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!

The voting phase for the 2007 Travvies is now closed.

Thanks to everyone for voting! Results will be announced tomorrow, so be sure to check back.

(The voting page may remain up for a few hours, but votes are date-stamped, so late ballots won’t be counted.)

Downgraded: Virgin America, Upgraded: Someone else
Poor Virgin America. They want to fly, really they do, but the US government won’t let them. But while the airline waits for a decision, they’ve been forced to lease out their spankin’ new planes to other airlines. It’s the equivalent of going downtown to the pawn shop and cashing in your newly bought plasma TV, just days after you showed it off to all your friends. But this means that other airlines are benefiting from Virgin’s misery. Word on the street says it’s Skybus, the startup airline that wants to rock Columbus, Ohio like a hurricane.

Downgraded: PIA
PIA, aka Pakistan International Airlines, will apparently be slapped by the European Union. The airline’s safety record is so spotty that only their seven newest planes will be allowed to land in the EU. Comforting.

Upgraded: Cruises, highbrow and low
Cruise lines are finally getting into the loyalty program game. I guess they wanted to wait 25 years to see if this whole frequent flyer miles thing was going to work out. Don’t plan to do any mileage runs on a cruise ship anytime soon. While the points don’t expire, they generally measure days at sea. On Silversea Cruises, for example, you need to cruise for 250 days before you can cash in for a free week on the high seas. Ouch.

At the other end of the spectrum, the NYT’s budget traveler, Matt Gross, spent some time on the EasyCruise ship, a hybrid of Ryanair, Carnival Cruises, and MTV’s “Real World.” He manages to express affection for the experience, despite being stuck on a ship with dozens of hard-partying kids looking to put the “easy” back into EasyCruise. Call me an old fart: A floating party hostel may be your speed, but it’s not mine anymore.

Downgraded: Paper tickets
Trees rejoice: Northwest Airlines is planning to eliminate paper tickets entirely. They won’t even be an option. Only 0.1% of their customers used them. The paper ticket is largely an anachronism today, but it still has its place, especially during irregular operations, when airlines can sign over a paper ticket to another carrier. Despite network integration, it’s still harder to do that for an e-ticket.

(image)

Just a quick reminder: The last day to vote for your favorites in the 2007 Travvies is tomorrow, Wednesday, February 28. The polls close at 6pm central time — votes cast after that time won’t be counted.

Best of luck to all the finalists, and thanks to everyone for the many votes that have already been cast!

Chris Elliott slams a decision by the United States District Court in Newark, NJ, which ruled that car rental companies are within their rights to charge $5.99 per gallon of gas, if you fail to return the car at the specified fuel level.

I’m not as riled up by this as Chris. I think the markup is absurd, of course, but it’s no more ridiculous than any other late charge. (Consider the difference between the hourly rate and daily rate for late returns. That’s pretty remarkable, too.)

As much as I advocate for consumer rights, it’s the customer’s job to bring the car back with gas, so I don’t have a big problem with these penalty fees.

And besides, the fees are limited by the size of the gas tank. The greater your laziness, the greater your bill.

But if we’re going to talk about gasoline and rental cars, let’s have at it:
What ticks me off more is when the car rental attendants are too lazy to actually fill the tank from the last lazy customer before handing the vehicle off to the me.

Getting a car with the fuel level hovering somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 is a major pet peeve of mine. And the rental agent’s quip of “Oh, just bring it back at that level” ? That doesn’t cut it.

As I’ve said before, it’s nearly impossible to approximate the proper gas level if it’s not full when you start. If you’re trying to be a good citizen, and trying to avoid the gouging fees of $5.99/gallon gas, you’ll always end up over-filling, thereby giving the company a gift of a gallon or two. And that’s not acceptable. I want a car with a full fuel tank, so I can return it full, without pulling out a calculator.

So how about this: Any car rental company that charges double the market rate for gasoline agrees to actually fill the tank for the next customer? Deal? Don’t make us come after you with a renters’ bill of rights!

