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!

Reader Trey, occasional flyer but frequent upgrader, sings the praises of American Airlines’ upgrades for purchase at check-in and asks:

I travel with relative infrequency, say 3-4 times per year. When I do, I /always/ fly American Airlines because I like their planes, I like their service, and, usually, I like their price. The latest factor keeping my business with them, however, is the availability of $30 500mi upgrades when using Kiosk Check-In. I LOVE it. It’s cheap, fast, and the only way I’ll ever qualify to upgrade from the N or Q class fare I normally book. My question is this: is there any online tool which will let me view historical loads so that I can book flights which normally have room left up front?

The upgrades-for-purchase at check-in can be a decent deal, especially if you’re on a super-cheapo ticket. To maximize your odds of being able to buy one, you want to be on flights with 1) lots of tickets for sale in first class (which is hard to predict, but you can see tickets for sale up until a few hours before the flight) AND 2) with the fewest possible number of top-tier elites on board. These elites might be automatically upgraded by the airline, so they’d jump ahead of you, Trey. But unless you work for the airline, there’s no way to know who’s booked on a flight, though you can expect super-elites to travel to business destinations from main hubs, say, Dallas-New York.

I’m afraid I don’t know of any online service that offers reliable historical information about how many actual seats were available for upgrades into first class. The closest thing out there is UpgradeSuccess.com, which I’ve mentioned here, but the information in their database is pretty thin.

Other sites like ExpertFlyer let you subscribe and see loads for FUTURE flights, but that doesn’t tell you how these flights filled up in the past. FareCast collects this sort of information and gathers it in their database to make predictions about future fares, but again, this isn’t necessarily data that would help you in picking an easily-upgradable flight.

But maybe I’m missing something: Someone out there will surely correct me if I’m wrong. Any ideas?

Biology!
The key to conquering jetlag, brought to you by Drosophila Melanogaster! Fruit flies missing a particular protein had a hard time adjusting to extreme shifts in light and darkness. If science can find a protein like this for humans, jet lag may be a thing of the past.

Rocketry!
British frequent flyer Alan Watts hoarded two million miles with Virgin Atlantic, which qualifies him for a trip into space on Virgin Galactic. (In this blog’s endless obsession with aircraft interiors and seating, below you’ll find a peek at the interior of Richard Branson’s spaceship. Full details here.)

Ecology!
Virgin’s Richard Branson, again: The gazillionaire has vowed to funnel all future profits from his airline and train businesses into research on alternative fuels that don’t contribute to global warming. Good for him! Synthetic jet fuel might be a start.

Grammar!
Someone at the Jerusalem tourist bureau needs a less existentialist copyeditor who speaks better English. Their latest brochures read: “Jerusalem: There is no such city!” Lies. All lies. (via Jaunted)

Reader Anton writes:

Is there any difference (in your opinion) in per-mile value depending upon a) alliance (Star vs OneWorld vs Skyteam) or b) individual airline?

E.g. what is better 100,000 Delta miles, 100,000 United miles or
100,000 Continental miles (for simplicity, let’s assume you are
non-elite in all of those and that the above miles are all you have in
each program)

Good question, Anton. Yes, I think there is a difference in value between programs, but it’s not easy to quantify. Prepare to geek out!

Redemption rates
Short answer: Yes, there’s a difference. Different airlines charge different amounts for similar tickets. But one airline may cost more for one route, and less for another, especially on international routes and in premium classes. For example:

• Flying from North America to Europe in economy class costs 50,000 miles for a typical coach ticket on American, United, Delta, and Continental, to name a few. If you’re a resident of Europe, Lufthansa charges 60,000 miles for the same itinerary. Bizarrely, they charge Americans only 50,000.
• Business class for the same US-Europe itinerary is 90,000 miles on most airlines, but for a few short weeks, United still only charges 80,000. (United is raising the price to 90,000 on October 16, so book quickly if you want the lower rate. See here for details.) But Northwest charges a full 100,000 for the same ticket. Europe is no value on NWA.
• Business class from the US to Australia with United miles (post October 16): 110,000 miles. With American miles: 125,000 miles.
• Chicago to New York area airports on American: 15,000 miles (limited time short-hop rate). Continental: 20,000 miles. Everyone else who flies nonstop (United, Delta): 25,000. On a percentage basis, that’s a big difference.

