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 Tyler, aka Dr. Vino, writes in:

One of my friends told me that he subscribes to the Financial Times using some orphan miles. Do you know the details? I couldn’t find anything on line about it.

Indeed, some U.S.-based airlines’ programs let you cash in miles for magazine or newspaper subscriptions. Some do it directly through their websites, usually through a relationship with Magazines for Miles. (NOTE: This link doesn’t let you buy any magazines, though it may appear to do so. But keep reading for links that DO work…)

Magazines for Miles doesn’t generate a lot of faith in their viability as a business, if you look closely at their website. They misspell “Hawaiian” in the airline of the same name, and they still list America West and US Airways as separate airlines. But the company is, in fact, legit.

The Magazines for Miles main site only offers a very limited number of magazines to choose from, but lets you pick one of several airlines’ miles to pay for the subscription: American, America West (now US Airways), Continental, Delta, Hawaiian, Midwest, Northwest, United, and US Airways.

Some airlines’ own websites have a wider selection of magazines — though the actual redemption is typically processed by the very same Magazines for Miles company. (The Financial Times subscription you asked for in the original question is available through Delta, Midwest, or Northwest.) Rates will vary between programs, though, so one magazine might cost more miles on one airline than another. If you have multiple orphaned-mile accounts, shop around.

Click for American, Continental, Delta, Hawaiian, Midwest, Northwest, and United (newspapers only on UA, though), and US Airways. AirTran, jetBlue, and Southwest don’t have a magazine option of any kind.

It used to be even easier, when a company called MilePoint ran a clearinghouse of sorts for converting miles to magazines. The really nice thing was that you could combine miles from multiple separate accounts to complete your order. MilePoint was bought by points.com, and that option has disappeared, alas.

If you’ve got some orphaned miles, this is a pretty good way to cash them in. And nothing says holiday cheer like unloading some miles onto your friends and relatives in the form of a magazine subscription.

UPDATE: Using miles for a Financial Times subscription is terrific value, by the way. A one-year subscription to the paper costs $99.00 on Amazon.com, or 2000 Delta or Northwest miles. That comes to 4.95 cents per mile. Fantastic value! (Not all subscriptions come in at such a good rate. Compare the cash subscription rate first…)

There’s a spectre haunting airports around the world, threatening passenger safety and moral sensibility. That threat: t-shirts.

We’ve seen passengers turned away thanks to shirts with messages like “We will not be silenced” or “Guns and Rollers.”

Now a British man, Allen Jasson, was kept off a London-Melbourne flight on Qantas until he bought a shirt in the gift shop to cover up his anti-George W. Bush attire. AND he got the same treatment in Melbourne, when trying to board a connecting Melbourne-Adelaide flight on Virgin Blue. For wearing this shirt, which was deemed offensive:

(Is it just me, or does the shadowy image of Bush on the shirt look a bit like the guy actually wearing the shirt?)

What’s going on? I mean, sure, the guy is looking to make a statement, and he’s interested in attention, but what harm does this shirt — or any of the “dangerous” shirts — do? Why is an Australian airline, operating in the United Kingdom, censoring a shirt that slams the American president? Is the London-Melbourne route populated by easily-irked Republicans? Why all the fuss?

United Airlines is proposing what they call “bare fare” pricing for air tickets. The a-la-carte pricing model turns Air Canada’s recent introduction of a menu of fare discounts on its head, almost to the letter.

While Air Canada proposed a discount, if you were willing to forgo certain services, United is starting with a low base fare and tacking on surcharges.

Prices for each service haven’t been finalized, but checked luggage, seat assignments, the ability to change your ticket after purchase, and the accrual of frequent flyer miles are all in play: You’d have to pay extra for any or all of them.

I’m really on the fence about this, though I’m leaning negative. On the one hand, I just want to shake my head in dismay at the fact that things like a seat assignment — which, in my world, approaches the status of a basic human right — are becoming a commodity requiring payment. Stay classy, United!

At the same time, this is going to make apples-to-apples comparisons between competing airfares harder, and introduces a new layer of complexity for online travel agencies.

Yet I DO see the appeal for some travelers who really aren’t that picky. It lets customers choose exactly what they want or need. Or, perhaps better: it lets INFORMED customers choose exactly what they want. But will everyone who searches for a low fare really know which services they’re getting on one airline, and which ones they’re NOT getting on the other?

(image)

American Airlines is refreshing the interiors on its Boeing 767-200s, the planes they use for cross-country flights like JFK to LAX.

It’s not a route I fly, but from what I hear, it’s about time for a revamp. The planes’ seats and decor have reportedly been looking rather run down lately, so this is a welcome change. United classed it up a couple years ago on their so-called “ps” flights out of JFK, so the back-and-forth competition between the #1 and #2 airlines in the U.S. continues apace.

