In the U.S., airlines don’t typically charge a fee for using a credit or debit card to purchase a ticket. (Allegiant is an exception, by charging a $14.99 “convenience fee” for online bookings with credit card payment. Other U.S. airlines have tried, but failed thusfar.)

In Europe, a credit card fee is more of a norm. But Ryanair, which has been charging a fee for years, was just slapped down by the German courts for charging the fee:

Germany’s federal court of justice found yesterday that Ryanair placed consumers at a “disproportionate disadvantage” by offering no way to pay for flights without incurring a fee.

“By charging the fee is shifting in a one-sided manner on to customers the costs of fulfilling its own legal obligations … without bringing any service in return,” said the court, a practice at odds with German law.

The case against Ryanair was brought by Germany’s leading consumer organisation. It complained about the fee, which ranges from €1.50 to €4 per flight and passenger.

By not accepting cash payments, it argued, Ryanair offered customers no opportunity to pay for flights without paying extra.

I can understand the motivation behind this fee: Merchants accepting credit cards give up a piece of each transaction to the credit card processing bank. (The percentage varies according to card brand and total transaction size.) But there are rules to which merchants are required to adhere. I couldn’t find a European merchant agreement. But in the US, for example: “Visa merchants are not permitted to establish minimum transaction amounts, even on sale items. They also are not permitted to charge a surcharge fee when you use your Visa card.”

It will be interesting to see if other European countries see similar cases. Credit card fees aren’t limited to Germany, after all.

The UK Met Office has launched a website to help travelers — or just the curious — keep track of the spread of the volcano ash cloud.

The site maps the predicted spread of the ash cloud, and details the areas where travel will most likely be halted or reduced, for five days out. Here’s a sample:

The site assumes continuous eruption at the same rate, which is, of course, a big assumption.

This might be useful for those making last-minute plans to or within Europe, but it won’t help you any more than five days out.

Now if only we could get Chicago’s meteorologist extraordinaire Tom Skilling, who refuses to restrain himself to the analysis of Midwest weather patterns, to weigh in…

(Via Musings of the Global Traveller)

Bonus: Gratuitous video of bubbling lava below. Yes, I know, the problem with the Icelandic volcano is dust clouds, not lava. But dagnabbit, I have a space in my heart for lava.

Downgraded: Ryanair paying its fines
Ryanair is appealing a 3 million euro fine levied against it by Italian regulators, for failing to meet obligations to passengers during the first round of the Icelandic volcano delay fiasco. You may recall that Ryanair has argued that the EU rules requiring airlines to compensate passengers for delays and cancellations are tilted too far in the consumer’s favor.

Downgraded: Volcano scams
For those who really have had their travel plans affected by the volcano, be aware that there is a scam afoot that seeks to bilk you out of your money. Spam e-mails suggest that passengers are eligible for a substantial claim if they file an application fee with the British Civil Aviation Authority. Of course, the site is bogus, and the money goes to a scammer. Avoid.

Downgraded: Spirit Airlines
Spirit Airlines pilots are threatening to strike, and now the company is threatening to lay off up to 1583 of its 2300 employees. It’s an oddly precise number. The pilots’ union has taken their fight with management public, by purchasing billboards warning customers not to book with Spirit.

Upgraded: Fuel efficient aircraft design
MIT scientists are working on an aircraft design for NASA that would burn 70% less fuel than current-generation Boeing 737s, emit 75% less nitrous oxide, be quieter, and take off from shorter runways. A design is being floated:

In today’s commercial airplanes, air flows directly into the engines located on the plane’s wings. That undisturbed, high-speed air flow drags on the plane, and requires more fuel to overcome the design inefficiency.

MIT’s design changes all that. By moving the engines to the plane’s tail, they take in slower moving air present in the wake of the fuselage. Less drag means less fuel is needed to get the plane the same distance.

