reductions to cut the deficit over years, he’s now adopted a rigid hands-off Medicare stance.
He rejected the idea of being a point man on immigration in the Senate, apparently preferring to stew.
A couple of times, during floor speeches on health care this month, the Arizona senator noted “that a fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed.”
It seemed to be an inadvertent recognition that he was fighting for the sake of it, not to help the country get past some of the hideous problems left by the man McCain failed to stop in 2000.
Maybe an excellent résumé and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one as a real statesman.
New York G.O.P. Lacks Big Name for 2010 Slate
New York G.O.P. Lacks Big Name for 2010 Slate
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/nyregion/23republicans.html?th&emc=th
America’s Mayor is out. But take heart, New York Republicans — Larchmont’s mayor could get in.
It has come to this for the party of such electoral lions as Rudolph W. Giuliani, George E. Pataki and Alfonse M. D’Amato: a rookie Democrat, Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand — largely unknown to the public and unloved by some in her own party — faces her first election to the seat in November. But Republicans have been unable to land a marquee name to run against her.
So far, the only hopefuls to surface in opposition to Senator Gillibrand are Michael Balboni, a former state senator from Long Island; Bruce A. Blakeman, a former Nassau County legislator who ran for comptroller in 1998 but was defeated 2 to 1 by H. Carl McCall; and Elizabeth N. Feld, the mayor of the village of Larchmont (population 6,567), who was trounced in a State Senate race in 2008.
The decision by Mr. Giuliani to stay in private work, and the apparent lack of interest on the part of Mr. Pataki, leave the Republican Party in recruiting and rebuilding mode precisely when it could use a proven, popular figure to step in and take on Ms. Gillibrand, who, political analysts say, may never be this vulnerable again. Barring that, Republicans could see their ticket headed by Rick Lazio, the former four-term Long Island congressman who was thumped by Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2000 Senate race and is running for governor now.
“It tells you the Republicans don’t have a bench,” said Douglas Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College. “What they have is a couple of over-the-hill, aging, former major leaguers who don’t want to go through the rigors of the game. And Lazio was a nobody when he was a somebody.”
Republican candidates for other statewide races are not exactly A-listers. The best known is John Faso, who was blown out by Eliot Spitzer in the 2006 governor’s race and is said to be thinking over a run for state comptroller. Harry J. Wilson, a wealthy hedge fund partner who retired at 36 and worked on President Obama’s automotive industry task force, and the Rockland County executive, C. Scott Vanderhoef, have also floated their names for comptroller.
Mr. Lazio is being challenged by Chris Collins, the Erie County executive. And potential candidates for attorney general include District Attorneys Daniel M. Donovan of Staten Island, Kathleen B. Hogan of Glens Falls and William J. Fitzpatrick of Syracuse, Republican operatives say.
Oddly, the paucity of high-profile contenders comes as party leaders have reason to feel sanguine about their prospects in 2010. Last month’s elections, they say, showed not merely anti-incumbent but anti-Democratic sentiment, with Republican upsets in county races in Nassau and Westchester, and big gains in county and local races in the Hudson Valley, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo.
Republicans are optimistic about their chances of retaking the State Senate in 2010. But if Andrew M. Cuomo winds up winning the governor’s office in a rout, as some Republicans fear, they have defensive reasons to seek a formidable candidate to take on Ms. Gillibrand, said Kieran Mahoney, a top Republican strategist.
“In ’92, D’Amato on the ballot prevented the Clinton landslide from burying down-ballot Republicans,” he said. “A competitive race against Gillibrand this year could have the same effect, and would be particularly important in recapturing the New York State Senate.”
Party leaders stressed that they had benefited from wide-open primary races before, and say just because their candidates are little known now does not mean they should be counted out. In 1980, Mr. D’Amato leaped from town supervisor to the Senate, and in 1994, George E. Pataki jumped from the State Senate to the governor’s mansion.
