First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

Gary Leff reads his Points.com junkmail so you and I don’t have to:

Points.com is offering 5000 American, USAirways, or Alaska miles for upgrading to a ‘Gold’ membership for $49.95. The membership isn’t worth much, but buying miles at one cent apiece is generally a good deal.
There’s no clear expiration date on the offer, so verify that your mileage choice is available before offering up payment.

1 cent per mile is a good deal if and only if you’re redeeming your miles for more than 1 cpm. Which I strongly encourage, of course. (See here for the full tutorial on maxing out your miles’ value.) If you need to top up your account to get an award in one of those three airlines, this may not be a bad way to do it.

The “gold membership,” besides having that Austin-Powers-esque ring to it, is truly worthless as a service. As I’ve said before, Points.com is really a bad deal for customers looking to swap points between programs. Having a customer service phone number to help you make those poor-value swaps is hardly an enhancement.

Click here to log in to points.com and see the offer. If you decide to go for it, be sure you select the right reward. The default selection is *not* 5000 miles.

What’s more, you need to make sure you cancel your gold membership before they start automatically renewing it every year. Caveat emptor.

tags: travel | frequent flyer miles

For the last week, people have joked that the restrictions on air travel will soon limit passengers to flying naked. That’s so 2003… Nude air travel has already been done.

Castaways Travel, an agency specializing in clothing-optional and nude vacations, organized the “Naked Air” flight from Miami to Cancun in 2003 (link not safe for work). Passengers got undressed at cruising altitude, and everyone had a commemorative beach towel to cover their seat. Flight attendants and pilots remained dressed. The full photo album is here (REALLY NOT SAFE FOR WORK) and the FAQs about flying in the buff are here.

No hot beverages were served.

tags: travel | nudists | Naked Air

So how effective would the alleged London plane bombers have been, had they actually bothered to buy tickets (which none did) or apply for passports (many didn’t have one), much less get on a plane? How easy is it to inconspicuously mix enough of the materials necessary to blow up a plane?

Thomas C. Greene gets into the science of mixing liquids into explosives, and concludes that you’re at no real risk of liquid bombs in the passenger cabin, unless you see a guy making multiple trips to the lavatory, lugging a chemistry set in with him. Go read the whole thing: It exposes the no-liquids policy as a sham and makes mockery of our present-day security theatrics.

Liquid-bomb threats aren’t even new. As Patrick Smith points out in Salon, the “Oplan Bojinka” plan of 1994 was thwarted, but governments around the world responded with cooler heads, and passengers weren’t required to give up their water. The plot was thwarted with police work (much like the London suspects), not by airport security. (Sit through the ad, and read the whole article.)

It’s also not the first time we’ve seen moronic overreaction to potential threats. In 2004, a plane was turned back from Sydney, Australia because the name “Bob” was found written in an inflight magazine. Someone interpreted this as an acronym for “bomb on board.” Really. Lesson: If your name is Bob, look out. Your name is synonymous with terror. (Go with “Robert” for now.)

The real threats? Cargo hold bombs remain the far greater risk, but are those threats being addressed? Of course not. Only 15% of cargo in aircraft is actually inspected. 15%. You can’t take a bottle of water on board, to supposedly stop an extremely unlikely threat, but 85% of cargo isn’t even checked. THAT’S security for you.

TV news was all about this non-threat threat for much of the week. CNN’s “Target: USA” coverage this past week, parsed brilliantly here, actually made our world less safe by putting everyone on edge, looking for harm where there is none. (Thank goodness JonBenet Ramsey trumps “Target:USA.”)

But with the taste of media blood still fresh on their tongue, the TSA breathlessly rushed out a press release yesterday announcing that its officers had discovered explosive residue in a bottle at West Virginia’s Huntington Tri-State Airport. Two swab tests of the bottle’s contents came up positive for explosives. The terminal was evacuated. The culprit ended up being a facial cleanser that contained chlorine.

Sure, the passenger was stupid to bring facial cleanser to the checkpoint during this time of hysteria. But questions persist: 1) Why was the TSA testing the contents of the bottle, anyway? Aren’t liquids just supposed to be confiscated or dumped out? Why the tests? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the woman was wearing a headscarf, would it?… 2) Why did not one, but TWO tests come up positive for explosives? If chlorine is the trigger, then are swim trunks now off-limits, too? Will those swim trunks be thrown away or sold on eBay?

I give up. I know, I’m ranting. I’ve been ranting a lot lately. But it’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion. As passengers, there’s not much to do, except to write to legislators with your gripes. What is perhaps more frustrating is that corporations aren’t doing more to protect travelers’ interests (and subsequently their companies’ bottom line).