The new three-class planes will feature motorized seats in first class, new handheld video players, and a general sprucing-up of the cabin’s carpets, walls, etc. The airline recently changed some menus and is offering fluffier pillows in first class. (But good luck getting a pillow in the back!)

The Jack LaLanne of Planes
What happens if a plane is put on a giant treadmill, designed to counter the motion of the plane’s wheels? Can it take off, or does it just sit there? Debate!

Retro-chic luggage you wish you had
When did airlines stop giving away travel bags emblazoned with their logos? Walk down memory lane, or discover the world of flight before the age of e-tickets at the Airline Bag Lounge.

Hotels that won’t earn points, but so what
There are themed and kitschy hotels throughout the world, and I’ll always have a space in my heart for them. My wife and I once stayed in a lodge with a “Zulu Room” that featured an oil painting of an obviously-male leopard hovering over a… erm… submissively relaxed female. Classy. But how about a KGB prison-themed hotel in Liepaja, Latvia, where the room costs £7 a night, and the degradation of prisoners guests is complimentary? No? Well, there are plenty of other novelty options, all more interesting than the Motel 6, to be sure. Maybe not luxurious, but certainly memorable. (Hat tip to John Brownlee at Wired’s Table of Malcontents)

JetBlue is removing a row of seats from each of their Airbus A320s, giving passengers more legroom: at least 36 inches of seat pitch in rows 1 through 11, and at least 34 inches in rows 12 through 25.

The move, which is expected to be implemented by March 2007, isn’t entirely charitable. Taking out seats allows them to cut the number of flight attendants on board each flight:

JetBlue estimates a net savings of $30 million over five years by removing six seats from the A320 fleet, as a result of reducing the inflight crewmember team to three, and by reducing the weight of the aircraft by approximately 904 pounds, which will lower the fuel burn. That figure includes lost revenue opportunities as a result of selling six fewer seats per A320 flight.

Stinks for flight attendants, who just had their available positions cut by 25%. But it’s good for passengers, who see two inches of extra legroom. This is about the same as Economy Plus on United, which is reserved for United elites and those willing to pay a small premium to get the extra room.

But hold on: This turns the front of the cabin into a premium section, something the airline never had before. The old configuration has more legroom in the back of the plane, as a sort of tradeoff: The back rows get more room, but the front rows get to exit the plane faster (and less engine noise).

Now, however, the new layout means the front of the plane gets both the benefits of being in the front of the cabin AND the best legroom. Effectively, it’s a premium economy section.

Will JetBlue eventually start charging a premium for the seats in rows 1 through 11? I’m betting yes.

Major thumbs up for this new trend: Airports such as Chicago O’Hare are installing kiosks that dispense padded envelopes, allowing passengers to mail prohibited items home or store them for pickup upon their return.

Mail Safe Express works by having security officers escort passengers to the kiosks, where they can put their property in bubble-wrap envelopes that can be mailed to an address or sent to a pickup spot at the Hilton Chicago O’Hare Airport.

The Chicago Department of Aviation’s 60-day pilot program began Monday with six kiosks in three terminals. It had 12 transactions in its first two days. Each kiosk, which accepts only credit cards for payment, has two sizes of envelopes, the larger of which is about 6 inches wide and 10 inches long.

The service costs $10 for storage, or $14 for domestic UPS shipping. The machines only accept credit cards. And those mailers are tiny — can’t they get a bigger padded envelope? At that size, no wonder they’ve only had 12 transactions.

Nonetheless, this is a good idea. As long as the TSA persists in confiscating personal care items over the 3-ounce limit, this is a great alternative. And it’s cheaper than dumping your expensive perfume (or, presumably, any forbidden non-liquids as well) in the trash.

Airline mergers are headlining the news again today, with United and Continental in early discussions, and with AirTran’s offer for Midwest Airlines confirmed (but declined). This of course comes on top of the US Airways offer for Delta, which Delta is resisting.

So consolidation is afoot. Like lemmings, the airlines run off the cliff, hoping to grow bigger. My feelings on mergers like this are negative, and I’ll just repeat part of an earlier post, when Continental and United were first being bandied about as potential merger partners:

But the bottom line for travelers doesn’t look good. Planes are full, demand is there, and airlines are eking out a profit, even with high oil prices. When airlines say there’s too much capacity, it just means that they want to charge more. A merger would drive out competition and increase prices — at ALL airlines, not just United-Continental. Not to mention the mess that could arise from merging two frequent flyer programs. I’m wary of a merger, and hoping it doesn’t happen.

That said, the counterargument suggests that consolidation will breed the rise of new competitors, or the expansion of other carriers to fill the void (and higher prices) in the wake of mega-mergers.

Possible, and probable in the long run, but in the short to medium run, mergers like this aren’t pro-consumer. They’re pro-Wall Street, and pro-airline executives, and that’s about it.