“Sometimes it’s not necessarily the big name you think of right now,” said Dean G. Skelos, the State Senate minority leader. “Really, it clears the path to those out there, some who may be self-funders, some we may not have thought of yet, to say, with Rudy Giuliani out, maybe they’re going to take a shot at it.”
Ryan Moses, a former executive director of the state Republicans, agreed. “We have an opportunity here,” Mr. Moses said.
While Mr. Giuliani mentioned Mr. Pataki and Representative Peter T. King of Long Island as potential challengers to Ms. Gillibrand, those who know Mr. Pataki say the odds of his running are remote. (Efforts to reach Mr. Pataki through a spokesman on Tuesday were unsuccessful.)
Mr. King ruled out a race against Ms. Gillibrand in August, but said in an interview on Tuesday that he would give it a second thought, at the urging of party strategists. A run would mean giving up his House seat and his spot as ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, and winning would leave him facing re-election in 2012.
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/nyregion/23republicans.html?th&emc=th
America’s Mayor is out. But take heart, New York Republicans — Larchmont’s mayor could get in.
It has come to this for the party of such electoral lions as Rudolph W. Giuliani, George E. Pataki and Alfonse M. D’Amato: a rookie Democrat, Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand — largely unknown to the public and unloved by some in her own party — faces her first election to the seat in November. But Republicans have been unable to land a marquee name to run against her.
So far, the only hopefuls to surface in opposition to Senator Gillibrand are Michael Balboni, a former state senator from Long Island; Bruce A. Blakeman, a former Nassau County legislator who ran for comptroller in 1998 but was defeated 2 to 1 by H. Carl McCall; and Elizabeth N. Feld, the mayor of the village of Larchmont (population 6,567), who was trounced in a State Senate race in 2008.
The decision by Mr. Giuliani to stay in private work, and the apparent lack of interest on the part of Mr. Pataki, leave the Republican Party in recruiting and rebuilding mode precisely when it could use a proven, popular figure to step in and take on Ms. Gillibrand, who, political analysts say, may never be this vulnerable again. Barring that, Republicans could see their ticket headed by Rick Lazio, the former four-term Long Island congressman who was thumped by Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2000 Senate race and is running for governor now.
“It tells you the Republicans don’t have a bench,” said Douglas Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College. “What they have is a couple of over-the-hill, aging, former major leaguers who don’t want to go through the rigors of the game. And Lazio was a nobody when he was a somebody.”
Republican candidates for other statewide races are not exactly A-listers. The best known is John Faso, who was blown out by Eliot Spitzer in the 2006 governor’s race and is said to be thinking over a run for state comptroller. Harry J. Wilson, a wealthy hedge fund partner who retired at 36 and worked on President Obama’s automotive industry task force, and the Rockland County executive, C. Scott Vanderhoef, have also floated their names for comptroller.
Mr. Lazio is being challenged by Chris Collins, the Erie County executive. And potential candidates for attorney general include District Attorneys Daniel M. Donovan of Staten Island, Kathleen B. Hogan of Glens Falls and William J. Fitzpatrick of Syracuse, Republican operatives say.
Oddly, the paucity of high-profile contenders comes as party leaders have reason to feel sanguine about their prospects in 2010. Last month’s elections, they say, showed not merely anti-incumbent but anti-Democratic sentiment, with Republican upsets in county races in Nassau and Westchester, and big gains in county and local races in the Hudson Valley, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo.
Republicans are optimistic about their chances of retaking the State Senate in 2010. But if Andrew M. Cuomo winds up winning the governor’s office in a rout, as some Republicans fear, they have defensive reasons to seek a formidable candidate to take on Ms. Gillibrand, said Kieran Mahoney, a top Republican strategist.
“In ’92, D’Amato on the ballot prevented the Clinton landslide from burying down-ballot Republicans,” he said. “A competitive race against Gillibrand this year could have the same effect, and would be particularly important in recapturing the New York State Senate.”
Party leaders stressed that they had benefited from wide-open primary races before, and say just because their candidates are little known now does not mean they should be counted out. In 1980, Mr. D’Amato leaped from town supervisor to the Senate, and in 1994, George E. Pataki jumped from the State Senate to the governor’s mansion.