(By the way, I realize that my European readers, in particular, may be guffawing at my insistence that $5.99 for a gallon of gasoline is expensive. So yes, yes, I know, Americans have cheap fuel, compared to the rest of the world.)

Related:
- Low mileage, high surcharges

(image)

Ed Perkins points to the deceitful but unfortunately effective practice of insurance upselling by front-desk employees at car rental agencies.

Agents told [customers] that although their [credit] cards covered damage to the vehicle, they didn’t cover the additional “loss of use” fee the car company would collect for the rental revenue lost while a damaged car was out of service. That statement is a flat-out lie.

Loss of use is included in the CDW (collision damage waiver) provision of credit card coverage. If your card has rental car insurance built in, then you should be fine. (Check your card’s fine print to see if you have the coverage in the first place, of course. If you don’t have the rules governing your card’s benefits, call your bank and have them send it. If you don’t have the coverage, get a card that does.)

This “loss of use” story is a sales pitch I’ve gotten before at the time of rental, most memorably and insistently from a desk agent at Advantage Rent-a-Car at the Phoenix airport. I’ll never forget that guy. He kept telling me over and over again how much Advantage charges for “loss of use,” and how neither my own auto insurance nor my credit card would cover it. It was his aggressive hard-sell, and the snotty attitude he copped after I declined his coverage again and again, which cemented my policy to never rent from Advantage ever again.

Bottom line: Never trust a car rental agent to tell you what your existing insurance covers. Not when they try to tell you about the insurance provided by a credit card, and not when they try to tell you about your own policy.

(image)

If you’re an elite member of a frequent flyer program and you’re looking for a status match at United, you may have a window of opportunity, thanks to the sad demise of Brazil’s Varig. Even if you’re not a traveler to Brazil, this might benefit you.

Varig went bankrupt and lost its membership the Star Alliance, so other Star Alliance members are jockeying to pick up the elite frequent flyers in the now-defunct Varig “Smiles” program. The Star Alliance webpage lists the different status match programs that are available to Smiles members until April 30, 2007. Air Canada, Lufthansa, South African, Swiss, and TAP are all granting status matches to Varig’s elites.

BUT: United goes one further. Their rules doesn’t specify that the status match is only open to Varig flyers, either on the Star Alliance site or on their own page. So this is where it gets interesting.

The offer on the United page reads:

We are pleased to offer you the opportunity to participate in our elite status match promotion, offering top-tier flyers with other airlines an equivalent* status in the Mileage Plus elite program. This offer is valid for status matches received between January 22 and April 30, 2007.

Emphasis added. No mention of Varig, though the address and fax number for sending in the documentation are in Brazil. (The asterisk in the quote above indicates that they will match to Premier or Premier Executive, but not to Premier Executive 1K.)

Worth a shot, and a fax to Sao Paulo.

Related:
- Debating the value of elite status

(via MilesLink)

A group of Chicago’s aldermen (the local name for city council members) is proposing a bill that would block airlines from landing at O’Hare or Midway airports if they fail to have a passengers’ bill of rights in place. Pass the popcorn.

As a resident of Chicago, I really have to snicker at this kind of story, with a simultaneous sense of city pride and shame. This is the city council that, when its members aren’t being indicted, hasn’t shied away from making headlines with laws banning foie gras and a minimum wage aimed only at big-box stores.

But sometimes this is how things actually get done. In a federalist system, it’s sometimes slow, difficult, or impossible to change the rules nationally, for better or worse. Sometimes, large states (or groups of states) take matters into their own hands.

Take California’s rules regarding vehicle emissions. To fight smog, the state’s regulators mandated tougher emissions rules for carmakers; the size of California’s market was large enough that automakers implemented California emissions nationally. David Vogel, in his book Trading Up(aff), calls this “the California effect” or the “race to the top.”

A similar example might be the Texas school board’s power over the writing of textbooks. Because Texas is one of the largest states, and has a board wielding great power over which texts can be used in classrooms, publishers edit their books for Texas’ standards. Because it’s too costly to have different editions in different states, Texas has a huge role in defining curricula nationally.

