I had to check the calendar, to make sure it’s not April 1st. Headline: Pay toilets in the sky. And the fact that Ryanair, the airline that’s too cheap to install windowshades on its planes, is the one floating this story… It almost makes it believable. Almost.

Irish carrier Ryanair, Europe’s largest budget airline, might start charging passengers for using the restroom while flying, chief executive Michael O’Leary said on Friday.

“One thing we have looked at in the past and are looking at again is the possibility of maybe putting a coin slot on the toilet door so that people might actually have to spend a pound (USD$1.43) to spend a penny in future,” he told BBC television.

I don’t buy it. It’s too droll to be real, even for O’Leary, and it’s likely just a publicity stunt in the “all press is good press” school of thought.

Frankly, I’d love to see Ryanair try this, but that’s just because I have too much dignity to be a Ryanair passenger. How far can they really take the a-la-carte model?

If they really implemented pay toilets, there would eventually be one passenger who really had to go, but refused to pay. Hijinks and dry cleaning would ensue. The tabloid media would have a field day. Pass the popcorn!

So go for it, Ryanair! I dare you!

(Thanks to Anjeeta in the comments for pointing me toward this one!)

(image)

The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is waging war on hotels near DC hotels. The reason: Airports feel they’re losing parking and taxi/shuttle revenue to hotels that serve them. The real loser: Hotel guests, especially if the Washington Airports plan succeeds, serving as a model for other airports around the country.

Some area hotels may begin charging guests for airport shuttle service if a proposed Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority fee proposal becomes a reality.

The authority will hold two public hearings next month on a proposal to adopt, “with the full force and effect of law,” a requirement that area hotels pay a $2.50 fee every time a hotel shuttle picks up passengers at Ronald Reagan National or Washington Dulles International airports.

The fee is a broadside attack on “park, sleep and fly” packages:

The report claims that some local hotels advertise packages that provide complimentary parking for up to 14 days to guests who stay as little as one night at a hotel.

It names packages offered by the Dulles Marriott, Holiday Inn and Hampton Inn as examples.

“In effect, by offering competitive off-airport parking and providing courtesy service to the airport’s primary curbs, local hotels are diverting a portion of revenue that would otherwise be received by the Airports Authority through either the public-parking operation or taxicabs’ services,” the report states.

If the airports have their way, they’ll start collecting a fee from the hotel every time the van passes ’round. Which could translate either into higher rates — right when hotels are facing a crunch, and dropping rates just to keep occupancy up — or into add-on fees for use of the shuttle.

Downgraded: Cocktails as tourist marketing
Thailand’s tourist managers have concocted a mixed drink to personify the spirit of the nation, or so they claim in their heavy-handed marketing blitz. A “Siam Sunrays” cocktail “consists of a shot of vodka, coconut liqueur, a dash of chili pepper and sugar, lime juice, a few slivers of lemongrass and ginger — shaken not stirred, then strained into a glass — with ice and soda water.” Do they really think that a drink — or many, many drinks — will make us forget the hassles of days-long airport closures and monarchist rioting? Apparently so: “Successful signature drinks are one way to fast-track holiday destinations onto the world tourism map,” according to the Tourism Authority of Thailand and the Thai Hotels Association. And the “shaken, not stirred” instructions will make every tourist feel like a secret agent!

Upgraded: Your Starwood points
Every year, hotels rejigger their point redemption structure. For years, the changes have generally been bad for the customer, but not this year. Starwood has released their category changes, and many hotels are moving down a notch. It’s not because they’re now roach motels: It’s because they’ve got a lot of empty rooms. Take advantage.

Downgraded: Your job, or your seat
ESPN sports commentator Stacey Dales opted to quit her job, rather than fly in coach, as would have been required under new network rules. Hard-freakin’-core. Since Ms. Dales is a former WNBA player, I immediately assumed that her height had something to do with the matter. But Wikipedia has her at “only” 6 feet tall — about my height — and I’ve braved many an economy seat and lived to tell the tale. Good luck finding an employer who provides you with the extra legroom and hot nuts, Stacey! (That sounds dirty. Really, it’s not.) To be fair, the issue was equity: Apparently some of her colleagues were flying first, and she wasn’t. (Via, via.)

Downgraded: United flight attendant’s respect for the passengers
United flight attendants on a recent Chicago-to-Denver flight announced, in conversation with the cockpit, that it was time to serve “drinks to the idiots in coach.” Somehow, the conversation was broadcast on the inflight audio’s channel 9 (which I love), normally limited to conversations between pilots and air traffic control. When made aware of the public nature of their insult, the flight attendants didn’t apologize. Stay classy!