I remember the feeling of relief I had when I unloaded the 1989 Ford Escort that I once drove. It was perennially in the shop, and once I got rid of it, I wanted to do a little happy-dance, just knowing that it was no longer my problem.

Airlines and their mechanics must feel the same way about some of their planes. Especially some of their regional jets, which few people cherish. But there are obviously different ways of celebrating…

Turkish Airlines took swift disciplinary action Wednesday after it emerged that members of its technical staff had sacrificed a camel to celebrate getting their job done. Maintenance workers all pitched in to buy the beast to mark the long-awaited dispatch to Britain of the last of 11 RJ100 aircraft which Turkish decided to leave out of its fleet due to a series of accidents involving the planes. The camel was sacrificed Tuesday at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport and about 1,540 pounds of meat was distributed among the staff.

I’m afraid to ask how the airline’s executives celebrated their company’s recent admission to the Star Alliance.

While passengers in the United States keep dumping their water bottles and sacrifice their four-ounce bottles of shaving cream or hair gel, Japan and China are installing machines that actually test for liquid explosives.

Japan has already rolled out liquid-explosives detectors at airports and train stations, though the machines “will be put to use in the near future.” No word on when that future date might be.

China is vowing to roll out similar machines and have them fully operative by the time the 2008 Summer Olympics kick off in Beijing. The machines are built by NUCTECH and run approximately $200,000 each.

The TSA is instead testing “backscatter” x-ray machines, which can detect liquids on a person through a “virtual strip search.” But these machines can only detect what’s on your person, not what’s in your luggage.

China and Japan are implementing technology to make flying safer and less of a hassle. Why isn’t the U.S.?

Following up Friday’s post on the next generation of United’s first class seat, here’s the photo, and the press release.

It looks nice, but it also resembles a lot of existing business class seats out there, such as Air New Zealand, Virgin Atlantic, or even the forthcoming Delta seat. Increasingly, first class isn’t looking that different from new-generation business class (unless, of course, you’re Singapore Airlines…)

At the end of the day, if first class seats are only marginally better, the difference between business and first class comes down to service in the cabin (and on the ground, for that matter). But I have my doubts; consistency and top-notch service are necessary, and I haven’t seen a consistent level of service on board United in a while.

(Thanks for the heads-up, Benet!)

Reader NPM writes in:

A few months ago, my wife and I received two United Airlines paper vouchers for $75 each to make up for an awful flight experience we had, with a delay of several hours for mechanical reasons and a non-working in-flight entertainment system.

Last month I decided to redeem these vouchers to buy two tickets from Chicago to NY City. I went on the United website and found two (ORD-LGA) tickets for $168.61 each. The fare was eligible/covered by the vouchers — I checked the fine print. Since you can’t finalize the reservation online and use the vouchers to pay for part of the tickets, I placed the tickets on hold and called United reservation service.

The representative told me I couldn’t use the vouchers with that fare and proposed instead I buy two tickets for the same flights for $198.61, effectively turning my $75 vouchers into $45 vouchers. Ugly. I complained a bit but since there was nothing she could do, I ended up buying the tickets…

A few days later, I checked my credit card statement and United charged me a $30 “ticket mailing fee” with my order, despite the fact that the tickets are electronic. This decreased the value of each value to $30. To add insult to injury their online system works so poorly that when I tried to enter my wife’s Mileage Plus number on her reservation, it requested a wheelchair for her instead. Thanks, but no thanks! Bye, bye United!

Ahh, the customer service voucher. A gesture of goodwill that turns around and creates more ill will when people try to redeem it. Sorry to hear you had such trouble.

United’s policy is asinine on so many levels. At the time the certificate is issued, it seems like they’re apologizing, and the voucher feels like a good-faith effort to make things right. Then they piss that goodwill away by making the redemption process a chore — and discounting the value of the voucher.

You say that the ticket was eligible for voucher use according to the terms on the back of the certificate. (Some booking codes are ineligible for voucher use, but those letter codes are outlined on the piece of paper.) At that point, you should have asked to speak with a supervisor when the agent denied your request to use the certificate for an eligible itinerary.

The $15/ticket fee they charged for “ticket by mail” is unfortunately simply their phone center charge. But this is a case where the airline is demanding the impossible: They charge you money for using their call center, instead of booking online. But with a voucher, you have no other booking option EXCEPT on the phone, or at an airport, both of which incur a fee. Frankly, the Federal Trade Commission might be interested…

At this point, I’d advise you to write to United’s customer relations. State that you feel that a refund of $90 is due to you — the value that your vouchers went down in value, thanks to the airline’s games. If they take more than two weeks to respond, or if the answer is not to your satisfaction, call or write again. But be warned: They might just send you more vouchers…