Alderman Ed Burke believes in the California effect and apparently thinks that Chicago has similar influence. “O’Hare is the busiest airport in the nation. No airline is going to not want to do business in the city of Chicago.” Indeed, it’s hard to imagine airlines pulling out of Chicago en masse if a PBOR were required. This could get interesting.

The Chicago proposal isn’t yet officially proposed, and it sounds like it’s really more of an idea they’re kicking around at this point, rather than a full-fledged bill. No word yet on what the minimum requirements for a bill of rights would need to be, or if international and domestic flights would be treated equally.

It’s certainly a bit of grandstanding. (There’s an election this coming Tuesday, after all.) And while the city owns the airports, can they legally block an airline for such a reason? And finally, if PBOR bills up for review in Congress actually move forward in committee, it might be moot. But it’s certain to make the airlines sweat.

Like I said: Pass the popcorn.

(Hat tip to Rob at the Airline Hub for the link!)

I was guest blogging earlier today over at the Consumerist. Nice to be invited back ! (I had the pleasure of blogging there once before, back in September last year.) Thanks to Ben and Meg for letting me sit in.

Here’s are some of the posts that went up today. Many are related to travel. Shocking!

- Can’t Drive 55? Find Out Where to Slow Down
- Recharge Your Batteries For Free At Airports
- Will More Fuel Efficient Cars Lead To Cheaper Beer?
- Howto: Get Your Name Off The No-Fly List
- Point/Counterpoint: JetBlue’s Apology Isn’t Enough

Rent an iPod inflight, catch up on Sabado Gigante
Here’s an airline that’s thinking outside the box: For about $5, Mexican discount airline Volaris will rent you an iPod loaded with Mexican TV shows and popular music. (American sitcoms y musica gringa coming soon.)

If Seinfeld ran an airport
Airport food is notoriously overpriced, but at least there’s food available, which is more than you can say for the departing planes. The latest entrant into the in-terminal dining segment: Cereality, the restaurant chain devoted entirely to cereal. Benet Wilson reports that a mini-version of the chain with limited selection opened at Newark Airport. A full-fledged restaurant, with 40 cereals and 40 toppings, opens at Chicago O’Hare (terminal 1, concourse B) soon. The idea is brilliant: Near-universally-liked food, HUGE profit margins.

Very superstitious, writing on the tail
Brussels Airlines’ logo consists of 13 dots that create a “B.” Superstitious passengers refuse to fly with the airline because of that number. Airline adding a 14th dot. Oy.

View the Opryland Glacier from your riverboat cruise ship?
Much like Nepal tourist advertising recently pictured photos that were actually in Peru, Tennessee’s promo materials were discovered to feature photos of mountain bikers in Alaska. Maybe Elvis is alive and well and living in Kodiak.

(image)

The judges’ decisions are in, and it’s time to announce the finalists, introduce the judges, and start the voting!

First off, I’d like to thank everyone for getting into the spirit of things and making so many great nominations. Speaking purely for myself, I discovered a great number of sites that I had never read before, and that I’ll be sure to add to my feed reader.

Second, HUGE thanks to the judges for reviewing all these sites and selecting their favorites. I’m sure you’ll join me in thanking them for generously donating their time and effort. Their names and backgrounds are revealed later in this post.

Voting begins immediately and runs for one week, through 6pm, Central Standard Time, February 28, 2007. You may cast your ballot by clicking here. One ballot per person, so please make all selections before hitting “submit.” Please note that the finalists’ names on the ballot are links which will open to a new window. The order of finalists is randomized on every ballot, so no site has top billing every time.

Without further ado, here are your finalists. Congratulations again to all finalists, and best of luck!

