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!

Thanks to Dr. Vino for the photo of the label on his rental car dashboard in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.

“Blow horn frequently” ??! Perhaps the countryside is riddled with signs that read “Honk if you like rum!”

Speaking of rum, the good doctor reports that American citizens can bring a whopping five liters of booze back to the mainland from the U.S. Virgin Islands — six liters if one of those bottles is produced in the USVI. Stock up and save! Just don’t pack the booze in your carry-ons.

But, having never been to the Virgin Islands, I was perhaps most surprised to learn that there were customs limitations on travel within American territory!

Reader Joe H. writes:

In your link to Bob Rosner’s column, I think you missed a point that’s just as big as the 3 versus 3.5 oz. debate. Fourth paragraph:

For example, on my most recent flight I had my baggie full of gels and liquids out and ready to show anyone who wanted to know the secret for my youthful appearance. A TSA staffer scrutinized the bag. She informed me that she’d have to empty one of my bottles because, she explained, they only allowed gels and liquids in their original containers — no camping-style plain plastic bottles are allowed. She methodically emptied out my soap from its container. Apparently terrorists have not figured out how to empty shampoo bottles to put something more dangerous inside.

There’s no regulation anywhere on the TSA Web site that says this. Never heard of it, never seen it. So here’s my question: how would you handle a situation where a TSA agent isn’t acting sans common sense (e.g., you have one two-ounce container, but it’s not in the plastic bag), but is flat out, no-doubt-about-it *wrong*?

I asked my mom (a more frequent traveler than I) what she’d do, and she said she wouldn’t argue. I said I now carry the TSA PDF printouts with me, and I’d immediately ask for a supervisor (nicely, of course).

I’d love to hear your thoughts, and perhaps those of other readers.

There are two, or maybe even three, issues here. The first is about TSA policy, i.e., are the mini-bottles required to be in original packaging, or are empty 3 oz. bottles, refilled with mouthwash, lotion, or whatever, legal?

As you say, Joe, I can’t find anything on the TSA site that suggests that you need to have shampoo in its original package. The only category of items that specifically requires a labeled container is medication:

Please make sure your medications are properly labeled with a professionally printed label identifying the medication and manufacturer’s name or pharmaceutical label. The prescription medicine must match the name on the passenger’s ticket.

So according to the publicly available rules, no one should have to dump out shampoo, soap, or mouthwash, just because it’s in an unlabeled bottle.

(By the way, the New York Times’ Roger Collis got some very similar e-mail this week. He couldn’t find any requirement for labeled bottles in either U.S. or E.U. rules, either.)

Joe’s second question is more about passenger behavior when you face an agent who makes up rules like this, or misinterprets the rules to apply more broadly than they’re published.

Carrying a printout of the rules for permitted/prohibited items, and politely requesting that the agent or a supervisor consider the published rules before confiscating the goods is a good idea. I’m a fan of having the facts on paper (or at least saved as an online PDF on the laptop). That goes for airline contracts-of-carriage, too, but that’s another point…

But honestly, as much as I support civil liberties, I probably wouldn’t fight every fight. So how would I respond to a TSA agent inventing rules? It depends on how much hardship the agent’s inventiveness is actually imposing on me. How much does the item cost? How easily will I be able to replace it? How much time do I have before my flight? Do I feel lucky? If you do fight it, always remain calm, polite, and follow the agents’ instructions if asked to step aside, etc.

But what if YOU screw up and accidentally leave one small (legal-sized) bottle out of the one-quart plastic bag? If the agent gives you a hard time, I’d ask to have the item put back in the bag and rescanned, if necessary. If that didn’t work, then I’d try to speak to a supervisor, taking into account the calculus above (will I miss my flight if I ask for a supervisor… how much is this item worth to me…)

Finally, don’t hesitate to make a mental note of the agent’s name if they disregard the published rules or don’t offer you a common-sense chance to rectify a minor, non-dangerous mistake. Then write a letter to the TSA, and cc: your local Congressperson and Senator.

Reader Todd writes:

Not much word from you lately about all the airline mergers in the news. What do you think will happen? Is this going to suck or rock?

Ha! Well, Todd, as I’ve said before, on the “suck - rock continuum,” I think mergers are closer to “suck” for consumers. (See here and here.) Sure you might get a few more potential destinations or routings for your flights, but the total number of flights is bound to be cut, and prices in turn are bound to rise. Prices are already rising, despite oil prices dropping significantly in recent weeks. (Neil Bainton has the fare hike play-by-play.) With less competition, it’ll be easier than ever to raise fares and make them stick.

I expect some sort of deal is coming. Last week saw quite a bit of airline merger news. AirTran raised its offer for Midwest by 18%. One day earlier, US Airways increased its offer for Delta by 20% — an offer which Delta continues to reject. But with Delta in bankruptcy, will the creditors say no to the sweetened deal?…

Adding more intrigue, it turns out that Delta has been playing the field, doing everything it can to avoid merging with US Airways. Delta has been discussing merger possibilities with Northwest and United. We knew United was fishing for a partner, and has confirmed discussions with Continental. Now we know Northwest is up on the block, too. Add another name to the mix.

