Napkins close to the scene of an Ethiopian Airlines plane crash near Bishoftu, Ethiopia, on Sunday. (Tiksa Negeri/Reuters) Emily TamkinMarch 10
Ethiopian Airlines announced Sunday morning that all 157 people on a flight that crashed shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, had been killed.
In the past year, accidents involving passenger planes have killed hundreds — a stark contrast from 2017.
There were no deaths in commercial jet accidents in 2017, making it the safest year on record for commercial air travel. President Trump even sent out a tweet taking credit for airline safety.
Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news – it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record!
But more than 500 people were killed in passenger plane accidents in 2018. Airline safety groups providing the data stress that fatal crashes are nevertheless rare and commercial flights remain one of the safest forms of travel.
The following list shows the foreign deadly air crashes that occurred last year:
February 2018: A Russian plane crashed shortly after taking off from Moscow. The plane was headed to a city near Russia’s border with Kazakhstan. Over 70 people died.
Rescuers work at the scene of a plane crash in a village about 25 miles from the Moscow airport on Feb. 11, 2018. (Russian Ministry for Emergency Situations/AP)
February 2018: Sixty-five people were killed when a twin-engine turboprop flown by Aseman Airlines went down in southern Iran. Later in 2018, the imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran — including the prohibition on the sale of planes to the country — had some concerned that air travelers in Iran would be at risk because of aging planes and technology.
March 2018: More than 50 people were killed when a US-Bangla Airlines flight from Dhaka, Bangladesh, crashed at the airport in Kathmandu, Nepal’s capital. Investigators attributed the crash to the captain suffering an “emotional breakdown” during the flight.
May 2018: Over 100 people died when a Boeing 737 leased by the Mexican company Damojh to Cuba’s national airline, Cubana, crashed shortly after taking off from Havana.
Mourners pray and cry during a service on May 20, 2018, in memory of the victims of a plane crash in Havana. (Ramon Espinosa/AP)
October 2018: A Boeing 737 Max crashed not long after departing from Jakarta, Indonesia, killing all 189 people onboard. Investigators later found that the plane, part of Lion Air, should never have left the ground. Technical problems had previously been reported.
In March, relatives of some of the victims of the Lion Air crash sued Boeing. The suit points the blame at the new flight-control system on the 737 Max. The Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed Sunday was the same Boeing 737 Max 8 model.
The passenger jets that recently crashed in Ethiopia and Indonesia had something in common: They lacked safety features that could have helped prevent the deadly accidents, which Boeing charges extra for, the New York Times reported on Thursday.
Both upgrades were related to the plane’s angle of attack sensors, devices that read whether a jet’s nose is pointing up or down relative to oncoming air. One upgrade, called the angle of attack indicator, displayed the sensors’ readings; the other upgrade is a light that is activated if the sensors interfere with each other. The disagree light alone cost $80,000, according to CBS; the jet’s list price is roughly $120 million.
These features are considered optional and aren’t required by most airline regulators — but, according to the Times report, they could have helped the planes’ pilots realize something was amiss earlier, and some flight safety experts say they never should have been optional in the first place. “They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy firm Leeham, told the Times. “Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety.”
(Of the three US airlines that have Boeing 737 Max 8 and 9 jets in their fleet, only two — American and Southwest — paid for these upgrades, the Times confirmed. A United Airlines spokesperson told the Times that its jets don’t include these upgrades because its pilots use other data to fly their planes.)
According to the Times report, Boeing also charges for things like backup fire extinguishers in the cargo hold, another feature the Federal Aviation Administration considers optional, despite past incidents showing that a single extinguishing system isn’t enough to put out in-air fires. According to the Times’s reporting, airlines have paid for items like extra oxygen masks for crew members.
Due to the proliferation of budget airlines, air travel has never been cheaper — or more accessible to the average person. But air travel has become a race to the bottom for airlines, which try to save money by passing on costs to consumers by charging for features that used to be considered standard, like seating choices, checked bags, and even carry-on luggage. The news that both the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air jets were missing certain safety features raises a more troubling question: Are airlines putting a price on safety? Consumers can choose which airline to fly with, but they have no say in — or, in many cases, knowledge about — whether that airline purchased specific safety upgrades.