Upgraded: Recycling
If airlines are downsizing their fleets, then we might see more of these in the future: Airplane wing desks!

When the “Open Skies” treaty was signed between the United States and the European Union, the most immediate change was that airlines from both sides of the pond could fly internationally into many more airports. A French airline could fly from London to Los Angeles. A British airline could fly from New York to Amsterdam. And a number of American airlines could fly into London-Heathrow, which had previously been tightly limited to a small oligopoly.

But the treaty wasn’t supposed to end with a few new routes across the Atlantic. European airlines in particular are hoping to move into the North American market in a way they’ve never been allowed to before.

The Europeans are prepared to lobby vigorously for the part of Open Skies they see as far more crucial: relaxed ownership rules. In 2010, a year that will likely inflict further financial stress on a global airline industry struggling under recession, expect a new push to soften the 25% cap the U.S. imposes on foreign investment in airlines. It’s no secret to anyone that among the developed world’s airlines, U.S. carriers are the unfortunate, pitied cousins, their service and finances both in shocking disrepair. Most U.S. airline executives would welcome a strong financial partner, or the ability to sell out to one of them. And Europeans want greater access to fly domestic U.S. routes and to acquire airlines here.

But those who are salivating at the prospect of an Air France or Lufthansa flying into Toledo or Raleigh, wipe the spittle off your chin and stop dreaming. It’s not happening. Especially with this guy in a position of power:

In the U.S., Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, reaffirmed his support for tightening foreign-ownership restrictions by inserting protectionist language in legislation to reauthorize FAA funding.
[...]
Labor has also cultivated a warm relationship with Oberstar and has voiced support for his tougher language on control.

Capt. John Prater, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, said, “ALPA strongly backs language in the bill affirming that U.S. citizens must control key operational aspects of U.S. airlines. This bill does that by identifying fleet composition, route selection, pricing and labor relations as among the operational elements that the Department of Transportation must ensure U.S. citizens control.”

Oberstar’s language would require U.S. citizens to “control all matters pertaining to the business and structure of the air carrier, including operational matters such as marketing, branding, fleet composition, route selection, pricing and labor relations.”

I understand that the airline industry is critical for the movement of goods and services in the country. And as such, the government takes a special interest in its ownership. But the 25% limit on ownership is overly restrictive, and actually hurts American airlines’ access to global capital.

Oberstar’s efforts to add conditions to expanded ownership will make US airlines less attractive to foreign investors. That’s intentional. And it’s dumb. Short-term it “protects” the companies from control by outsiders, but long-term it makes these American companies — already a laughing stock in the global marketplace — increasingly irrelevant.

Frankly, I don’t think most passengers care much, one way or the other, who owns the airline they’re flying. JetBlue is 19% owned by Lufthansa; does that make you more or less likely to fly them? How about Virgin America, whose nationality is perpetually being challenged, with its high-quality inflight product?

So, as much as I’d enjoy the prospect of a high-quality international carrier coming in and serving domestic cities, it’s not going to happen. And it looks increasingly unlikely that American carriers will get to partner with stronger international partners. And that, in particular, is a shame.

Oh, Ryanair! There’s nothing about air travel that you won’t consider eliminating! Up next: the airport check-in counter.

European budget airline Ryanair wants to do away with airport check-in desks by the end of the year, saying most of its customers already check in online.

Passengers would still be able to leave their luggage at a baggage drop but everything else could be done over the Web, Ryanair Holdings PLC said Saturday.

“Ultimately, we want just one in five people to check in luggage,” Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary was quoted as saying in The Daily Telegraph newspaper.

Clearly, Ryanair doesn’t want you to check bags. Ever.

They’re already fighting hard to keep you from bringing your luggage. Remember that Ryanair already charges an airport check-in fee, as well as luggage fees that make American carriers’ luggage fees seem downright cheap. The maximum combined weight of all bags on Ryanair is 15 kg, or 33 lbs. (The US standard is 50 lbs. or 22.7 kg per bag.)

Ryanair charges £9.50 for the first bag and £19.00 for each additional bag, regardless of weight. Plus for every kilogram over 15 in your total baggage weight, Ryanair charges an extra £14. And these rates assume you booked on the airline’s website… if you booked elsewhere, double the base rate. These fees add up. Fast.

But apparently those prices aren’t sufficient disincentive. If check-in counters are such an attractive nuisance, what’s next? Maybe we should get rid of terminals entirely?