“Sometimes it’s not necessarily the big name you think of right now,” said Dean G. Skelos, the State Senate minority leader. “Really, it clears the path to those out there, some who may be self-funders, some we may not have thought of yet, to say, with Rudy Giuliani out, maybe they’re going to take a shot at it.”
Ryan Moses, a former executive director of the state Republicans, agreed. “We have an opportunity here,” Mr. Moses said.
While Mr. Giuliani mentioned Mr. Pataki and Representative Peter T. King of Long Island as potential challengers to Ms. Gillibrand, those who know Mr. Pataki say the odds of his running are remote. (Efforts to reach Mr. Pataki through a spokesman on Tuesday were unsuccessful.)
Mr. King ruled out a race against Ms. Gillibrand in August, but said in an interview on Tuesday that he would give it a second thought, at the urging of party strategists. A run would mean giving up his House seat and his spot as ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, and winning would leave him facing re-election in 2012.
U.S. Personal Income and Spending Up in November/Tax Credit Gives a Lift to Housing
U.S. Personal Income and Spending Up in November
Copyright By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 23, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/economy/24econ.html?hpw
WASHINGTON (AP) — Personal incomes rose in November at the fastest pace in six months while spending posted a second consecutive increase, hopeful signs that the recession might be gaining momentum.
The Commerce Department said personal incomes were up 0.4 percent in November, helped by a $16.1 billion increase in wages and salaries, reflecting the drop in unemployment that occurred last month.
The gain in incomes helped bolster spending, which rose 0.5 percent in November. Both the income and spending gains were slightly less than economists had expected.
Consumer spending is closely watched because it accounts for 70 percent of economic activity. A revival in spending this summer, spurred by the government’s popular “cash for clunkers” program, helped lift overall economic growth back into positive territory, the strongest signal yet that the country has emerged from its deepest recession since the Great Depression.
The government on Tuesday trimmed its estimate for third-quarter growth in the gross domestic product to an annual rate of 2.2 percent, down from a previous estimate of 2.8 percent. Still, G.D.P. showed positive growth after a record four consecutive quarters of declines.
Many economists believe that growth in the current quarter, helped by solid gains in consumer spending, will come in at an annual rate of around 4 percent. The concern, however, is whether the economic rebound will falter in the early part of 2010 as the impact of various government stimulus efforts begin to wane and the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high.
The 0.4 percent rise in incomes followed a 0.3 percent October gain. It was the best showing since a 1.5 percent spurt in May, a month when incomes were boosted by government payments and tax relief from the $787 billion economic stimulus program.
The 0.5 percent rise in consumer spending reflected the surprisingly strong 1.3 percent jump in retail sales that occurred during November, a boost that came from shoppers crowding malls searching for deep discounts over the Thanksgiving weekend.
The concern is whether demand will remain strong enough to give retailers a merry Christmas. Those worries have been heightened after a big snowstorm sharply cut into sales on Super Saturday — the last Saturday before Christmas. Merchants are hoping that last-minute shoppers will compensate by coming out in force in the final days remaining before Christmas.
The rise in incomes and comparable rise in spending left the savings rate unchanged in November at 4.7 percent of after-tax incomes.
A price gauge tied to consumer spending edged up a modest 0.2 percent in November from the previous month, and was actually flat excluding energy and food. Over the past year, this price gauge excluding food and energy is up just 1.4 percent, well within the comfort zone of officials at the Federal Reserve.
Tax Credit Gives a Lift to Housing
By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/business/economy/23econ.html?th&emc=th
Data released on Tuesday indicated that the economic recovery, while still uneven, has carried into the end of the year, and analysts expect it to gain strength, a view seconded by investors.
The fragile housing sector showed signs of firming up, according to a report from the National Association of Realtors, with existing home sales climbing a greater-than-expected 7.4 percent in November, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.54 million, up from 6.09 million in October.
Economists cautioned that the results reflected a rush to take advantage of an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers and would probably taper off in December.