Mark Goodrich, an aviation lawyer and former engineering test pilot, told the Times that charging extra for non-mandatory safety features has become “a great profit center” for Boeing. But this phenomenon isn’t limited to the aviation industry.
In 2015, the consulting firm JD Power released a study revealing that most car owners are willing to pay for ostensibly optional safety upgrades, like blind spot detection, night vision, and collision avoidance systems — to a point. According to the study, buyers ages 38 and younger said they’d spend no more than $3,703 for new technology, and older buyers were willing to spend even less. But as the Associated Press noted at the time, some safety features can cost much more than that, and many aren’t available for cheaper or older models at all.
In 2015, when the JD Power study was conducted, Toyota only offered automatic braking on its Prius cars, and only as part of a $4,320 package, according to the AP. This feature has become standard on new cars in recent years, and the cost has gone down as a result, but it’s still primarily available for new cars. In other words, you have to be able to buy a new car to get upgrades like this in the first place, a luxury many people can’t afford. (US News compiled a list of the cheapest cars with automatic braking last year, the cheapest of which costs $16,900.)
Offering safety features at an additional cost essentially creates a system of haves and have-nots; it transforms safety into a luxury, not a necessity. Consumer watchdogs say this is a problem.
“Consumers shouldn’t have to pay extra for safety features, because paying extra means that they are not available to everyone and they’ll cost more than they should,” Jack Gillis, executive director of the Consumer Federation of America, told the LA Times. “By simply incorporating the latest safety features into a product, two things happen. They are available to everyone, thus everyone benefits, and they become cheaper due to economies of scale.”
Whether people can afford to buy individual safety upgrades is just one part of this problem. As last year’s wildfires in California showed, the ability to prepare for — and, if necessary, flee — hazards like natural disasters is also divided along class lines. Last fall, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West were criticized for reportedly hiring a team of private firefighters to save their $60 million home from the blazes that were tearing through Southern California. (The firefighters were actually deployed by the Kardashian-Wests’ insurance company, not by the famous couple themselves; according to NBC News, these private firefighting teams are primarily available for those whose properties are valued above $1 million.)
Similarly, more than a million people were given mandatory evacuation orders in the days before Hurricane Florence hit the Carolinas — thousands refused to leave their homes because they couldn’t afford to leave or, in some cases, because their employers refused to give them time off.
These aren’t one-to-one comparisons: Buying a new car is different from buying a plane ticket, deciding where to live, or being unable to leave your home in the event of a natural disaster. But looked at together, these examples point to a two-tiered system where safety is only guaranteed to those who can afford it, often with deadly consequences.
In the case of the Boeing jets, the New York Times reports that the manufacturer will soon make certain features like the disagree light standard on all new jets. If investigators determine that those missing upgrades could have prevented both the Ethiopian and Indonesian crashes, it may be way past time to start thinking of safety upgrades as a necessity, not a luxury.
(DOGS/PET TRAVEL) Traveling long distances can be much easier via air. But as a pet parent, you’ll need to know about certain airline policies when it comes to boarding the plane with your furry friend. This is especially true if you have a cat or a dog who is considered a Brachycephalic breed.
Airlines specifically targeted this issue when the U.S. Department of Transportation reported that a large percentage of the animal fatalities on-board flights were Brachycephalic.
You’re probably wondering why breeds with this syndrome are now banned from traveling on airplanes. Continue reading for more on how to plan your next air travel with your cat, dog, or even pet bunny as a well-informed pet guardian.
What Does ‘Brachycephalic’ Mean?
Brachycephaly means ‘short head,’ so Brachycephalic breeds carry this cute, but potentially deadly physical characteristic. There are plenty of cats and dogs who fit the description, but there are actually four anatomical abnormalities that could determine whether a pet has this problem:
Stenotic nares or narrow nostrils
Short or reduced trachea size
Short or irregular nasal turbinate
Elongated soft palate
There’s not one clear explanation as to how such genetic abnormalities came to exist, but there are some theories on why these breeds have short snouts or faces.
Some believe dogs with Brachycephalic syndrome were intentionally bred to have short faces as this characteristic would make them better fighters. Others suspect that short-faced pets were preferred by pet guardians because of their resemblance to a human baby.