So, some airlines have “bargains” for certain awards, making those miles worth more than others for those awards. And if you fly those routes, you get more value for your miles.

But… it would be nearly impossible to come up with a one-size-fits-all formula that accurately reflects the differences between programs. Why?

Besides redemption rates, I’d suggest that there are (at least) three other variables that affect comparisons between programs: 1) accrual ease, 2) route network, and 3) redemption ability (award supply).

Accrual ease
If you’re looking to choose a program in which to accrue miles, mileage-earning opportunities matter. You want to be able to earn points easily. JetBlue’s program lets you earn miles in one of two ways: flying JetBlue, or by using their credit card. Not a lot of options there.

At the same time, you could make an argument that excessive accrual opportunities are bad for the program in the long run. Miles function like a currency. If airlines increase the number of miles in “circulation” too much, without award supply moving up similarly, then you’ll have more miles chasing fewer awards. This is what’s happening now, actually: People have the points, but can’t get the ticket they want. The imbalance creates inflationary pressure, meaning that airlines will want to raise the “price” of their award tickets to even out supply and demand.

But in your example, Anton, you have 100,000 miles in the program of your choice, and you’re looking to cash things in right now. So, despite mileage accrual’s effects on your experience with a program, let’s put accrual aside.

Route Networks
Where you fly matters, both for accrual and redemption. If your miles don’t get you where you want to go, then who cares? And this throws a wrench into any efforts to create a formula. One program may work great for one person, but not for another.

Let’s say you want to fly regularly from Los Angeles to a city that’s not a huge hub. Like, say… Tegucigalpa, Honduras! In such a case, you’re probably better off joining a program with an airline in the oneworld (e.g., American) or SkyTeam (e.g., Continental, Delta, Northwest) alliances, and not Star Alliance (e.g., United, US Airways). Star Alliance doesn’t fly to Honduras (though United has a separate side partnership with Central American carrier TACA).

Even domestically, route networks vary. You can’t visit North Dakota with Southwest Airlines Rapid Rewards, for example.

For what it’s worth:

• Star Alliance airlines fly to 842 destinations
• oneworld covers “over 600″
• Skyteam claims 728 airports.

Redemption ability/Award availability
You can’t buy anything if there’s nothing on the store’s shelves. But it’s really hard to accurately gauge just how easy it is to grab award seats. And airlines aren’t talking. They’ll tell you how many tickets were redeemed with miles, but how many tries did it take? Was it the first choice? How far in advance were reservations made?

InsideFlyer tried to put airlines to the test, but their methodology isn’t foolproof. So we’re stuck with anecdotal evidence: Some airlines are notoriously difficult for cashing in miles (Continental) while others have a better reputation (American, Southwest).

So whose miles are worth the most? Sorry to waffle, but it really depends on you…

(image: Alex Segre)

The UK will be following in the steps of the US, allowing travel-sized liquid toiletries to be brought through security. Finally some cracks appearing the liquid security facade. But don’t bring big bottles of water or shampoo through security just yet:

Each container must be no bigger than 100ml and they must also be carried in a transparent bag and presented for screening.
Permitted items include toothpaste, contact lens solution, travel-sized medicines or anything else that might be needed for a short trip.

Also, the regulations won’t go into effect until early November. It’s not clear why there is such a delay. The U.S. put the change into effect overnight. Why does the UK need a month?

Baby steps. And still good news.

(image: Tomasz Nowak)

Is TSA director Kip Hawley an idiot?

Asking that question at the security checkpoint in Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport will get you a lesson in just how much the first amendment is worth these days.

In a FlyerTalk message board thread that’s gone completely viral on the internet today, “MKEbound” describes his experience in passing through security yesterday. The TSA’s new regulations require you to include small bottles of liquids in a one-quart plastic zipper bag, so MKEbound did just that. But looking to be provocative, he wrote “Kip Hawley is an idiot” on the outside of the bag. The screener was not amused:

He grabbed the baggie as it came out of the X-ray and asked if it was mine. After responding yes, he pointed at my comment and demanded to know “What is this supposed to mean?” “It could [mean] a lot of things, it happens to be an opinion [of] mine.” “You can’t write things like this” he said, “You mean my First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn’t apply here?” “Out there (pointing [past] the id checkers) not while in here (pointing down) was his response.”

