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!

Downgraded: New York aviation landmarks
There are a handful of routes where pilots use land markers to guide their approach for landing. New York’s LaGuardia is one of them, and they’re about to lose a key marker: Shea Stadium, the home of the Mets, is being demolished. The use of these physical markers, seen from the sky, is kind of quaint. I recall flying into LaGuardia (on a different approach path) and listening to Channel 9 on United (which lets you listen in on the cockpit conversations with the tower). The tower’s instructions were something like “Turn left at the Statue of Liberty and fly up the river.” Awesome.

Downgraded: Flights to Pakistan
A note to any passengers flying to Pakistan: British Airways has indefinitely canceled its flights to Islamabad, in the wake of the Marriott hotel bombing. BA’s FAQ page for passengers with flights to Pakistan is here. Joe Brancatelli suggests that travelers to the region avoid US and UK airlines and hotels, and consider companies that cater to Japanese travelers instead.

Upgraded: Elite lines at American Airlines… and Southwest
American Airlines is rolling out the red carpets for their elite frequent flyers. Literally. Starting September 30, at select airports, you’ll find check-in lines, security lines, and boarding lines. (Before anyone gets upset: The TSA doesn’t control the security lines, the airports and airlines do. See here for a defense of the process.) I’m not frequently on board AA planes, so I’m not an elite with them. But I’m shocked that this isn’t already out there for AA flyers. Other airlines have been doing this for years. Years! More shocking, though also, not entirely: Southwest is rolling out elite lines, too.

Upgraded: Continental, caving, brings back the 500-mile minimum
An anonymous commenter brought it up early, and it’s since confirmed: Continental is reversing itself and granting passengers a minimum of 500 frequent flyer miles on flights under that distance.

Watching the stock market today hasn’t put me much in the mindset for some light-hearted after-hours travel blogging. But it’s got me thinking:

A few months ago, despite signs of a nasty downturn and increasingly negative economic forecasting, no one I knew was having their business travel curtailed. Personal travel was being cut back — hard — but not business travel.

I’m wondering — and asking you, the reader — if that’s changed in recent weeks. I had lunch with friends and former coworkers from my previous employer today, and they informed me that belt-tightening was in full effect. On the chopping block: travel. Conferences, conventions, and training were all getting cut.

If you’re seeing it at your own job, what’s taking the hit? Accommodation quality? Driving, flying, or both? Your flexibility in choosing carriers and providers? Travel, period?

Employees of Lehman, AIG, and Washington Mutual, I can guess what you’ll be saying…

Incidentally, cutbacks are a two-way street. In some instances, companies who have reduced their spend have been unable to keep their contracted rates.

Anyway, hit the poll, and tell your story in the comments. Is your travel being cut back? How? What’s the word?

(Trouble with the poll, or reading this in a feed reader? Try again here.)

European travelers who have gotten accustomed to traveling to the US without a visa might need to pay closer attention to the negotiations between the Bush administration and the European Union:

American anti-terror chiefs are threatening to withdraw the Visa Waiver Scheme for British and European tourists unless the EU signs an agreement on the new measures before Christmas.

Under the US Homeland Security scheme, all travellers – including children – without a visa must fill out a detailed online questionnaire about their health and criminal history at least three days before departure.

Travellers are currently required to answer similar questions by filling in forms on board transatlantic flights, which are handed to immigration officials when they land.

But from January 12 next year, the Department of Homeland Security wants this information in advance to check its blacklists for terrorists or anyone considered ‘undesirable’.

The system, the Electronic System of Travel Authorization, is already operational on a voluntary basis. (Gluttons for punishment can test drive it here if you really, really want.)

Travelers who actually do use the new system now will be in for a surprise if they show up at the border without a filled-out I-94 form. As this report indicates, the US Customs and Border Service currently collects volunteers’ data, and makes it look like travelers are avoiding an additional step by participating in the online process, but in reality, they’ll still need to fill out the paper forms anyway. Delightful.

So the U.S. government is spreading confusion by offering conflicting and redundant processes for international visitors. And to what end? Have you seen the questions that the form actually asks? For the most part, they’re laughable. Take a look what our governments asks the citizens of the world:

“Moral turpitude”? How very specific, and not at all relativistic.

Thankfully, this procedure keeps drug-using, diseased, terrorist Nazi ex-con kidnappers looking for work out of the United States. At least, it keeps the scrupulously honest ones, who fill out the form, out.