Even though smaller-faced pets can be adorable, their short noses can cause a number of potential health problems.
What’s the Danger in Flying with a Brachycephalic Pet?
While a cat or dog with a normal-sized face and nose has enough space for the anatomical components of their noses (i.e. the nasal passages, hard palate, and soft tissues), Brachycephalic pets are often prone to respiratory problems.
So when these types of pets are boarded onto an airplane–specifically in cargo–they may have a difficult time breathing. Stress can cause their airways to tighten and lack of air supply can make them lose consciousness.
What’s more, Brachycephalic pets who are overweight are increasingly more prone to having breathing issues.
What are the Characteristics of Brachycephalic Breeds?
Aside from their small faces and short snouts, these breeds also tend to get tired easily when playing or exercising.
You might also notice they often wheeze and breathe with their mouths open–but don’t be alarmed as this still means they are breathing normally.
Brachycephalic breeds also snore and tend to gasp for air after running or walking. It could be a challenge to exercise this type of pet without over-exhausting them, but even if they display these characteristics, exercise is still equally important.
What Pet Breeds are Brachycephalic?
If you’re wondering which breeds are considered Brachycephalic, here’s a list of some of the more popular breeds on the no-fly list, as provided by Purring Pal:
Dogs:
American Bully
American Pit Bull Terrier
Belgian Malinois
Boston Terrier
Bulldog
Boxers
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
Chow Chow
Japanese Chin and Spaniel
Mastiff
Pekingese
Pug
Shih-Tzu
Cats:
Burmese
Exotic Shorthair
Himalayan
Persian
Some airlines also include short-faced bunnies on their no-fly list (i.e. Lionheads and Netherlands Dwarf rabbits).
If your pet is not listed above but exhibits the characteristics of a Brachycephalic breed, make sure to first check with the airline of your choice before booking a flight.
But there’s still hope if you absolutely must travel with a Brachycephalic pet. Luckily there are a number of airline carriers that will allow your pet to ride with you in the passenger cabin (if they weigh less than 20 pounds), but keep in mind there are typically added fees for this.
Boeing is doubling down on technology, planning to open a new aircraft center in 2020 focusing on robotics and artificial intelligence.
Complexity in the cockpit, and a President raising the stakes at 35,000 feet. The investigations into two recent crashes of Boeing 737 Max 8 jets are in the early stages, but President Trump remains firmly grounded on a probable cause. “Airplanes are becoming too complex to fly. Pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT,” the President tweeted.
But most aviation experts say the President’s theory isn’t consistent with the realities of modern air travel. “Some of these minor things that the computer can do for you and the computer can show you are very helpful and it can reduce the pilot’s workload,” said Denny Kelly, a former commercial airline pilot who now works as an air accident investigator. But the technology is a double-edged sword. “When you’re real busy in the cockpit and something goes wrong, you need to concentrate on the problem, not on the computer,” he added.
Kelly also thinks that while computers do make planes safer, today’s pilots are taught to rely too much on technology. “The pilots need to know how to hand-fly the airplane, take it away from the computer and fly it by hand, in an emergency, he said.”
Investigators say data from the black boxes of an Ethiopian Airlines plane that crashed earlier this month and a Lion Air plane that went down near Indonesia last October show clear similarities. Authorities are eyeing the aircraft’s anti-stall system as a possible factor in both crashes. Now, the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General plans to audit the F.A.A.’s certification of the Boeing 737 Max 8. (The F.A.A. initially said the Max 8 was still airworthy before changing course, joining dozens of other nations in implementing some form of ban.)
Some experts say the President’s diagnosis on what ails aviation could undermine the public’s trust in air travel, while others insist Boeing is ultimately responsible for the crashes – and THEY need to restore public confidence – sooner rather than later. “They are missing out on an opportunity or a necessity to communicate with the flying public…to remind everybody that this is what we stand for,” said Dennis Culloton, C.E.O. of Culloton Strategies.
But that effort could be too little, too late for Boeing. “Their reputation has already been sullied,” Kelly said. “Once these airplanes are out there and they’re performing like they should perform, I think their reputation will come back. But as it stands now, their reputation is not what it should be.”