The rebellious scrawlings on a plastic bag led to questioning by the police and TSA supervisors. MKEbound was obviously looking to make a statement and pick a bit of a fight, but the overreaction by the officers and their blatant disregard for free speech protected by the Constitution were uncalled for. The incident demonstrates how poorly trained some of the agents really are.

This should be no surprise, of course, since people are being kept off planes because they’re wearing shirts with pictures of guns or Arabic script.

Let’s be clear: Insulting the TSA director on a plastic bag is not yelling “fire” in a crowded airport. It may be provocative, but it’s protected. It’s a silent statement that may have been insulting to the screener, but had no broader social effects. No security was ever threatened by the commentary.

If Kip Hawley, Michael Chertoff, and the United States Congress can’t assure that the TSA is better trained in matters of rights and law, and if agents publicly overstep the boundaries of their clearly limited mandate, then they’re worse than idiots. Then they’re party to the cheapening of democracy.

Related:
- What’s acceptable airport security, and what isn’t?
See also:
- The Identity Project (PapersPlease.org)

UPDATE (9/28/06):
It didn’t take long: KipHawleyIsAnIdiot.com.

Upgraded: Coach Seats on Cathay Pacific
You don’t hear much about economy class seats improving much. Sure, there’s lots of talk about upgrading business and first class. But it’s good to see the back of the bus being considered for upgrades. Cathay Pacific of Hong Kong, considered by many to be one of the best rides in the sky, is installing new seats that function much like business class pods: hard-shell seats that recline within the shell, not by pushing back into the space behind you. The tinkering extends the legroom without technically increasing the seat pitch. Sounds great! (via RoadGladiator)

Upgraded: Economy Snacks on American Airlines, at a Price
American Airlines will start testing a new program this week — and ONLY this week — to sell snacks in flight. Flights between Dallas and LAX, Dallas and Miami, and JFK and San Francisco are included in the test. Klondike Movie Bites ice cream, Otis Spunkmeyer Chocolate Chunk Cookies, Lay’s Stax Crisps or Twix ‘4 To Go’ candy bars will run you $3. Dannon bottled water (how many ounces??) will be $2 per bottle. Cookies, etc., fine. I wonder if the $2 bottle of water was devised before the latest airport security rules were relaxed. Not sure how many people will bite. Can’t you just get a cup or two poured for you for free?

Downgraded even more: The Ryanair Experience
Sensory overload! Ryanair is adding advertisements on the underside of the tray tables, so you’ll be staring at the ad for the duration of the flight. Yay. It just keeps getting classier. (via The Cranky Flier)

Upgraded: Continental’s Reputation
Boston’s Logan Airport wanted to make a buck by providing wi-fi access and charging everyone for it. Problem was, Continental’s clubs already provided wi-fi for free. The airport tried to shut down the free connection, but Continental resisted, took it to the FCC, and won. Hats off to Continental for defending the interests of their customers. (And if you want free wi-fi, hang out near the Continental Presidents Club and try to pick up a signal…)

tags: travel | airlines

“I just want to say one word to you - just one word. Plastics.”

Zipper-top plastic bags, specifically. The TSA’s new rules for carrying on liquids were officially released yesterday, and while I’m happy to see any relaxation in the policy, there are still a number of questions that remain.

Echoing Chris Elliott’s commentary on Marketplace, I don’t see how the continued prohibition of liquids, except when they’re carried on board in absurdly small bottles that are subsequently re-wrapped in a 1 quart plastic Ziploc bag, is really making anyone safer.

If liquids were ever a threat, then the ban on liquids would have remained in place, regardless of size. The ban on firearms applies to a starter pistol as well as a Kalashnikov. Why should size matter for shampoo?

Assuming that a liquid threat were possible, terrorists who wanted to blow up a plane with liquids could band together, each one carrying small quantities of liquid aboard (in a 1-quart Ziploc bag, of course; 1-gallon bags are a threat to security.) So the slippery-slope argument is fair game. If some liquids are permitted, why not all of them?