Why would anyone — even a guilty party — answer “yes” to any of these questions? Do these forms actually catch anyone? And if they’re genuinely threatening people, what’s more important: Keeping them out of the country, or catching them at the border?

At the end of the day, the federal government is willing to tick off thousands of international visitors (and their currency, I might add) over a stricter enforcement of these Mickey Mouse questions. And I don’t mean the Disney-organized pro-customer service PR blitz. What would the mouse think?

Paging Uri Geller! The TSA, always looking to transcend the continuities of the physical world, will soon seek clairvoyance by electronic means, with a new device designed to read emotions:

The device, dubbed MALINTENT by inventors, uses sophisticated sensors to read body temperature, heart rate and respiration.

Analysed together, these factors can lead security services to potential terrorists.

Any suspects are pulled aside for questioning and then subjected to a second scan, which involve micro-facial scanning.

This equipment is able to read minute muscle movements which give further indications of criminal intent.

So far it can recognise seven primary emotions and emotional clues and will eventually have equipment which can analyse body movement, an eye scanner and a pheromone-reader.

More importantly, developers have programmed it to recognise the difference between someone who is simply stressed and a potential terrorist.

But there have already been concerns that the equipment is overly invasive and breaches people’s privacy.

We’ll have to hear more about this. Judging people’s emotions is a big part of successful law enforcement, but having a computer do it makes me a little leery. Has the science of measuring guilt gotten so advanced that this is an acceptable technology? What’s the false positive rate? Will we see such a device stand up in a courtroom?

But look to this as the justification for a rollout:

Inventors also claim it will slash queuing times at airports - and bring an end to a ban on liquids.

Watch the TSA gloss over any civil rights worries by promoting the speed and expediency arguments. (And then require slow secondary screenings and liquid prohibitions anyway, just because.)

Stay tuned…

Screenshot of what the “mind reader” output looks like below:

(image, modified to obnoxious heights with blingee)

For many, the promise of air taxi service on microjets (a.k.a. VLJs or very light jets) was the ultimate upgrade. Air taxis would offer point-to-point service, circumventing the hassle of major airports and their security apparatuses. Plus, they’d be similar to private jets — albeit typically without onboard restrooms.

But despite the convenience of point-to-point flying, the business model may not take off as planned. The past week was particularly bad for Eclipse Aviation, arguably the leader in the manufacture of microjets.

For starters, a scandal erupted over the FAA’s certification of Eclipse’s jets. There have been numerous safety concerns with the newly-launched jet, such as “avionics software issues; the lack of a drainage system for the pitot-static system, which made it subject to clogging from ice; intermittent false stall warnings; blanking or freezing of the cockpit displays; and flaps sticking in position.” Yikes.

Click here for a thorough discussion of Congressional concerns. It’s quite disconcerting. And no, there’s no discussion of the lack of onboard restrooms, which, to me, is disconcerting as well. The company’s rebuttal is here (pdf).

Then, DayJet, the largest operator of Eclipse jets closed up shop. The company had been actively flying the VLJs since October 2007, but as of September 19, 2008, their website looks like so many other failed airlines’. The typical “We’re sorry…” and blaming a lack of financing for the need shut down.

So, does this mean that VLJ service is dead? Not quite yet, but it’s certainly on the ropes. Safety concerns, insolvent carriers, and (of course) the high price of fuel. As much as commercial air travel sucks these days, the air taxi market has a steep hill to climb right now.

Maybe having restrooms would help?

Remember when the airlines banded together to encourage customers to help them lobby Congress to ban “speculation,” i.e., hedging, or futures contracts, in the oil market? Well, obviously some of these airlines know how to play the market better than others. Case in point:

At the conference, Delta Air Lines Inc. president and chief financial officer Ed Bastian told investors that Delta should report a third-quarter gain from its fuel hedging activities. That contrasts with UAL Corp., parent of United Airlines Inc., which warned Wednesday that it will record noncash hedging losses of more than $500 million as it records the drop in the market value of its hedges.

A-ha. That helps explain why United is raising fees even in the midst of dropping oil prices. Brilliant. They mess up their investments, but they penalize the customer and blame the oil market. Spin, spin, spin.

So where’s the bailout for the airlines that lost money?

I’m only half-kidding. Given what’s happened in the last week in our financial markets, I would be dismayed, but unfortunately not surprised, if United (or other airlines that are hemorrhaging cash) would come to the US Treasury, hat in hand, asking to be relieved of their debts and obligations.