For some arcana: If Northwest merges with anyone, then that makes it easier for Continental to make a deal. Northwest holds a “golden stake” in Continental, and those super-deluxe shares have a veto power clause attached to them. Continental can’t merge with anyone unless Northwest agrees. That is, unless Northwest merges first. Oh, the humanity! So right now, I’m guessing that United and Continental are rooting for a Northwest-Delta merger, so everyone can merge and all the CEOs can have their huge payday.

Now Congress is getting in on the game, too, with both houses planning to hold hearings on the effect of mergers on airfares, and on the economy.

The hearings will likely be a lot of grandstanding. But make no mistake: Industry consolidation will mean higher fares. And it’s not just me saying that, or a media-hungry congressman. It’s the airline chiefs themselves. Delta is talking about decreasing service and raising revenue. That’s not even a particularly veiled threat of raising fares.

I’m not about to predict which specific deals will close, but I am sure one or more will happen. But I’ll continue to root against them.

Related:
- Here we go again: Airline merger madness, back in the news
- Reader mail: What’s in the cards for a United merger?

Passengers miss flight because a Northwest crew wanted donuts
Since when do pilots call the shots on the ground, too? A flight crew convinced a hotel shuttle bus driver to go for donuts instead of heading to the airport, causing other van riders to miss their flight. Full story via Chris Elliott.

Wisconsin Dells loses its Wonder Spot
Ah, the Dells… The klassic kitschy Chicagoland weekend getaway. It has now lost one of its treasures, the gravity-defying Wonder Spot. While Tommy Bartlett’s Thrill Show remains, the Wonder Spot will be missed.

My bag is happy to see you
A “vibrating bag” was discovered unattended at Chicago O’Hare. (It contained a sleep apnea machine, so wipe that smirk off your face!)

I came for the transportation, I stayed for the haircut
Virgin Atlantic hires more in-flight beauty therapists.

Love at first sting
Two separate flights, two separate incidents of scorpions stinging people on a plane. Flight one: Chicago to Burlington, Vermont. Flight two, Miami to Toronto. Forget Samuel L. Jackson. Bring me Klaus Meine!

Singapore Airlines’ new business class… reviewed!
Remember Singapore Airlines’ major upgrade to its business and first class cabins on selected routes? The Global Traveller has sat in the business class seat, and offers his review. Live vicariously.

Charlie Trotter and United Airlines reunited and it feels so good
This is where the cost savings from eliminating pretzels in coach must have gone. United Airlines is jazzing up the food in business and first class. They’re bringing back uber-chef Charlie Trotter, whom they ditched after 9/11. Bet you a bag of savory snack mix that it’ll still taste like airline food… (Thanks to Mark L.!)

Oasis coming to Oakland
Oasis, the Hong Kong based discount airline, famous for it’s $128 tickets to London, is coming to the United States. They’ll start flights from Hong Kong to Oakland in June, with 4x weekly service to start, moving up to daily service in August. No word yet on the fare.

Avoid the TSA by shipping yourself in a crate?
This isn’t living the first class life, but it’s first class by shipping container standards: The Travelbox, a crate designed for shipping a person. Bonus: It has its own running water supply.

Enterprise Rent-a-Car adds hybrid SUVs in California
Enterprise will rent you one of 160 Saturn VUE Green Line SUVs in the Bay Area, LA, or Sacramento. Yes, only California. What, no other parts of the country care about fuel consumption? Hybrids: good. Hybrid CARS, and not just SUVs, would be even better… It’s a start.

American Airlines spurns Expedia
If you’re looking for American Airlines’ international fares or premium cabin fares on Expedia, you’re out of luck. The airline is apparently having a little spat with the online agency, and yanked its fares from the site. We’ll see how long that lasts…

(image)

Have you ever participated in the Clear Registered Traveler Program or any TSA-sponsored registered traveler trials?

If so, a journalist for a major American financial magazine is interested in interviewing you. If interested, click the “contact” link at the top right of the blog, and I’ll forward your note to the reporter.

For years, even through bankruptcy, United resisted the move to take the small things out of the cabin. They kept the blankets, the pillows, the free headphones, and yes, the packs of pretzels or “savory snack mix.”

Say goodbye to the snack mix.

In a pathetic attempt at cost-cutting, the airline is cutting these mini-packets of salty, crunchy goodness on flights less than 759 miles. Not 760, not 750… 759. For example, that means the New York-Chicago route (733 miles) is now pretzel-free.

While pretzels may not be a huge amenity, and anyone can survive a flight without crunching on snacks for 90 minutes, it’s still pathetic.