“It’s good news, but we’re still in a very depressed housing market,” said Guy D. Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a weekly newsletter. “We need a bunch more of these increases before we can say we have a healthy or stabilized housing market.”
Mortgage applications have recently declined, and economists expect home sales to remain in a deep slump next year, rising briefly in the spring but then falling again after the housing credit expires in April.
Home sales were up 44.1 percent compared with November 2008, and inventories fell to 3.52 million homes, down significantly from peaks last year. But that figure does not include the large number of homes foreclosed by banks that are not listed with realty agents.
The market for high-priced homes also remained subdued, an indication that as household incomes and credit streams dry up, consumers are turning to low and midrange options.
Home prices were essentially flat from October, with the median sales price at $172,600, but they were down 4.3 percent from a year ago.
A separate report showed that the economic recovery was weaker than expected in the third quarter, held back by slow business construction and dwindling inventories.
The Commerce Department said the economy expanded at an annual rate of 2.2 percent from July through September, down from the original forecast of 3.5 percent. The downward revision was well above average, but analysts still foresee stronger growth in the fourth quarter as exports rise and an improved jobs market encourages consumer spending.
“We did get off to a slightly slower start than we had thought,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist for IHS Global Insight. “That would be very worrying if we didn’t have evidence that we had done well in the fourth quarter.”
Stock markets showed solid gains, with the Dow Jones industrial average climbing 50.79 points, or 0.49 percent, to 10,464.93.
The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index gained 3.97 points, or 0.36 percent, to 1,118.02, after touching an intraday high for the year.
The Nasdaq composite index rose 15.01 points, or 0.67 percent, to 2,252.67.
The benchmark 10-year Treasury bill was down 21/32, to 96 28/32. The yield was 3.75 percent, up from 3.67 percent late Monday.
As the new year approaches, investors are optimistic that the economy will build on its earlier gains rather than fall into another downturn. Retail sales were higher than expected in November, and the trade deficit unexpectedly narrowed in October. In addition, a weak dollar is making American products overseas cheaper, contributing to hope that exports will rise.
Though the third quarter was weaker than forecast, it was the first period of growth in a year, suggesting the longest contraction since World War II had ended. Government stimulus efforts, like the popular cash-for-clunkers program, helped spur spending.
Analysts were caught off guard by the size of the decline in the rate of expansion, measured in terms of gross domestic product — the total value of goods and services in the economy.
Last month, the government revised the rate to 2.8 percent in the third quarter, down from 3.5 percent in October, and economists surveyed by Bloomberg expected it to remain steady.
A revival of exports and consumer spending in the last part of 2009 is expected to bring the rate of growth to about 5 percent for the fourth quarter. The momentum will probably continue into 2010, economists say, though high levels of unemployment and a skittish business climate may curb consumer spending, hiring and production.
The Commerce Department’s revisions were based on smaller-than-expected business inventories, which fell by $139.2 billion. Spending by businesses on items like software and equipment was also weaker than expected, rising by 5 percent rather than the 8.4 percent originally predicted.
Paul Dales, chief economist for Toronto-based Capital Economics, said the drop was “nothing to worry about,” but he expressed concern about the decrease in investment by businesses.
“It may suggest that a lot of the demand pent up during the recession has already been released,” Mr. Dales wrote in a research note Tuesday. “High uncertainty and lots of spare capacity are limiting capital spending.”
Construction of business facilities like malls and office buildings fell more than previously thought, by 18.4 percent rather than 15.1 percent. Economists attribute that drop to a frail commercial real estate market, which is confronting high vacancy rates and banks that are reluctant to finance business expansions.
Spending by state and local governments was also weaker than expected, falling 0.6 percent, compared with the 0.1 percent originally forecast.
Consumer spending was revised slightly, growing 2.8 percent in the quarter rather than 2.9 percent.
Following are the results of Tuesday’s Treasury auction of four-week bills:
Copyright By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 23, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/economy/24econ.html?hpw
WASHINGTON (AP) — Personal incomes rose in November at the fastest pace in six months while spending posted a second consecutive increase, hopeful signs that the recession might be gaining momentum.