(image)

Drink up that can of coffee, water, or ginger ale, and leave your money tucked away, champ!

US Airways has figured out that the bad press it received for being the only major U.S. airline to charge for soft drinks wasn’t worth the revenue it collected for coffee, water, and soda. So it’s no longer charging the soft drink fee, effective Saturday.

Not to mention the fact that clever passengers were getting around the fee by paying with $20 bills…

No wonder US Airways flight attendants released this statement:

“Flight attendants are safety professionals first and foremost,” [Mike Flores, president of the US Airways' unit of the Association of Flight Attendants] said. “This decision by the company will help return us to that status rather than being salespeople in the aisle of the airplane.”

This gives Southwest one less piece of ammunition with which to relentlessly mock the competition.

It’s a small gesture, and a minor but nonetheless appreciated act of restoring dignity to air travel. So thanks for bringing it back, US Airways.

(image)

Upgraded: Pilot air rage
Downgraded: 37 people’s on-time travel
Sure, it’s amusing that a pilot got so frustrated at having to pass through security at London City Airport that he pulled down his pants, exposed himself completely, and demanded, “‘Do you want to search THIS?” But if I were one of the 37 passengers waiting to fly to Zurich, I might be a little ticked that someone got all high and mighty at the prospect of being searched at an airport. Yeah, it’s security theater. We all have to do it. Get in line, skipper.

Upgraded: Continental (gasp!) removes fees from the OnePass program
Continental, which is joining Star Alliance (and leaving SkyTeam) as of its first flights on October 25, is going against the grain and (gasp!) removing fees and restrictions from frequent flyer tickets in their OnePass program. Gary Leff points to a FlyerTalk thread, in which a Continental representative spills the beans. Changes made to frequent flyer tickets, if initiated 21+ days before the start of travel, will be free as long as the departure and destination are the same. Now, if only you could actually get tickets at the SaverPass level…

Upgraded: JetBlue cuts a break to the unemployed
It started in Europe, now it’s hit North America: If you lose your job, JetBlue will give you a refund.

Upgraded: Bump scheduling
Downgraded: Bump compensation
Air Canada will let you put yourself on the bump list in advance, in case a flight is overbooked, but in terms of cash, it’s a lousy deal. At best, they’ll let you earn up to $57 CAD or USD per one-way flight, including connections. That’s at least half of what you’d be getting if you were bumped at the gate. the tradeoff: You get to choose your alternate flight in advance. Maybe that works for you. They’re upgrading the options, but downgrading the payment. (via Cranky)

A couple of weeks ago, Sean O’Neill of Budget Travel pinged me with some news of more hybrid rental cars hitting the lots: Enterprise was adding 5000 hybrids to its fleet (totaling 7000 nationally), and sister company Alamo/National was bumping their hybrid fleet to 2000 vehicles.

Agencies are reporting more and more hybrids on their lots. But this growth story is being countered by reader reports that they weren’t able to actually rent the hybrid they reserved. Reader Steve reported that his reservation for a hybrid (at Hertz) was substituted for a different class when he showed up at the airports (two separate airports in California).

Then Tyler Colman of Dr. Vino, when renting from Fox Rent A Car at Oakland Airport, was told that hybrids were being cut back at the company “because the transmissions kept dying at 30,000 miles.” Hmm. Seems fishy.

I asked for comment from Fox Rent-a-Car, to see if this was actually a company-wide decision, or if this was just a big talker at the front desk. I still await their response.

Transmissions or not, the deck is stacked against hybrids in rental fleets, given the way rental cars are actually purchased. Sean’s post sums it up well:

Why are there so few hybrid rentals? I posed that question to Neil Abrams, president of the rental car consulting and research firm Abrams Consulting. He explained that rental car companies do not have an advantage with volume pricing buying power. Hybrids are so popular that car dealerships can get bigger margins selling directly to retail customers instead of rental car companies. Meanwhile, automakers are willing to offload lots of standard engine cars and below-market prices to rental car companies— to clear their inventories. So a rental car company can buy (to pick a random example) a Mercury Sable for, say, roughly $12,000. They can rent it for a year. Then they can re-sell it as a used car, and make money off the resale. This is far more profitable to them than buying a hybrid car, which might cost $20,000. They’ll have to charge far higher daily rates to customers to try to recoup the cost. But in an era of under-$2-a-gallon gas, not enough customers may rent the hybrids at the premium prices.

Indeed. And that’s more likely the better explanation for hybrid shortages at California airports. In this climate, it’s frankly surprising that any rental car company is adding hybrids to the fleet, period.

Enterprise’s expansion of the hybrid supply is unlikely an act of altruism. Perhaps they’re making a bet on the future direction of fuel prices. Let’s just hope the transmissions hold up.

(image)

It was a goofy idea when it was first proposed and mocked on this blog, in one of its earliest posts, in February 2006. But the idea isn’t going away: A luxury hotel on an abandoned oil rig.

The idea was first floated (ooh… no pun intended) by Mohamed al Fayed, Britain’s retail kingpin, but late last year, he gave up on the dream:

It was hoped the oil rig visitor centre, which was to include an upmarket hotel and restaurant, could provide a massive boost to the local tourism industry by attracting 500,000 people a year to the area.

And hopes were high that the project could go ahead when, in February 2006, former Race chief executive Maitland Hyslop confirmed that he had located a suitable oil rig.
[...]
There has been no news on the oil-rig proposal since then, and Balnagown estate manager Martin Lynch yesterday admitted they were no longer “actively pursuing it”.

“We haven’t totally given up on it, but it’s on the back burner on a very low setting,” said Mr Lynch.

“The whole programme was founded on the donation of an oil rig, and I think that, in the current climate, is highly unlikely,” said Mr Lynch.

A for-profit lodging business founded on the idea of a donation? Why on earth wouldn’t that work…

(In an ironic twist, Fayed found oil on the grounds of his (landlocked) estate. At least he has a rig of his own.)

But this goofy idea is still bobbing on the high seas, gasping for air, if in the hands of another firm. Morris Architects of Los Angeles has won the award for “Radical Innovation in Hospitality” for their oil rig hotel design. The prefab building units would be shipped to decommissioned rigs, which would be reinvented as offshore resorts. The architects are clearly using the artificial islands of Dubai as an inspiration here.

I still don’t get the appeal. On the one hand, it’s not that different from a cruise ship — you’re essentially trapped on a buoy offshore — but at least a cruise ship goes to interesting and pretty places. The oil rig doesn’t strike me as the place to be.

I suppose there could be an offshore gambling component to this, or a way to transact business in international waters. Any other ideas? And is this a vacation you’d actually want?

Air Canada baffles me. They have been very innovative (for better or worse) in pushing the a-la-carte model of airfare, but when presented with some seemingly simple opportunities to collect a few bucks, they decline.

What I’m talking about is day passes to their Maple Leaf Lounge in Toronto. With a nearly six hour layover in Toronto on a trip later this year, I was checking my options for lounges or other time-wasters at the airport. My Star Alliance status, which used to get me into airport lounges on all international flights, isn’t what it used to be. My recently-demoted (and “lowly”) silver status won’t get you into a lounge on an international economy ticket.

Air Canada sells day passes to its Maple Leaf Lounge, but only during the ticket purchase process. When you book a flight in their “Tango Plus” or “Latitude” fare levels within North America, or at the fully-refundable “Latitude Plus” fare level when traveling internationally, you can add a lounge day pass to your ticket cost for $25 to 40 (CAD).

But since our flights were Star Alliance tickets booked with frequent flyer miles, I inquired about the possibility of day passes after ticket purchase. The agent informed me that this wasn’t possible: I could neither buy passes in advance over the phone or via the web, nor could I buy a day pass at the lounge. Why not? “They’re just not sold that way.”

The airline, in other words, is willing to put procedure ahead of profit.

If it were just an effort to keep up the velvet rope and limit access to the lounges, then they wouldn’t be selling the passes to rather low-fare Tango Plus North American customers. So clearly they’re willing to allow for buy-ins.

If it were a technology problem, I could understand, too. And in fact, that’s part of the issue, since our tickets weren’t bought online, so there was no opportunity to buy passes online. But that doesn’t explain why it’s impossible to buy a pass at the gate.

That’s really what I don’t understand: Why wouldn’t the lounge sell day passes at the door? That way, the lounge attendants are given discretion, and can gauge whether or not there’s space available, to prevent overcrowding. Instead, it’s an inconsistent policy that allows people on some cheap fares to buy their way in, but not others.

Instead, I’m eying a third-party lounge at Toronto Pearson Airport, the Plaza Premium lounge that opened on November 1, 2008. They’re open to all, at a cost of $35 CAD per person. I’m not hung up on sitting in a lounge for five hours, either, so if readers have any suggestions on how to pass the time at YYZ, the comments, as always, are open.

(image)