Despite the backlash, Boeing is doubling down on technology. The company is moving ahead full throttle on a new aircraft center which should open in 2020, focusing on robotics and artificial intelligence.
Steve Rappoport is a Newscast Producer for Fox News Radio. Follow him on Twitter @SteveRappoport.
The first successful airplane pilot, Wilbur Wright, flew his 1903 craft by lying on his stomach, pushing and pulling levers as the wind swept over his head. Since then, piloting a plane has become a lot less physical thanks to automation and autopilot functions that do a lot of pilots’ work for them. But there have also been serious accidents linked to this technological advancement—like in 2009, when automation technology failed on Air France Flight 447, and pilots weren’t able to take control manually.
Automating certain functions was necessary to making bigger and better planes. After all, Wright’s plane couldn’t fly as fast or far as jets today, let alone seat the number of people that a modern commercial plane can. Just nine years after Wright flew his plane at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, a man named Lawrence Sperry created the first successful autopilot.
Sperry’s invention was known as “gyroscopic automatic pilot,” or “George,” as many pilots nicknamed it; and its innovation was to automatically balance the plane in flight so the pilot didn’t have to. Sperry’s autopilots became popular during the 1920s and ‘30s. Howard Hughes installed one on the plane he used to set a world record (he flew around the world in 3 days and 19 hours), and American World War II planes had similar devices.
After the war came the boom in commercial air travel, and more demand for automation. In the 1950s, commercial planes had five crew members in the cockpit: a flight engineer, a radio operator, a navigator and two pilots. Over the next few decades, automation and improved technology made the first three jobs unnecessary—and saved airline companies a lot of money.
During the 1970s, airline companies started exploring automation using digital technology. At the time, studies showed that most plane accidents were caused by human error rather than mechanical error, so automation seemed like a way to make air travel safer (self-driving car developers also use this argument).
With these safety studies in mind, the aviation company Airbus set out to design a plane that even a bad pilot could safely fly. For this, the company developed a new “fly-by-wire system.”
“Whereas autopilot just does what a pilot tells it to do, fly-by-wire is a computer-based control system that can interpret what the pilot wants to do and then execute the command smoothly and safely,” explains Slate. “For example, if the pilot pulls back on his or her control stick, the fly-by-wire system will understand that the pilot wants to pitch the plane up, and then will do it at just the right angle and rate.”
In the late 1980s, Airbus fully introduced this technology for the first time on its A320 plane, also known as the “Electric Jet.” Other aircraft carriers like Boeing adopted these fly-by-wire systems in the 1990s. But in the 21st century, this technology drew scrutiny after a series of accidents in which automation was a factor.
In a 2009, an Air France Flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris mysteriously crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 people aboard. Air traffic controllers lost contact with the Airbus A330-200 plane in the middle of a thunderstorm, and investigators didn’t discover the plane’s black box records for over two years. They concluded the autopilot and fly-by-wire functions had malfunctioned and turned themselves off, and the pilots were unable to take over the plane manually.
Journalist and former pilot William Langewiesche later wrote in Vanity Fair that because flying a commercial plane had become such an automated process, the pilots on Flight 447 didn’t have the experience necessary to take over in emergency conditions.
“To put it briefly,” he wrote, “automation has made it more and more unlikely that ordinary airline pilots will ever have to face a raw crisis in flight—but also more and more unlikely that they will be able to cope with such a crisis if one arises.” This was a problem the Future Aviation Safety Team had been warning airlines about since at least 2004.
The Flight 447 crash prompted calls to retrain pilots on how to manually fly a plane, but a decade later, concerns about pilots not having enough experience to take over a plane manually persist. Investigators are still determining what caused the Lion Air Flight 610 crash in October 2018 that killed 189 people and the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash in March 2019 that killed 157; but many suspect automation programs in the Boeing 737 Max plane may have played a role in these deadly disasters.
Electric aviation is the future but when will it become reality instead of an idea or a test?
This would save pollution from entering the air and causing problems with greenhouse gases, making the atmosphere weaker and causing global warming.
Huge companies such as Amazon and Google should look more into this, as it can help the world and make these companies more money. For example, look at how far electric cars have come since they were just an idea.