The Commerce Department said personal incomes were up 0.4 percent in November, helped by a $16.1 billion increase in wages and salaries, reflecting the drop in unemployment that occurred last month.
The gain in incomes helped bolster spending, which rose 0.5 percent in November. Both the income and spending gains were slightly less than economists had expected.
Consumer spending is closely watched because it accounts for 70 percent of economic activity. A revival in spending this summer, spurred by the government’s popular “cash for clunkers” program, helped lift overall economic growth back into positive territory, the strongest signal yet that the country has emerged from its deepest recession since the Great Depression.
The government on Tuesday trimmed its estimate for third-quarter growth in the gross domestic product to an annual rate of 2.2 percent, down from a previous estimate of 2.8 percent. Still, G.D.P. showed positive growth after a record four consecutive quarters of declines.
Many economists believe that growth in the current quarter, helped by solid gains in consumer spending, will come in at an annual rate of around 4 percent. The concern, however, is whether the economic rebound will falter in the early part of 2010 as the impact of various government stimulus efforts begin to wane and the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high.
The 0.4 percent rise in incomes followed a 0.3 percent October gain. It was the best showing since a 1.5 percent spurt in May, a month when incomes were boosted by government payments and tax relief from the $787 billion economic stimulus program.
The 0.5 percent rise in consumer spending reflected the surprisingly strong 1.3 percent jump in retail sales that occurred during November, a boost that came from shoppers crowding malls searching for deep discounts over the Thanksgiving weekend.
The concern is whether demand will remain strong enough to give retailers a merry Christmas. Those worries have been heightened after a big snowstorm sharply cut into sales on Super Saturday — the last Saturday before Christmas. Merchants are hoping that last-minute shoppers will compensate by coming out in force in the final days remaining before Christmas.
The rise in incomes and comparable rise in spending left the savings rate unchanged in November at 4.7 percent of after-tax incomes.
A price gauge tied to consumer spending edged up a modest 0.2 percent in November from the previous month, and was actually flat excluding energy and food. Over the past year, this price gauge excluding food and energy is up just 1.4 percent, well within the comfort zone of officials at the Federal Reserve.
Tax Credit Gives a Lift to Housing
By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/business/economy/23econ.html?th&emc=th
Data released on Tuesday indicated that the economic recovery, while still uneven, has carried into the end of the year, and analysts expect it to gain strength, a view seconded by investors.
The fragile housing sector showed signs of firming up, according to a report from the National Association of Realtors, with existing home sales climbing a greater-than-expected 7.4 percent in November, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.54 million, up from 6.09 million in October.
Economists cautioned that the results reflected a rush to take advantage of an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers and would probably taper off in December.
“It’s good news, but we’re still in a very depressed housing market,” said Guy D. Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a weekly newsletter. “We need a bunch more of these increases before we can say we have a healthy or stabilized housing market.”
Mortgage applications have recently declined, and economists expect home sales to remain in a deep slump next year, rising briefly in the spring but then falling again after the housing credit expires in April.
Home sales were up 44.1 percent compared with November 2008, and inventories fell to 3.52 million homes, down significantly from peaks last year. But that figure does not include the large number of homes foreclosed by banks that are not listed with realty agents.
The market for high-priced homes also remained subdued, an indication that as household incomes and credit streams dry up, consumers are turning to low and midrange options.
Home prices were essentially flat from October, with the median sales price at $172,600, but they were down 4.3 percent from a year ago.
A separate report showed that the economic recovery was weaker than expected in the third quarter, held back by slow business construction and dwindling inventories.
The Commerce Department said the economy expanded at an annual rate of 2.2 percent from July through September, down from the original forecast of 3.5 percent. The downward revision was well above average, but analysts still foresee stronger growth in the fourth quarter as exports rise and an improved jobs market encourages consumer spending.