While they’re at it, why not shut down the oil futures market, like they were lobbying for a few weeks ago?

The taxpayer would be on the hook for another $700 billion blank check of good money chasing after bad. After all what’s another currency-crushing socialization of corporate losses that saddles future generations with unimaginable debts, when you’re already knee-deep bailing out your corporate friends?

Related:
- Oil is lower. Will airline fees be dropped?
- Airlines, unable to manage risk, scapegoat oil markets
- United, addicted to oil excuse, raises checked bag fee

Carbon footprint measurers take note: Chicago O’Hare is taking steps to reduce the fuel burned by aircraft while they’re still on the ground.

It’s a worthy target: The jet fuel spent by commercial aircraft when taxiing can run in the hundreds of gallons if the plane idles long enough. For every minute the plane isn’t in the air, but the engines are on, it’s essentially wasted energy. That’s a lot of carbon — and a lot of money. Enter the entrepreneurs:

[Executives at UST Aviation Services, the company providing towing services at O’Hare,] think they have a better idea and hope the airlines will let the firm do the driving between O’Hare passenger terminals and maintenance hangars. [emphasis added]

UST has purchased a high-speed push tractor that lifts a plane’s nose gear off the tarmac and tows the jet with the plane’s engines off.

The German-made tractor burns less than a half-gallon of diesel fuel per minute, compared with almost 6 gallons of the more expensive jet fuel that a 757 burns each minute while taxiing, said Mayank Tripathi, president of UST.

This is similar to something Richard Branson was pitching to Chicago and other airports a couple years ago. But Branson wanted planes towed from the gate to the runway. Gate-to-runway towing is unfortunately laden with risk of delays. The fuel savings only actually happen if the plane is able to take off immediately. If there’s a line-up, you need a huge army of tugs (which isn’t economical) or the plane has to fire up the engines to inch forward, which negates any carbon benefit.

Towing a plane to the hangar isn’t nearly as impactful as towing to the runway would be, but still, it’s a good step!

(image)

The photo shown to jurors in the liquid-bomber trial, picturing the apparent bomb-making ingredients

The Economist has an article in the current issue on the recent trial of the so-called liquid bombers — a trial that has widely been described as a failure for government prosecutors. The trial was a mess. While three were convicted of conspiracy to murder, this was not technically a conviction on the charge of attempting to blow up planes. Additionally, four suspects were acquitted.

Putting aside the trial itself (though the failure to convict potentially punches holes in the size of the threat that our governments have been touting…), the Economist report includes a quote that caught my attention (emphasis added):

With airlines demanding the end of restrictions on carrying liquids in hand luggage, British prosecutors said they would apply for a retrial of seven of the men, alleging that they all “conspired to detonate improvised explosive devices on transatlantic passenger aircraft”.

If airlines are actually demanding the reinstatement of sensible carrying-on of liquids, then I’d like to hear about it. This is the first I’ve heard of this. I’ll put in a call to some airlines to see if they’ll actually go on record to say they’re pushing to allow liquids through security again. (In the US, it might hurt their in-flight catering sales…)

But in the meantime, may I remind you that other countries, such as Japan, already have liquid bomb testers? Maybe the more important question is why other countries, including the US, still don’t.

Related:
- Two years later, and still no liquid bomb detectors in US or EU airports
- Vengeful passengers fight back against buy-on-board water and soda
- Airport Security: TSA Re-Allows Lighters on Board; Non-Flammable Water Still a Threat to Safety

United raised the fee for its second checked bag from $25 to $50 today. Their war on customers continues apace.

As I’ve argued before, having the first checked bag free and the second $50, as Delta does, makes sense to me. It acknowledges the plight of the traveler who occasionally has to check a bag, but it’s only punitive if you’re a heavy packer. This new policy, is just plain gouge-tastic.

And, insulting passenger intelligence as well as wallets, the company blames the price of fuel. Oil, notably, has dropped from nearly $150 to below $100 per barrel. (Granted, refined oil products saw prices skyrocketing these past days after Hurricane Ike shut down Gulf of Mexico area refiners, but this was widely reported as a temporary blip.) Volatility alone is not sufficient reason to charge more, especially when the base commodity’s price is in decline.