And besides: How are the TSA inspectors going to know if something in your Ziploc bag is actually a dangerous substance or not? Have chromatographs been installed at airports overnight?

The fact that any liquids are being permitted through security just demonstrates the bankruptcy of the policy.

Lift the ban.

tags: travel | liquids | airport security

AP is reporting that the liquids embargo is undergoing a shift. At 11am eastern, the TSA will officially announce two major changes to the policy on liquids in airports:

1) Liquids purchased in the airport after the security checkpoint will be allowed on planes again.
2) Some liquids, like hand lotions, will be allowed through security, once they have undergone a secondary screening.

#1 essentially replicates the changes that Canada enacted a few days ago, and it’s a positive step forward. As I’ve said before, if the stuff behind the checkpoint is screened, why can they impose double-secret probationary rules on the goods?

But #2 is different, and we’ll need to hear more. Why are some liquids being permitted, and not others? Has the TSA begun installing new machines to scan liquids, or invented a new technique for detecting threats in semi-viscous moisturizing suspensions?

(image)
tags: travel | liquids | airport security

Sitting on the tarmac in Antalya, Turkey, a group of British tourists was treated to the following announcement by their Onur Air pilot:

“I am resigning from my job. Do not fly with this plane. It is not safe. Do not fly with Onur Air.”

Then, after freaking out the entire passenger cabin, he got up, left the cockpit, and got off the plane.

Now THAT’s an exit.

The passengers were left sitting on the plane in sweltering heat, chuckling uncomfortably as their stiff upper lips began to sag.

Onur Air has had its share of security concerns. The airline was previously banned from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland under accusations of security violations, which the airline categorically denied.

At least he made the announcement before takeoff. Which raises the question: Do pilots have a parachute in the cockpit?…

(image)
tags: travel | Onur Air

The increase in checked luggage, a side effect of the ongoing War on Moisture, leads many to fear that their bags will be lost. And it’s a legitimate fear, of course. So how do you minimize it?

Pack a pistol in your luggage.

Bruce Schneier links to a discussion on a photographer’s blog, in which high-end equipment owners discuss their options. The solution is brilliant:

• Weapons (including starter pistols, which don’t require a permit since they don’t fire bullets) must be declared by the passenger and packed in checked luggage.
• Thereafter, the suitcase is given priority handling by TSA and the airline, since no one wants to be responsible for letting a weapon fall into “the wrong hands.”
• Therefore, putting a gun in your suitcase ensures that your luggage will be handled carefully, and will certainly reach its destination. It’s essentially like sending your suitcase via registered mail.

(image)

O Canada! Our neighbors to the north have wisely reconsidered some of the recently imposed airport security provisions.

In particular: Liquids purchased in Canadian airports AFTER passengers have passed security will no longer be prohibited on board airplanes. Buy that overpriced bottle of water, the venti latte, or a six-pack of Molson, and you won’t have to dump it before entering the jetway. Unless you’re traveling to the United States, in which case your liquids magically become threatening to everyone’s safety again, and you’re required to pour them out.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: It makes no sense to have a “sterile” area in the airport, where goods and individuals have been screened for contraband, and then ban items obtained from that area anyway. It’s completely arbitrary, and part of the kabuki security we’ve all gotten accustomed to in the past weeks. Hats off to Canada for injecting some modicum of sense into matters.

I don’t know why I’ve neglected to mention this — I just keep forgetting to post about it — but I’ve enjoyed sitting in with the team over at The Consumerist as a guest blogger this past week. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s a Gawker Media site that acts as an irreverent consumer advocate.

Here is a small sampler of posts on travel related issues that I put up over at their site in the last week:
- Laptoppa Non Gratta: Virgin Atlantic Restricts Dell and Apple Notebooks
- This Post is a Threat to Security
- J.K. Rowling’s Voodoo That She’ll Do Do
- Harass Your Way to (Eventual) Refunds

And here are a few posts unrelated to travel, but what the heck:
- Watching Stupid People on TV Really Does Make You Stupid
- Waiters Lobby for Mandatory 20% Tips
- The Geography of Usury
- Anger God by Eating Foie Gras

My thanks to John and the vacationing Ben for letting me join in the snarky fun.

tags: travel | Consumerist