It’s one of those death-by-a-thousand-cuts moments, like American Airlines’ famous savings of $50,000 by reducing the number of olives in their first-class salads from four to three. In fact, I would have expected this from American Airlines, but United is racing to the bottom more and more every day.

So much for trying to be a premium carrier, United!

Yesterday’s post regarding the TSA’s possible introduction of a 3.5 fluid ounce standard for carry-on liquids yielded a small storm in my e-mail inbox, including a thoroughly disposable form letter response from the TSA itself, encouraging me to check the website. Gee, great. Thanks for that.

But thanks to Benet Wilson, it also yielded this far more helpful response from Amy Kudwa in the TSA’s Office of Public Affairs:

Since the liquid threat was discovered as part of the foiled terror plot in August, TSA has worked very closely with our European partners to harmonize our overall security efforts. As a result, the EU, Canada and several other countries adopted in November a 100 ml standard for liquids. This standard most easily converts to our 3 ounce limit and is readily understood by passengers both in the US and abroad. Our 43,000 TSOs have been trained on this negligible difference and we have not seen any issues with European visitors meeting either standard. (emphasis added)

So the TSA defies the metric system and equates 100 ml with 3 ounces. Close enough for them, good enough for me.

By the way, I was wrong about a minor detail in yesterday’s post: the conversion of 100ml. I had foolishly looked at the label of a European 100ml bottle of shampoo in my bathroom, which incorrectly translated 100ml to 3.2 oz. In fact, 100 ml = 3.38140226 US fluid ounces. Effectively 3.4 ounces.

Carry on!

And they say Americans have a lousy sense of geography… From the home office in Kathmandu:

Royal Nepal Airlines has apologized to Peru after mistakenly using a photo of the Inca ruins of Machu Picchu to promote tourism in Nepal.

Peru’s foreign ministry said in a statement Wednesday the flagship carrier of the Himalayan kingdom, about half way around the world from the Andean country, had put the picture of Peru’s tourism icon, Machu Picchu, on a poster under a slogan “Have you seen Nepal?”

Peruvian mountaineer Ernesto Malaga, who was visiting India last month, noticed the blunder on a poster hanging on a wall in the airline’s office in New Delhi.

(image source)

Discount carrier Air Asia has a new promo: They’re giving away 1 million tickets for flights within the region. It looks like it’s available on most every route right now, including major routes like Bangkok-Singapore.

Of course, taxes come on top of this, but it’s still really cheap. For the BKK-SIN route, I found “free” seats that came to 1450 baht total, or about US$40 roundtrip. Hard to beat.

Click here for the promo page. Book by January 19, fly between April 1 and October 27, 2007.

(image)

Regular readers know that the 3-ounce container restriction on liquids in carry-ons is one of my “favorite” gripes. As a person who hates to check bags, I am regularly irritated when I can’t, say, bring a bottle of wine in my carry-on. (Especially when there are reports of airlines refusing to permit wine in checked luggage, either. But I digress…)

But Bob Rosner’s column at ABC News just confused me even more. He writes:

Remember when we were only allowed three-ounce containers on our carry on bags? Recently that was increased to three-and-a-half ounces, according to a TSA supervisor that I talked to.

Why the increase? Because of complaints by the perfume industry. You can’t make this stuff up.

Huh?? When, exactly, did the TSA’s limit increase to 3.5 ounces per container?

The European Union adopted a standard of 100ml per container recently, which technically comes to 3.2 ounces. Many TSA agents might unofficially look the other way on that one, especially for passengers traveling from Europe to the U.S., but I still wouldn’t want to bank on that.

The TSA’s website doesn’t list any change in the rules, either. 3 ounces is all they list. 3.0000.

I’ve put in a call to the TSA to see if there’s any truth to this 3.5 ounce story, and to ask about official policy regarding 100ml/3.2 ounce bottles. I’ll report back what they say.

In the meantime, I wouldn’t risk carrying 3.5 ounces of anything on board. Unless you’re willing to lose it.

Upgrade your toys! A fully functional radio-controlled model of the Airbus A380, the largest passenger plane in the world.

Like the real deal, this model is really impressive, too: It’s huge — as big as a person. Sure beats the rubber-band-powered wooden planes I had as a kid…

The Supreme Court has refused to consider a challenge by the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s John Gilmore to the unpublished regulation that requires passengers to show identification at airport checkpoints.

Gilmore wanted the secret law to be made public.

Unless the regulations are made public, air travelers have no way to determine if the regulations call for impermissible searches, Gilmore said in court papers. The Justice Department has said that demanding ID protects passengers’ safety.

Frankly, Gilmore’s complaint makes intuitive sense to me, regardless of your views on whether showing identification aids in safety or not. In a democracy, laws should be published, not hidden. How can you argue against that?

By refusing to hear the case.

Related:
- PapersPlease.org: Gilmore v. Gonzales
(image)