It’s different overseas: In the UK, Ryanair is threatening to sue the British government for lost income as a result of the heightened security. The airline calls the precautions “nonsensical” and “totally ineffective,” and charges that the security policy has “handed the extremists an enormous PR victory.”

I couldn’t agree more.

(image)
tags: travel | airport security

I’ve been lucky to avoid the latest round of security mayhem, not having flown in the past week. But the missus flew United Airlines to and from Boston recently, and her report leads me to believe that the airline is, at best, missing an opportunity to build its customer base in light of the recent restrictions.

It’s irritating, of course, that one can’t take liquids onto the plane, even those purchased in the supposedly secure area past the checkpoints. And the UK even advises you not to have EMPTY bottles in your baggage. So the airlines are stepping up and serving more drinks in flight, right? Right?

Wrong. Not United. Tuesday’s flight 537 from Boston to Chicago featured a single beverage service from the cart. No walk-through with a pitcher of water, or coffee, or anything. I’m sure you could have walked to the galley and asked for a drink, but with the embargo on onboard fluids, this seems like particularly thin service, even for a short 2-hour 10-minute flight.

In the past few days, hotel chains like Omni and Wyndham have been trying to win over clients by promising free lotions, makeup, and toiletries. Avis is putting Procter & Gamble amenity packs on the passenger seats of rental cars. And the airlines?

United tries to sell itself as a premium brand within the domestic U.S. market. They advertise their Economy Plus and premium transcontinental service. They still have free headphones, pillows, blankets, etc. But the airline isn’t adding water to the catering order?

From what I’m hearing, other airlines are not any better, and haven’t made any effort to improve service either. Air travel is the epicenter of the security-related inconvenience, and yet the airlines aren’t doing much to help matters.

A smart airline would 1) make an effort to assure passengers that their time on board the plane will be a relief compared to the time in the airport. Getting more water on board, at a minimum, would be a start. 2) Then market the fact that the airline is trying to help. Blast an e-mail to its customer base, telling them what they’re doing to reduce passenger frustrations, for a start.

Seems pretty easy. It’s been over a week. Why hasn’t any airline stepped up?

Related:
The future of airport security: Predictions and wish-lists

tags: travel | UAL Corp. | United Airlines | water

In fall 2006, Travelocity is rolling out a program that will allow you to book travel using points and miles from one or more loyalty programs. Initially limited to hotel bookings, the program has the potential to be a huge deal.

“Book with Points” will allow loyalty program members access to Travelocity’s online booking engine. They will use points or miles to book and purchase the travel reward, exactly as if they were purchasing their travel with cash rather than loyalty points and miles.

My first reaction is positive: Anything that makes it easier to actually use your miles is a step in the right direction. Details of the program haven’t been made public yet, but the Travelocity program will be run by Points.com.

Uh oh.

As I’ve posted before, Points.com is a great way to turn one dollar into 15 cents. The devaluation of points when you transfer between programs is brutal. So I am skeptical of this new joint offering with Travelocity. Hopefully Travelocity will put pressure on Points.com to give better value, but we’ll have to see. After all, the airlines and hotels have your points and won’t just give them away for free. Points.com takes a cut as the broker. And Travelocity’s roaming gnome will inevitably want a piece of the action. What’s going to be left?

(hat tip to Airfare Technology/FareCompare)
(image)

Hotel companies are going to hate this. But this site is too funny not to promote. BedJump.com is the internet’s repository for photos and video of people jumping on hotel beds.

What they need is a rating system. Sure, they’ll let you rate the videos, but what about rating the beds themselves? Which four-star hotels offer a four-star bounce? Demanding hotel guests need to know.

(via Coudal)
tags: travel | hotels | BedJump

A sad day for internet junkies who travel longhaul: Boeing is officially discontinuing its Connexion service, which allowed users to surf the web at 35,000 feet, over land or sea. As announced previously, the service hasn’t caught on quickly enough and is unprofitable.

While no precise date has been given for the official shutdown date, the company is negotiating with customers for an “orderly phase-out.”

A number of airlines have installed the service on their planes, and they’re bound to be upset at this. Not to mention those few but dedicated fans of inflight surfing who were willing to pay $9.95 per hour or $26.95 per flight for access.

Perhaps the current airline customers will chip in and take it off Boeing’s hands, but that seems unlikely.

Alternative systems like AirCell and LiveTV are readying to enter the North American market, but they have no coverage over oceans.

(image)
tags: travel | Connexion | Boeing | inflight internet

Still struggling in bankruptcy, still negotiating with long-striking mechanics, and still under threat of a strike by flight attendants, Northwest Airlines decided it was the time to offer some handy-dandy tips for their employees on how to make ends meet. Both in print and on an employee website, the pamphlet with the sadly realistic title “Preparing for a Financial Setback” included a section labeled “101 Ways to Save Money.”