“We did get off to a slightly slower start than we had thought,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist for IHS Global Insight. “That would be very worrying if we didn’t have evidence that we had done well in the fourth quarter.”
Stock markets showed solid gains, with the Dow Jones industrial average climbing 50.79 points, or 0.49 percent, to 10,464.93.
The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index gained 3.97 points, or 0.36 percent, to 1,118.02, after touching an intraday high for the year.
The Nasdaq composite index rose 15.01 points, or 0.67 percent, to 2,252.67.
The benchmark 10-year Treasury bill was down 21/32, to 96 28/32. The yield was 3.75 percent, up from 3.67 percent late Monday.
As the new year approaches, investors are optimistic that the economy will build on its earlier gains rather than fall into another downturn. Retail sales were higher than expected in November, and the trade deficit unexpectedly narrowed in October. In addition, a weak dollar is making American products overseas cheaper, contributing to hope that exports will rise.
Though the third quarter was weaker than forecast, it was the first period of growth in a year, suggesting the longest contraction since World War II had ended. Government stimulus efforts, like the popular cash-for-clunkers program, helped spur spending.
Analysts were caught off guard by the size of the decline in the rate of expansion, measured in terms of gross domestic product — the total value of goods and services in the economy.
Last month, the government revised the rate to 2.8 percent in the third quarter, down from 3.5 percent in October, and economists surveyed by Bloomberg expected it to remain steady.
A revival of exports and consumer spending in the last part of 2009 is expected to bring the rate of growth to about 5 percent for the fourth quarter. The momentum will probably continue into 2010, economists say, though high levels of unemployment and a skittish business climate may curb consumer spending, hiring and production.
The Commerce Department’s revisions were based on smaller-than-expected business inventories, which fell by $139.2 billion. Spending by businesses on items like software and equipment was also weaker than expected, rising by 5 percent rather than the 8.4 percent originally predicted.
Paul Dales, chief economist for Toronto-based Capital Economics, said the drop was “nothing to worry about,” but he expressed concern about the decrease in investment by businesses.
“It may suggest that a lot of the demand pent up during the recession has already been released,” Mr. Dales wrote in a research note Tuesday. “High uncertainty and lots of spare capacity are limiting capital spending.”
Construction of business facilities like malls and office buildings fell more than previously thought, by 18.4 percent rather than 15.1 percent. Economists attribute that drop to a frail commercial real estate market, which is confronting high vacancy rates and banks that are reluctant to finance business expansions.
Spending by state and local governments was also weaker than expected, falling 0.6 percent, compared with the 0.1 percent originally forecast.
Consumer spending was revised slightly, growing 2.8 percent in the quarter rather than 2.9 percent.
Following are the results of Tuesday’s Treasury auction of four-week bills:
No Perk Too Small for Top Fliers
No Perk Too Small for Top Fliers
By MICHELINE MAYNARD
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/business/23elite.html?th&emc=th
United States airlines have cut back on all but the most basic services in recent years — for most passengers.
But for their very best customers, some airlines are providing extra perks and creating new tiers of status to make them feel special. Continental Airlines, for example, created a new top category this month, Presidential Platinum, for customers flying at least 125,000 miles and spending $30,000 a year on plane tickets. Delta Air Lines established the new Diamond level this summer for customers who earn a minimum of 125,000 miles each year.
Members at these levels, in addition to getting bragging rights, might be offered free access to airport clubs and automatic check-in, might get fees for extra bags waived, and might be allowed to go to the front of any line — and sit in the front of the cabin — even when other travelers paid more for their tickets.
Once inside those airline clubs, these elite fliers can get free cocktails and buffet meals, perhaps a shower, and in the case of some Delta clubs, practice time on putting greens.
Airlines are also studying how to create a greater sense of personalized service on board — perhaps allowing passengers to preorder a favorite wine for an international flight or a special treat for an anniversary, or letting them designate a favorite seat on various kinds of aircraft so they sit in the same place on every flight.
Giving special perks to the biggest spenders is an old trick used by casinos, who pamper the “whales” so they feel appreciated more than all the “minnows” that populate lower-stakes poker tables.