Politicians love to play with trains. And your money.
In Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal,” she suggests that high speed rail should be built out across the country and used in place of air travel. But California’s “bullet” train is just one of several examples that demonstrate why tax dollars should not be wasted on these types of projects.
California’s bullet train, which was intended to run between Los Angeles and San Francisco, was originally estimated to cost $33 billion. However, the one-party state of California recently decided to pull the plug on this undertaking due to the fact that after 11 years and basically nothing to show for it, the real cost of the bullet train had climbed to $98 billion in state and federal tax dollars.
A round-trip flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco can be purchased for $149, and the flight takes 90 minutes. The bullet train was an expensive non-solution in search of a problem.
Meanwhile, some politicians in Mississippi, a predominantly Republican state, think it just might be a good idea to shovel taxpayer money to a proposed passenger train in the Southeast. As in California, this proposal — formally known as the Gulf Coast Rail Project — would soon turn into a massive taxpayer boondoggle.
Unfortunately for taxpayers in Mississippi, the Gulf Coast Rail Project is shaping up to be the same disaster. Given the California example, it is much harder to pretend ignorance.
While the total cost for this project, which calls for two daily passenger trains to run between New Orleans, Louisiana and Mobile, Alabama, is hidden, taxpayers will be on the hook for long-term operational and maintenance costs in addition to the infrastructure enhancements, including new train stations.
Estimates have shown that a one-way rail trip on these passenger trains would take more than 3 hours, and would require a subsidy of $180 per passenger. Today, a person wanting to travel between New Orleans and Mobile can get a ticket on Megabus, a 2.5-hour trip, for $14. For the $180 subsidy, the state could give 12 free bus tickets per passenger. In fact, hiring an Uber, a 2-2.5 hour trip, would often be less expensive than $180.
Recognizing the longer length of the train trip, it is reasonable to assume that it would be the least popular choice of commuters. In fact, the rail carrier’s own analysis projects the Gulf Coast Rail Project would attract just 26 riders per train. That is just two more than there are “blackbirds baked” in Mother Goose’s pie.
It gets worse. The Gulf Coast Rail Project would put jobs and potential new jobs at risk. The passenger trains would run on a line that is now being used by freight trains. Since passenger trains get preference over freight trains and the line is mostly single tracked, the Gulf Coast Rail project will interfere with freight traffic industries along the Mississippi Coast. How many companies would decide to build new factories along a hobbled freight rail line?
Mississippi lawmakers should learn from the California bullet train fiasco, as well as the lessons closer to home: similar state-supported trains that once ran between New Orleans and Mobile in the past were discontinued because they were slower, less reliable, and more expensive than other existing modes of transportation.
As Randal O’Toole, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Romance of Rails: Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need, has exposed:
Today, air travel is far less expensive than train travel, with airfares averaging under 14 cents a passenger mile, barely more than a third of Amtrak fares even though Amtrak receives much bigger subsidies, per passenger mile, than the airlines.
There is no justification for wasting millions of hard-earned tax dollars on yet another expensive, inflexible and unneeded train. Today planes, buses, Uber, and Lyft do much more, much better for much less.
American fliers have weighed in on their favorite airlines, and Delta, Alaska, and Southwest Airlines rule the roost, according to a new study by ThePointsGuy (TPG). Bringing up the rear was Allegiant, Frontier, and Spirit.
Taking into account everything from on-time arrivals to the number of cities served, TPG found some benchmarks that consumers might find interesting the next time they book a flight.
Winners and losers
Overall:Delta captured first place overall with a remarkable 92.7 percent on-time arrival score, the largest network of lounges, fewest people bumped, and the largest number of cities served.
On the flip side? Discount carrier Frontier, thanks to its paltry on-time record, fell to last place. The carrier also scored low due to run-of-the-mill cabin features, a tendency to bump paying passengers, and a high rate of customer complaints.
Affordability: Combing through airline financials, websites, Department of Transportation files, fees, customer ratings, and other metrics, the formula TPG created found that Spirit Airlines had the best ratio of fare cost-per-mile. “On average, Spirit passengers only paid about $1 per mile flown in base fare for every $2.60 that Delta flyers paid,” was TPG’s analysis. “If you can avoid the plethora of fees, Spirit can be a bargain.”