FINALISTS: BEST TRAVEL BLOG
Brave New Traveler
Girl Solo in Arabia
Gridskipper
National Geographic Inside Traveler
Newyorkology

FINALISTS: BEST DESTINATION BLOG
Europe String
JohnnyJet
Let’s Visit Asia
Newyorkology
Yucatan Living

FINALISTS: BEST INFORMATIVE/PRACTICAL TRAVEL BLOG
Cheapest Destinations Blog
The Cranky Flier
The Perrin Post
Today in Travel
View From the Wing

FINALISTS: BEST GROUP-WRITTEN TRAVEL BLOG
Brave New Traveler
Gridskipper
Lost Girls’ World
TripHub Group Trip Advisor
Vagablogging

FINALISTS: BEST SINGLE-AUTHOR TRAVEL BLOG
AdventureGirl
The Cranky Flier
Flight Level 390
Killing Batteries
Travel Sweeps

FINALISTS: BEST PHOTOGRAPHY ON A TRAVEL BLOG
Exposed Planet
Flight Level 390
Life Vicarious
Michael Simon on the Road
Notes From the Road

I’d like to extend a huge thanks to the judges, whose task was by no means an easy one. Here they are, in alphabetical order:

John Brownlee is a writer for Wired.com and editor of the Table of Malcontents blog, a wonder closet of ephemera spotlighting the fringe of art and culture on the web. After spending most of his youth backpacking through dozens of countries, he has a bone to pick with Rick Steves. He lives in Dublin.

Matthew Daimler is the Founder and CEO of SeatGuru.com. SeatGuru is an award winning travel website which provides information about airline seating and amenities to over 30,000 visitors each day. Matthew is a frequent travel blog reader and is honored to participate as a judge in the first annual Travvies.

Henry Harteveldt is vice president and principal analyst for travel research at Forrester Research. He analyzes and projects how consumer and business adoption of new technologies will impact the sale and purchase of travel services. Television, radio, and print media regularly consult him for comment on industry and consumer trends. His previous work includes senior positions at GetThere, Fairmont Hotels, The Trump Organization, Continental Airlines, TWA, and CKS Partners.

Darryl Jenkins is currently a professor at the Ohio State University. Previously, he was at George Washington University for fifteen years and served as director of the Aviation Institute. He is the author of several books on airline economics, and is a regular commentator on U.S. television. He is a Virginian Country Gentleman, living in Fauquier County, where he is also the county’s largest raspberry grower.

Michele McDonald is editor and publisher of Travel Technology Update, an industry newsletter that is read by executives of online travel companies, industry suppliers, global distribution systems, investment analysts and technology companies that are involved in electronic travel distribution. She also is a contributing writer for Air Transport World. She has covered the travel industry for more than 25 years. Previously, she was editor of Travel Distribution Report and managing editor of Travel Weekly.

Michael Miller is a founding partner of The Velocity Group, a Washington D.C.-based aviation consulting firm specializing in airline and aircraft consulting, strategic communications, economic forecasting, business analysis, aircraft and network analysis and other areas of aviation. Previously, he was the Editor-in-Chief of Aviation Daily, the largest daily publication in the airline business. He regularly appears in television and print media as an expert on airlines, aviation, safety, and international issues.

First off, I’d like to officially declare that I’m tired of the jetBlue story. But it remains the belle of the ball, if by “ball” we mean “e-mail inbox.” Buckle up.

For starters: Late last week, I solicited reader opinions on whether or not the passengers’ bill of rights would become law. This was before the jetBlue fiasco went from a small number of planes stuck on the ground to a multi-day festival of flight cancellations. There were some interesting long-form responses in there, which I’ll address in another post, but the summary:

69% of you predicted that, yes, a passengers’ bill of rights would become law, while 31% said no.

Thanks for all the votes. Follow-up soon. To the mailbag:

The jetBlue ground delays stemmed in large part from the fact that the planes backed away from the jetway, even though they weren’t going to take off. Reader Stephanie writes:

I’ve noticed more and more often that planes are pushing away from the gate on time, and then sitting on the ground for up to an hour, hour and a half before leaving. They then call the flight “on time”… Is this the latest thing airlines are doing to get past saying their flights are late?

For the most part, yes, leaving the gate means the plane has departed on time. But the government’s statistics measure arrival, so a flight that leaves the gate early but doesn’t go anywhere won’t be considered on-time if it arrives late.