The four-page booklet […] contained suggestions such as shopping in thrift stores, taking “a date for a walk along the beach or in the woods” and not being “shy about pulling something you like out of the trash.”
The booklet was part of a 150-page packet to ground workers, such as baggage handlers, whose jobs will likely be cut after their union agreed to allow the airline to outsource some of their work, Blahoski said.

Way to boost morale. Not only telling your employees that their jobs are at risk, but they’ll soon be relegated to sorting through garbage.

The tips raise etiquette questions, though: On those walks along the beach with your date, which you’re doing to avoid the high price of movies and dinner, is it gauche to bring a metal detector?

UPDATE: In comments, MN Headhunter points to the complete list of money-saving tips, including the infamous #46. “In fairness it looks as if the company, (NEAS Company, www.neas.com) who put this list together has the same list for all of their clients, not Northwest Airlines specifically. Still, you would think the airline would look at the material they are giving to their soon to be former employees.” Indeed.

UPDATE 2: The Consumerist got their hands on a PDF version of the booklet. Of course they did. Why wouldn’t they.

(image: Finster)
tags: travel | Northwest Airlines | how to save money | dumpster diving

Save the world’s first motel
San Luis Obispo’s Mo-Tel Inn, out of business for over a decade, is a dilapidated heap today. It’s the first motor-hotel in the world, built in 1925. But there are talks to make the building a shrine to roadside lodging. Bring it on. (A short history of motels is here.)

Save Antarctica from over-tourism
(Is “over-tourism” a word? It is now!) 26,000 people visited the continent last year, and plans are afoot to better manage their environmental impact.

Save the children
A 12 year old boy who ran away from a “care home” got onboard a Monarch Airlines flight from London-Gatwick to Lisbon without a passport or boarding pass. How’s that for tightened security?

Save me from overreaction
United flight 923 from London to Washington was diverted to Boston due to a claustrophobic passenger who started freaking out. Early reports of screwdriver-wielding passengers bearing al Qaeda literature and Vaseline — all were hyperventilating bunk, like a game of “telephone” with real-world effects. Will every flight diversion, due to medical or other non-terrorist reason, be bold-faced breaking news on every news site now? Probably for the next few weeks. Sigh.

Save time, but not money
Unsurprising news: Private jet services that charge by the hour are doing brisk business since last week.

Save your bag check receipts
Over 20,000 checked bags have been lost at London’s Heathrow Airport in the past week. Most will turn up eventually, but still… 20,000 !!?

Save the music
Losers in the security ruckus: Orchestras. Musicians are nervous, since they tend to carry-on their instruments, or in the case of cellos, buy the instument its own (miles-earning) seat. Hopefully the recently-relaxed rules will make orchestras’ travel possible again.

Saved! Skycaps
Winners in the luggage carnival, as predicted: Skycaps.

(image: beachcalifornia.com)
tags: travel

So water is still no-go, but some degree of stability is settling in on the rules and regulations surrounding airport security. I’m officially tired of this whole story. Ideally, I’d like this to be my last post on the subject, though, like the dozens of extras in a George A. Romero film, the issue keeps rising up and coming back.

Here are some predictions for the travel marketplace, mixed in with some things I’d like to see instead:

- I predict airlines will soon start selling bottled water on board. $3 for 20oz. is my guess. Charging more is obnoxious. Heck, $3 is obnoxious, but your parched throat demands satisfaction. (Exact change is appreciated, as always.) What I’d rather see: Airlines putting small bottles of water on every seat, put there right before boarding. That would be a welcome service. If the catering companies can securely stock the aircraft’s carts, they can bring a few cases of 12oz. bottles of water on board.

- Longer-term, I expect airport concessions will be legalized for on-board use again. I don’t see the jetway searches for liquids bought in the concourse (”the war on Starbucks”) lasting more than a few months.

- Duty free shop owners are hating life right now. Booze sales are nil. Prediction: There will be a push to treat duty free goods like aircraft catering, which is presumably screened or at least deemed “secure.” The European supermarket-style buy-and-go model of duty free will give way to the American-style jetway delivery, at best. I’m sure there are alternatives, but they’re unlikely. Stowing the booze in the cargo hold?

- Airlines will likely start bringing back the excess baggage fees, which they haven’t been enforcing in the last few days. By now you’ve been warned about baggage limits, so the honeymoon is over. Pay up.

- With more checked luggage (I’ve heard 30-40% more than before), airports may need more skycaps, and airlines may need more ground workers to move the luggage off the plane and to the carousels. But just because they’re needed, doesn’t mean they’ll be hired. Don’t send in your resumé just yet. And expect slow luggage arrivals.

- Luggage shipment services will get a boost. Companies like LuggageFree will pick up your bags and ship them to your destination. I’m sure FedEx and UPS stores will perform similar services. This is still very expensive, and not appropriate for every trip, but some people will want to avoid the hassle of carrying their suitcases. (Hint: don’t ship ALL of your things, in case there’s a screw-up.)

- More hotels will follow Omni’s early lead in offering complimentary personal care items. Chains lower on the scale could start selling small or trial sized products. Smart cosmetics companies will offer free samples in upscale hotels.

- Those amenity kits you get on long international flights, usually just in premium classes, could be hot commodities onboard. Airlines may start selling them in coach. Lotion, toothpaste, etc.? $5? Alternatively, it’s another marketing opportunity for the lotion-makers. Free samples are always nice.

- While the US never banned laptops on board, the UK did. It’s inevitable that, at some point, there will be another flurry of security changes, and another ban (temp or perm) on electronics. When that happens, refer to this list of tips on backing up and packing your laptop. I’m still not sure I’d be too relaxed, knowing my laptop was in a suitcase in the cargo hold. I imagine that Panasonic Toughbook sales saw a bump this week. If When there is ever another ban, sales will skyrocket.

- If laptops and other electronics had remained prohibited, ultra-long-haul air travel to/from the UK would have been intolerable. The idea of being in a tube for 18 hours or so is not at all appealing to me to begin with. I love planes, but I get antsy already at 9 hours. Being there without toys tools for greater inflight productivity? Unimaginable.

- More checked luggage unfortunately means more opportunity for theft. Here in Chicago someone has been stealing guns from checked luggage, where they were legally being transported. Terrific. Expect a boost in sales of TSA approved locks. This means that the TSA has a master key to open the lock. Which keeps everyone out, except the unscrupulous TSA agent. (Though stealing from a suitcase with TSA locks would certainly draw suspicion toward those very agents…)

- People are getting to the airport earlier. If you get lucky and the security line isn’t that long, that means a long wait in the terminal. Expect more people to join airport lounges. (See here for the guide to your lounge membership options.)

- Smaller airports near big cities might benefit from passengers hoping to avoid long security lines. The reports all mention the wait times at the big hub airports. If the fare is comparable, expect passengers to favor smaller airports (e.g., Providence instead of Boston).

- Most people will not stop flying. No one I know has cancelled a flight, or even postponed one. No one I know is talking about avoiding travel in the future. Granted, this is purely anecdotal, but I don’t see a trend.

- Finally, despite people continuing to fly, the rhetoric of fear will continue. The London threat — foiled thanks to a tip received from someone within the alleged terrorists’ community — has allowed politicians across the globe to bloviate on the importance for security, but despite a ban on beverages and salves, little has really changed. For some reason, we are generally willing to accept some risks involved with living in society — knowing that not every resident is altruistic — except when we fly. Our trains, mass transit, and even airport people-movers carry large groups of people and their goods, all without the limitations on our personal freedom that we have come to tolerate in the confines of an airport terminal. We will never be perfectly safe. Anywhere. We need to come to terms with risk, not waver between fear and a delusional sense of comfort. Theatrical exercises in security don’t help matters in the long run, especially when carried out arbitrarily and inconsistently. If we expect complete safety, we will be disappointed again and again.

(image)
tags: travel | airport security

Zagat will send you a free copy of the next edition of their “Top International Hotels, Resorts, and Spas” guide if you supply them with the raw material for the ratings. Go here to vote and leave your pithy reviews. Registration required (obviously… how else would they know where to send the book?).

tags: travel | Zagat | guidebooks

The UK ratcheted down their threat level (similar to the rainbow of fear in the United States) and hand luggage is once again permitted on board British flights.

In a statement, it said: “Each passenger is permitted to carry one item of cabin baggage through the airport security search point. The dimensions of this item must not exceed a maximum length of 45cm, width of 35cm and depth of 16cm, including wheels, handles and side pockets.”
However, liquids of any type - including gels, pastes, aerosols and lotions - cannot be taken on to planes. The exceptions were prescription medicines and baby milk.

But don’t be surprised if flights headed TO the UK will still carry a restriction on carry-ons today. As other countries and airlines have adapted to the British ban, they will likely not instantly reverse that ban. Today’s a transition day, so you may still face problems out there.

This is especially good news for those carrying electronics such as iPods and laptops, since insurers are balking at paying for damaged, lost, or stolen electronics that are transported in checked luggage. Even though passengers didn’t have a choice in the matter.

Insurers say the airlines are responsible, and the airlines reply with “I’m rubber and you’re glue,” refusing to pay more than the maximum amount of £850 as determined by the Montreal Convention. Passengers, stuck in the middle, lose.

Official announcement of new UK security rules is here.

(hat tip Consumerist on the insurance article)
tags: travel | insurance | airport security