Airlines must compete to hold onto these fliers because they are so valuable to their bottom line.
But these fliers have been hit by the recession, too. Revenue from premium travel fell 20 percent in October versus last year, according to an estimate from the International Air Transport Association, the global industry’s trade group.
Airlines are generally reluctant to discuss the number of people who are in its elite programs. Delta, which has 75 million frequent-flier club members, says it has not calculated how many qualify for the Diamond level, but notes that its top 1,000 customers each fly over 300,000 miles a year.
At Continental, about 20,000 travelers out of its 20 million frequent fliers qualify for the new uppermost tier.
With the push to create even higher levels of elite programs, the gap is growing between those at the head of the line and those behind them. Charles Witt, who has earned membership in Delta’s Diamond level and in United Airlines’ 1K, its highest tier, said the top classes were worth the effort for the special treatment he received, like frequent upgrades and access to special hotlines.
“It’s comforting to know when you have a canceled flight or a problem that, boom, your call is answered,” he said. “You never have to hear, ‘Your wait time is 35 minutes.’ ”
These new superelite tiers are in addition to programs the airlines offer for a tiny group of fliers, like Global Services at United Airlines and Concierge Key at American — the inspiration for the exclusive club to which the character played by George Clooney aspires in the new film, “Up in the Air.”
Executives at Continental and Delta said they had to do something to reward travelers who had long since passed the 75,000-mile benchmark, a once-lofty goal that has become increasingly easy to attain, thanks to bonuses like those for full-fare tickets.
Delta found that passengers routinely would book elsewhere once they had logged enough miles to make it into the 75,000-mile club.
The new tier “gives them something to strive for,” said Jeff Robertson, vice president of loyalty programs at Delta.
Even airlines that do not offer business class or other traditional amenities are doing more for their most valued fliers.
Southwest Airlines has its A-list, whose members always board in the first group, do not have to go online the night before to check in and can earn companion passes that allow someone to travel with them free.
“I don’t care about the particular seat I get, other than I want either aisle or window — and I want to be sure I get overhead space. Both of my criteria are assured,” said Mo Garfinkle, a veteran airline industry consultant who is on the A-list and holds a companion pass. The pass saves him as much as $5,000 a year on tickets he would otherwise have to purchase for his wife to join him on business trips.
But Mr. Garfinkle can find himself in line behind passengers who pay extra for Southwest’s Business Select, which provides priority boarding and a special security line, features that a number of airlines like United have begun to offer for sale to any flier, not just those who earn elite status.
This “perks for sale” strategy stems from airlines’ need to not only fill planes but wring more money out of every flier, said Henry H. Harteveldt, an analyst at Forrester Research who follows travel trends.
“Why not try to monetize it?” Mr. Harteveldt asked of travel features. “People will pay for this.”
With airlines examining every feature of a flight to see if it can be sold separately — what the industry calls unbundling — Mr. Harteveldt said he could see a day when the carriers might sell membership in the elite tiers of their frequent-flier programs, perhaps letting passengers purchase an upgrade from silver to gold status.
But Mark Bergsrud, senior vice president for marketing at Continental, said he was skeptical of such a strategy.
“It’s something any company would have to be very careful with,” he said. “We have a public program with defined rules and almost all our customers earn their status the old-fashioned way. If you sell it to someone, you could really hurt yourself.”
By MICHELINE MAYNARD
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: December 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/business/23elite.html?th&emc=th
United States airlines have cut back on all but the most basic services in recent years — for most passengers.
But for their very best customers, some airlines are providing extra perks and creating new tiers of status to make them feel special. Continental Airlines, for example, created a new top category this month, Presidential Platinum, for customers flying at least 125,000 miles and spending $30,000 a year on plane tickets. Delta Air Lines established the new Diamond level this summer for customers who earn a minimum of 125,000 miles each year.
Members at these levels, in addition to getting bragging rights, might be offered free access to airport clubs and automatic check-in, might get fees for extra bags waived, and might be allowed to go to the front of any line — and sit in the front of the cabin — even when other travelers paid more for their tickets.
Once inside those airline clubs, these elite fliers can get free cocktails and buffet meals, perhaps a shower, and in the case of some Delta clubs, practice time on putting greens.
Airlines are also studying how to create a greater sense of personalized service on board — perhaps allowing passengers to preorder a favorite wine for an international flight or a special treat for an anniversary, or letting them designate a favorite seat on various kinds of aircraft so they sit in the same place on every flight.
Giving special perks to the biggest spenders is an old trick used by casinos, who pamper the “whales” so they feel appreciated more than all the “minnows” that populate lower-stakes poker tables.
Airlines must compete to hold onto these fliers because they are so valuable to their bottom line.
But these fliers have been hit by the recession, too. Revenue from premium travel fell 20 percent in October versus last year, according to an estimate from the International Air Transport Association, the global industry’s trade group.
Airlines are generally reluctant to discuss the number of people who are in its elite programs. Delta, which has 75 million frequent-flier club members, says it has not calculated how many qualify for the Diamond level, but notes that its top 1,000 customers each fly over 300,000 miles a year.
At Continental, about 20,000 travelers out of its 20 million frequent fliers qualify for the new uppermost tier.
With the push to create even higher levels of elite programs, the gap is growing between those at the head of the line and those behind them. Charles Witt, who has earned membership in Delta’s Diamond level and in United Airlines’ 1K, its highest tier, said the top classes were worth the effort for the special treatment he received, like frequent upgrades and access to special hotlines.
“It’s comforting to know when you have a canceled flight or a problem that, boom, your call is answered,” he said. “You never have to hear, ‘Your wait time is 35 minutes.’ ”
These new superelite tiers are in addition to programs the airlines offer for a tiny group of fliers, like Global Services at United Airlines and Concierge Key at American — the inspiration for the exclusive club to which the character played by George Clooney aspires in the new film, “Up in the Air.”
Executives at Continental and Delta said they had to do something to reward travelers who had long since passed the 75,000-mile benchmark, a once-lofty goal that has become increasingly easy to attain, thanks to bonuses like those for full-fare tickets.
Delta found that passengers routinely would book elsewhere once they had logged enough miles to make it into the 75,000-mile club.
The new tier “gives them something to strive for,” said Jeff Robertson, vice president of loyalty programs at Delta.
Even airlines that do not offer business class or other traditional amenities are doing more for their most valued fliers.
Southwest Airlines has its A-list, whose members always board in the first group, do not have to go online the night before to check in and can earn companion passes that allow someone to travel with them free.
“I don’t care about the particular seat I get, other than I want either aisle or window — and I want to be sure I get overhead space. Both of my criteria are assured,” said Mo Garfinkle, a veteran airline industry consultant who is on the A-list and holds a companion pass. The pass saves him as much as $5,000 a year on tickets he would otherwise have to purchase for his wife to join him on business trips.
But Mr. Garfinkle can find himself in line behind passengers who pay extra for Southwest’s Business Select, which provides priority boarding and a special security line, features that a number of airlines like United have begun to offer for sale to any flier, not just those who earn elite status.
This “perks for sale” strategy stems from airlines’ need to not only fill planes but wring more money out of every flier, said Henry H. Harteveldt, an analyst at Forrester Research who follows travel trends.
“Why not try to monetize it?” Mr. Harteveldt asked of travel features. “People will pay for this.”
With airlines examining every feature of a flight to see if it can be sold separately — what the industry calls unbundling — Mr. Harteveldt said he could see a day when the carriers might sell membership in the elite tiers of their frequent-flier programs, perhaps letting passengers purchase an upgrade from silver to gold status.
But Mark Bergsrud, senior vice president for marketing at Continental, said he was skeptical of such a strategy.
“It’s something any company would have to be very careful with,” he said. “We have a public program with defined rules and almost all our customers earn their status the old-fashioned way. If you sell it to someone, you could really hurt yourself.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