Leaving the gate isn’t done to cheat the customer, per se. (The airlines DO pad the flight time a lot, though, making it easier for them to meet a very relaxed “on-time” standard.) Rather, the hurry-up-and-wait policy 1) lets the ground crew meet their on-time departure targets (quotas?), when their job performance is being considered, and 2) opens up the gate for another plane to arrive.

I usually fly in and out of O’Hare, and arriving to find an “occupied gate” is unfortunately very common. I’m generally more annoyed by waiting to deplane than waiting to take off, but I’m sure others feel differently.

Reader Paul writes:

Now that JetBlue has a BOR, do you think that’s enough to stop Congress from debating a bill?

No. I don’t. Three main reasons. 1) It’s only jetBlue. No other airline has a similar policy. Until the others do, the pressure will remain on. 2) JetBlue’s policy doesn’t cover all the issues that most proposals for a PBOR do. It’s just about delays. 3) It doesn’t have sufficient teeth.

Yesterday, I suggested that the loopholes in the policy were large enough to taxi an Airbus A320 through. (”Controllable Irregularity.”) And vouchers are just glorified coupons, and a rather insincere form of “payment.” If you ever look at a supermarket coupon’s fine print, they usually list a cash value that’s well below the face value (e.g., 1/100th of a cent). Same principle here.

Others have pointed out further flaws of the jetBlue plan.

Bottom line, jetBlue’s policy is an okay conversation starter, but it’s not the final word.

Reader Steven writes:

What do you think about Mike Boyd’s commentary that all the journalists (and bloggers?) who call for a bill-of-rights are idiots?

Well, I’ll respectfully disagree. He has a lot of opinions. So do I. If he wants to consider a reasoned set of arguments for an increased set of passenger rights as the impassioned plea of “nitwit consumerist gadflies,” then let him. I think he’s far too dismissive of the actual problems that are endemic to the airline industry. It’s not just one or two flights. It’s the policies and practices that allow such things to happen.

Sure, some politicians are grandstanding now, but that’s just what they do. At the end of the day, the policy that results is what matters.

Reader S A asks:

A PBOR’s rights sound great, but how would a PBOR be enforced?

I assume a claim would be filed with the airline. Yes, passing a bill of rights will create hassles for the airlines, the airports, and everyone in between, as they point fingers, pointing out whom to blame. I initially felt that a PBOR would be difficult to implement for precisely such reasons. But as commenter Oliver pointed out, that would be the airline’s problem, not yours. If a regulation exists that mandates a minimum threshold of service, then it should be up to the airline to meet that threshold, if necessary by putting pressure on vendors, airports, and regulatory bodies to make sure it happens.

JetBlue makes it official. The “customer bill of rights” they pre-announced a few days ago is now policy, and (importantly) will be incorporated into the contract of carriage. I’ve only been able to give this a quick once-over (busy day, full of meetings) so my reactions are preliminary, but my first instinct is: “So what?”

I mean, great, they’re admitting they screwed up, and it’s good that a “bill of rights” is incorporated into the contract of carriage, giving it legal heft, but in times of long delays, they’re just giving you vouchers for future flights, not cash back.

Vouchers are not a “payment” — the term reporters used to describe Neeleman’s promises on Sunday — in my book.

(A potential exception: involuntary denied boardings resulting from overbookings “shall receive $1000.” Sounds like cash. Accept no substitutes. Insist on 10 Benjamins.)

The policy still leaves plenty of room for the airline to escape its liability for those vouchers. The magic phrase: “Controllable irregularity.” That sounds like anything remotely weather-related could be called “uncontrollable,” even if human error turned a small delay into a big one.

JetBlue’s 3-minute official announcement of some of their policy changes — but not the specifics of their delay/voucher scheme — is below, for your viewing pleasure. The official policy for delays is here (pdf).

I’ve got a bunch of mail from readers on this and similar issues, which I’ll try to get to later tonight. Stay tuned.

For now, though, what do you think? Is jetBlue’s new policy enough?

Click the YouTube box to watch: