In the comments thread of a previous post, Steve Kalman offered this anecdote:

I flew first class to Oslo on [Continental] a few months ago using miles (from Amex). Chief attendant (purser?) came around to all in 1st and asked if anyone had gold or better on another airline. My seatmate had SAS, so he filled out a form and got instant Gold on CO. Seems like a smart move.

Wow, that’s hustle.

Typically, requests for a status match — in which one airline attempts to poach the business of another airline by granting elite status to another airline’s upper-tier frequent flier program member — require the traveler to send in documentation proving their status on another airline. Perhaps the seatmate in this story had his SAS card handy and could be instantly verified by the purser.

Either way, that’s pretty proactive on Continental’s part. I’m curious to hear if any other travelers have witnessed a similar in-flight status matching on any airlines.

A couple weeks ago, Joe Sharkey posted a tale on his blog of a flight attendant requiring passengers to keep their personal belongings out of the seatback pockets. He thought it was an overzealous airline employee. He was wrong.

The original story (that prompted him to do further digging) has strangely disappeared from his BoardingArea blog, but still appears on a (legacy?) blogspot site:

Here’s a new one, at least to me. As we taxied before takeoff on a flight tonight from Denver to Tucson, the flight attendant announced that no personal possessions could be placed in the seat-back pocket, because of “FAA regulations.”

Nothing, she said. Not a pair of eyeglasses or a newspaper or a paperback book. Only “company-printed materials” were allowed in seat-back pockets, she said, and of course I quote her precisely.

What were these strange new “FAA regulations”? My seat-mate — a hard-core business traveler and until then a stranger to me — and I looked at each other. Surely this could not be a new law. But before takeoff, here the flight attendant comes marching down the narrow aisle on inspection, and right away she spots the books each of us had tucked into the pockets, as we had done thousands of times before.

She was on us like a prison guard. “Gentlemen, I told you, nothing in the pockets,” she said. Sheepishly, we put our books in our laps, while the “company-printed materials” (the crappy in-flight magazine, the sales catalog, the barf bag and who knows what else) rode merrily alone in the seat-back pockets.

One does not argue with a flight attendant if one wants to get where one needs to go.

Like Joe, I would have assumed that the flight attendant who was telling passengers that use of the seatback pockets was prohibited was on a power trip. I would have thought the same. Apparently, I would have been wrong, as Joe wrote in yesterday’s NYT column.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that airlines whose flight attendants had been telling passengers that no personal items of any kind could be placed in seatback pockets were “following our guidance, if they are enforcing this with travelers.”

The agency’s response came after numerous inquiries following a flight I made from Denver to Tucson operated by SkyWest Airlines, on which the flight attendant announced before takeoff that, as a safety measure, nothing could be placed in seatback storage pockets — no eyeglasses, no ticket stubs, no iPods or bottles of water or magazines.

What. The. Hell.

I understand the ban on sticking your laptop computer into the seatback pocket. That’s a big item that peeks out of the pocket and can hurt someone if it flies out.

But a book? A sheet of paper? A ticket stub? Have we lost all sense of logic?

If the contents of the pocket are truly dangerous then ban everything. Ban SkyMall catalogs. Ban the safety cards. Ban barf bags (with ads, or with art, or anything on them.) Ban “American Way,” “Hemispheres,” and the (oh-so-creatively titled) “US Airways Magazine.” They’re a threat to your safety! Hide the kids!

For the time being, it doesn’t appear that airlines are actively enforcing this. Most appeared to be unaware of the rule — which originated in a 2007 cabin safety directive put out by the FAA — so for now, it’s still going to be the exception, not the rule, to hear this rule announced. But once is too much. This is just plain stupid.

I’m reminded of Ryanair. The much-maligned Euro-WalMart of the skies, has never had seatback pockets, as a way to save money on cleaning expenses (and restocking those magazines).

Apparently, we are all Ryanair passengers now.

(Thanks to reader Nicole Rowan for drawing the column to my attention!)

(base image)

It’s commonplace to read that airlines will bend over backward for their most loyal customers. There was in fact an article in the NYT this week arguing just that point. But if you waver in your loyalty in any way, or for any reason, you’ll likely see that bending-over-backward ending really quickly. Timely, then, that reader J.R. writes in with a tale of frustration with the policies and practices of frequent flier program elite membership. He wrote to US Airways:

I have been Chairman’s [Preferred, the top tier of elite status on US Airways] for many years. My wife is expecting our first during the fourth quarter and this will stop my travel for a period of about 3-4 months. I am hoping to retain Chairman’s status but am afraid that with the lack of 4th quarter travel, I will come short. Is
it possible to have this waived to continue my status which I have held for many years due to this circumstance? Thank you for the consideration.

Here is the airline’s response:

Mr. ******,
Thank you for contacting US Airways.
We can certainly understand your desire to maintain your status at this level. We do not make exceptions to Preferred levels in fairness to
those who have worked hard to reach the requirements. We encourage you to do all possible to meet the Preferred criteria before the end of the qualification year on December 31st.
We do allow former Chairman’s Preferred members to cover the difference in their Preferred mileage and segments with a purchase option, however, since you are already a Chairman’s Member, you would have to wait until your current Chairman’s membership expires and at that point we would be able to advise the fee to retain your status.
Thank you for your continued patronage of US Airways.
Molly H.
Club Services

By the book, the airline is absolutely right. He’s not meeting the required mileage cutoff for Chairman’s membership. So he doesn’t get it.

Looking forward, though, they’ve shot themselves in the foot with this customer, a top-tier, 100,000-miles-per-year elite flier for 8 years. As J.R. writes, the lack of flexibility feels like betrayal:

Never felt that I got kicked so hard in the teeth after all the revenue I gave them for so long. If they had someone with an MBA or basic business sense enough to do a forward looking cost-benefit analysis, they would likely see things differently. As it turns out, I will be looking for another airline.

So what’s an airline to do? Bend the rules for big money fliers and keep to-the-book to the run-of-the-mill traveler? Doesn’t seem fair to the lower-tier traveler.

The real solution is to keep some flexibility in an elite scheme. One way to ensure that, in my opinion, is multi-year membership. Lufthansa does this: Top-tier “HON Circle” membership in their Miles & More program is measured based on 600,000 miles (!) earned over two years. Low earnings in one year can be made up in the second.

Alternatively, much like “rollover minutes” on wireless plans, airlines could allow miles over a tier cutoff to go toward the next year. (Delta recently introduced this.) It may mean more top-tier elites than now, which could mean a battle for upgrades. But recognizing longevity of loyalty, and not just short-term loyalty, could still pay off for the airline.

But what do you think? Does J.R. deserve some flexibility after eight years of loyalty? Is US Airways being stupid, or fair, in denying his request? What’s the best way to keep rewarding long-term loyalty without harming your business?

Take the poll, and hit the comments.

 Loading ...

(Reading this via a feed reader or otherwise can’t vote in the poll? Click here to visit the site to vote and leave comments.)

Downgraded: Checked bags on international American Airlines flights
British Airways was the first to do this, but American Airlines wasn’t far behind: Many AA economy-class ticket-holders will no longer have an allowance of two checked bags on international flights. For those who buy tickets to Belgium, England, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Spain, or Switzerland on or after September 14, 2009, the first bag remains free (or, perhaps more accurately, included in the cost of the ticket). However, the second bag, which used to be included free, will now cost $50, up to 50 lbs. A list of exceptions applies, including full-fare tickets, elite AAdvantage and oneworld members, military personnel and dependents, and, interestingly, those traveling on codeshare-issued tickets.

Upgraded: Biofuel at airports
It’s not quite biofuel in the jets, but it’s a great start: Eight airlines will start using biofuels to power their ground equipment at LAX.

Downgraded: All-you-can-fly fares
JetBlue, which rolled out a $599 all-you-can-fly ticket two weeks ago, ended sales early. “While supplies last” meant they didn’t last.

Downgraded: United Breaks Guitars, episode 2
The original “United Breaks Guitars” video was a delight, a catchy tune that lambasted the airline for treating a customer poorly. The sequel, while cute, lacks the magic. It does, however, feature tubas.

Upgraded, I guess: Squeezing a couple bucks out of Hotwire
Hotwire has settled a class action lawsuit that charged that the company didn’t properly notify consumers of the fees and taxes charged for hotel reservations. If you made a hotel reservation on Hotwire between January 10, 2001 and May 2, 2005, you are likely entitled to either cash refunds or Hotwire credits. The Hotwire credit is significantly more lucrative, if you’re a Hotwire user anyway. See here for details, if you didn’t get an e-mail from the plaintiff’s attorneys (if you’re wondering, they got customer e-mail addresses from Hotwire…)

Downgraded, as if it was possible: Ryanair
Just when you think the airline couldn’t go any lower, Ryanair charges a fee to collect your lost-and-found. Even if you’re a nine-year old girl who lost her purse. It’s comical really: Ryanair will take candy from a baby, literally.

Pity the poor hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut… They can’t use the American Express Centurion (a.k.a. the Amex Black Card) to pay for their airport parking at the White Plains Airport (HPN) in Westchester…

But the Visa Black Card is a-ok?…

Any theories on why the Amex Black is banned at HPN airport parking? Hit the comments!

(Photo excerpted from a larger image; thanks to Dr. Vino for snapping the pic!)

Related:
- Is Visa’s new Black Card worthy of the hype?
- How can I upgrade flights using American Express?
- In defense of reward-earning credit cards

Renting a car with Hertz? You may soon notice them photographing your car, right before you ride off the lot, and upon return. Hertz has been testing the feature, and is rolling it out more widely.

The photo system is part of a broader plan to use technology to increase efficiency and improve customer service, [Hertz Chairman and CEO] Frissora said. The equipment produces a high-resolution, digital photograph of the rental car, and will compare before and after pictures for differences, Frissora said. Hertz employees currently walk around the vehicle and mark any damage on a form, which the customer signs.

“There will be no discussion because the document would clearly show any incremental damage,” Frissora said. “This keeps customers from being placed in a confrontational position and saves time.”

The Park Ridge, New Jersey-based company’s customers would sign a waiver acknowledging the process and be billed for any damage, Frissora said. Hertz is testing the technology at a location at an airport in the northeastern U.S., he said.

“There will be no discussion” seems a little brusque, but I get the point. Why debate the condition of the car when there’s photographic evidence?

Here’s hoping that the camera won’t lie. E-mailing a copy to the customer — both at the start and the finish of the rental — might be a low-cost way to ensure that the company is being an honest broker.

Dishonest rental locations have commonly tried to milk extra bucks out of customers by billing them for previously-existing damage to the vehicle. (For the paranoid, it’s always been a good idea to take photos of your rental car before you drive it off the lot, though I admit it’s something I’ve never done…)

But interestingly, the company suggests that it’s the one who’s going to come out ahead. Hertz says it’s been letting too many dents and dings slide, for a loss of $170 million, and that the photo system will catch these dings, leading to greater earnings.

Which worries me. Yes, the system SHOULD be win-win, by keeping both the agency and the customer honest. But $170 million is a lot of dings and scratches. Will the system start calling birdpoop dents?

Photos or no photos, don’t let your guard down.