From the release:

In a challenging economic environment where fuel prices continue to be volatile and are more than 50 percent higher than last year, United is increasing the service fee to check a second bag on a domestic flight from $25 to $50 one way. These changes apply to customers who purchase a ticket on or after Sept. 16, 2008, for travel within the U.S. and to/from Canada, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands on or after Nov. 10, 2008.

The service fee does not apply to customers who are flying in United First or United Business, have Premier status with United or Star Alliance, or active duty military personnel traveling on orders. United estimates that the $50 service fee will apply to one out of seven customers.

(image)

It’s come to this:

A Quebec businessman whose name is one of the many that have erroneously landed on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s flight passenger watch list has decided to change his name to avoid lengthy security hassles at the airport.

Mario Labbé, an executive with a Montreal-based record company, says his Canadian passport triggers a red alert on the computers of U.S. customs agents every time he tries to board a flight to the U.S. — which is about once a month for the past seven years.

“I was pulled aside in a room … and you have to wait your turn to finally be released,” Labbé said. “An hour, an hour and a half, two hours, whatever it is after. Once I was caught in Miami like that for six hours.
[…]
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security wrote a letter to Labbé in 2004, saying he had been placed on their watch list after falling victim to identity theft. At the time, the department said there was no way for his name to be removed.

Although Labbé wrote letters to the U.S. department, his efforts were in vain, prompting him to legally change his name.

“So now, my official name is François Mario Labbé,” he said.
[…]
Although it’s not a big change from Mario Labbé, he said it’s been enough to foil the U.S. customs computers.

(emphasis added)

There’s no way a terrorist would change their name to avoid scrutiny is there?… Nahhhhh…

Proving once again that name identification is a pointless exercise in airport-level security screening.

Related:
- Blame Canada? U.S. no-fly lists (and their errors) travel north
- No ID at security: Fast-track to a government “list”? Either way, why are we bothering?
- Your laptop is a suitcase: How the U.S. government is searching computers, phones, and other electronics at the border

Take heart: Even the “golden age” of aviation had its detractors. Take, for example, this 1970s-era clip of Tim Conway, the late Harvey Korman, and Carol Burnett, with Conway sitting in the “no-frills” section behind regular coach.

United’s stock briefly sinks to a penny on accidental republication of 2002 bankruptcy article
Some folks with sell stops got taken to the cleaners yesterday, and someone with a low-ball limit order made a ton of cash. (Not me, alas. For the record, I haven’t invested in any airline stocks, long or short, except for a brief dalliance in 1998.) Shares of UAL Corp. went from $12.16 to $0.01 when a 2002 Chicago Tribune article with the headline “United Files For Bankruptcy” appeared today. With today’s date. Oops. Perhaps we can find a way to blame fuel prices for the error.

Elite beggars staying at five star hotels
A sweep of Abu Dhabi for beggars during the month of Ramadan has found some particularly successful panhandlers staying at some of the city’s top hotels. Clearly, if they’re making the kind of bank that puts them in the Ritz, I’m doing something wrong. Maybe I should have put in that limit order to buy UAUA at a penny.

Boston fires up the juice
Benet Wilson, who admits that she travels with a power strip, reports that Boston’s Logan International Airport has added 520 power outlets and 520 USB ports under terminal seats and tables for you to charge your electronics. The juice isn’t everywhere yet, but you’ll find it at Terminals A, C and E and near Gate 37 in Terminal B. And yes, the airport is looking for companies to sponsor the power outlets, so the juice stays on and free.

But the car already HAD Bondo on it when I rented it!
You gotta appreciate the renter’s moxie here:

The blue Ford Focus left the lot back in June. The renter paid every 30 days until the middle of August. Rental Manager Brittany Aldrich reported it stolen Tuesday and the car showed up the next day damaged, to say the least. But the damage had been “fixed” by the renter, with Bondo and blue spray paint.

Fuel surcharges CAN be reversed
Air France/KLM and El Al are doing the unthinkable: They’re rolling back the fuel surcharges that they tacked on weeks ago. So is Singapore Airlines. Now that oil has slid back, closer to $100 than to $150, the charges were no longer justified. Could you see that sort of thing happening among U.S. airlines? Neither can I. Hmm, that brings us to…

Continental adds a fee for the first checked bag, worsens OnePass program
Citing higher fuel costs, cough cough, Continental has added a $15 fee for those checking their first bag, eliminated the 500-frequent-flyer-mile minimum, reduced elite bonuses, and raised the mileage cost for frequent flyer ticket redemptions on certain routes. What a surprise.