Regarding ancillary fees — those nasty charges for every little thing the passenger wants to bring or do onboard — Southwest Airlines got the prize for not penny-pinching its passengers. Of course, free is hard to beat, and with Southwest allowing fliers to check two bags for free and not charging to change a flight, it was pretty much a shoo-in in that metric.
IIf fees are a turn-off, you might want to avoid Hawaiian Air. The airline charges an acceptable $30 for a checked bag but an astronomic $300 for flight changes, making it the study’s worst value for fees. You may also want to double-check your wishlist against what Delta is going to charge you for seatback screens, extra legroom, and the like.
On-Time Performance: Hawaiian Airlines had the fewest delayed flights or cancellations and Frontier had the most delays — an eye-popping 24.6 percent of its flights.
Comfort: It makes economic sense that fare price and comfort go hand-in-hand. But for fliers who concern themselves with legroom and free Wi-Fi, here’s the takeaways:
JetBlue and Southwest tied for the most generous seat pitch in coach, at 32.9 inches on average, while Spirit’s 28-inch average seat pitch is the least-giving.
Hawaiian and Frontier have the widest seats on average at 18 inches. Alaska has the narrowest seats at 17 inches.
Alaska is the only airline that has power outlets at every seat.
JetBlue wins the Wi-Fi battle with free Wi-Fi on every plane.
Customer Satisfaction: TPG took into account the number of passenger complaints against each airline filed with the DOT and the number of lost luggage complaints. The winner? Southwest Airlines.
ConsumerAffairs reviewers give Southwest positive ratings, and TPG’s survey takers seem to agree.
“Southwest has a reputation for great service and loyal customers, and it showed,” wrote TPG. “Frontier, on the other hand, racked up nearly the same number of complaints as airlines that flew 10 times as many people. If you check bags, you have the most reason to worry if flying American, while Spirit flyers can probably rest easy.”
On the opposite end of the satisfaction spectrum were Frontier with a jumbo jet-sized number of complaints. American’s baggage handling took a hit for misplacing 3.8 bags per every 1,000 passengers compared to Spirit, which only lost 1.7 bags per 1,000 passengers.
GREENVILLE, Wis. (WBAY) – Spring officially begins this week and that’s welcome news after a rough winter full of snow and cold. Many school districts in our area have spring breaks this week and next, and families are filling up planes headed to warmer destinations.
TSA workers screen flyers through Green Bay Austin Straubel International Airport (WBAY photo)
Appleton International Airport is bustling more now than any other time of the year.
According to Abe Weber, airport director at Appleton International, “It’s been our busiest spring break we’ve ever seen. We have 1,500 people a day coming through the airport and heading out to warm weather destinations.”
With the demand for air travel at an all-time high in Northeast Wisconsin, Allegiant, which usually flies twice a week to both Orlando and Arizona out of Outagamie County, has added an additional five flights a week: three more to Florida and two extra to Arizona.
“They put a big focus on spring break understanding that we had some really rough winter weather. They’re up over 30 percent in seats through our airport,” says Weber.
Other carriers at Appleton and Austin Straubel in Green Bay are either adding flights or flying larger planes to accommodate the additional travelers.
And despite the increase in demand, passengers say fares have stayed the same.
“I thought they were pretty fair, about the same as usual, so I was surprised. I thought it would be a little more expensive this time of year, but it wasn’t bad,” says traveler Jackie Quade.
Traveler Shawn Esslinger adds, “Pricing was good. And Allegiant we’ve flown them many times so, it’s direct and that’s the main consideration.”
In addition to more flights and easier access to destinations, Appleton International has sweetened the deal by adding valet parking.
“It was just very convenient, very convenient,” says Esslinger.
And that’s the goal, as airports try to appease all of those vacation-bound travelers.
Weber adds, “Our goal was really just to elevate the customer experience that much more and be the most convenient airport in Northeast Wisconsin.”
Weighing factors like airfares, baggage fees, and the possibilities of cancellations or delays, The Points Guy, a website for travelers, put together its latest “best and worst airlines’ report.”