I love some good hypocrisy: The airlines are complaining that fees “would raise travel costs, thereby harming both consumers and the travel/tourism industry.”

But they’re not talking about baggage fees, overhead bin fees, ticket change fees, blanket fees, online etc. The’re talking about a proposed increase of up to $2.50 in passenger facility charges (PFCs), which fund airport infrastructure.

Charlie Leocha sums up the hypocrisy:

At the same time airlines are decrying the increase in the PFC they are raising their baggage fees, instituting seat reservation fees and charging for carry-on luggage. The airlines have also found ways to reduce the air transportation excise tax revenues through their unbundling of airfares.

(You can read the entire letter, signed by CEOs of 10 U.S. airlines here.)

The hypocrisy is delicious. And, it’s potentially the kind of phrasing that can turn around and bite these airlines in the butt. Seriously, who is doing the PR for these folks? If you just replace the word “taxes” in their letter and replace it with “seat reservation fee” or “checked baggage fee,” you’ve got a ready-made argument for why the airlines’ fees are hurting America. And if I were a Congressman, I’d throw this language back in their faces.

It’s pretty common knowledge that you don’t want to joke about bombs or weapons at the airport security checkpoint. Or that it’s a bad idea to phone in a bomb threat, because you’re running late and you want to hold the plane. (It’s happened.) But now we can add another lesson to the list: Don’t make sarcastic jokes about blowing up airports on Twitter.

A fellow named Paul Chambers was frustrated with the heavy snows that closed Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood Airport (great name). He was getting concerned that the delays would ground his own flight one week later. So he hit Twitter with the following comment:

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!

Dumb? Misguided? Foolish? Clueless? Self-indulgent? All of the above?

No matter what you call it, the British police found it less than charming, and paid Mr. Chambers a visit. He was arrested for making a bomb threat. They confiscated his laptop, phone, and desktop hard drive. And now, he’s been convicted for the lesser (but still serious) charge of section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, for sending an “indecent, obscene or menacing” message. He was not only convicted, harming his career as an accounting, but he had to pay a £385 fine, a £15 “victims’ surcharge,” and another £600 in legal fees. Ouch.

A judge argued that the comment was “of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live.” But now, Twitter is full of further menacing messages tagged #twitterjoketrial as a show of solidarity and protest.

I feel bad for the guy. Yes, he was being stupid, “in the context of the times in which we live,” but he wasn’t really threatening anyone. Now, having joked about blowing up an airport, he’s not only a convicted criminal, he’s probably on the no-fly list.

So, is an unfunny joke on Twitter grounds for trial? Is a lame expression of frustration reason for the security apparatus to crack down? Hit the comments!

Remember Clear, the company that promised faster trips through select airports’ security in exchange a background check, your biometric data, and around $200 a year? It, and several of its competitors, went bankrupt in summer 2009, stranding about 200,000 passengers who had prepaid for memberships that were worthless overnight. Well: They’re baaaaaaaack.

So far, two firms are getting into the Registered Traveler game:

• the derivatively-named Alclear, which purchased the assets of the original Verified Identity Pass/Clear out of bankruptcy, including the Clear website. There are no locations yet.
• iQueue, which has beaten Alclear to the punch by actually launching its first location — at the Indianapolis Airport.

If you were a Clear member before, the remaining time on your membership will be restored under (al)Clear. If you join iQueue (which costs $149/year), former Clear members get 6 months free.

iQueue is trying to sweeten the deal by proposing value-added services, beyond airport security, as a benefit:

including preferred parking, airport club access and airport retail discounts as well as local restaurant, golf, spa, tennis, health club, mortgage and auto lease/purchase discounts. A future iQueue Platinum Membership level will also include identity theft protection and enhanced travel insurance as well as worldwide travel assistance, medical services, lounge access and concierge services.

The devil is in the details — club access may be promising — but I’m not sure these benefits are worth the price of admission. It almost like they’re throwing in an Entertainment book. Big deal.

I was never a fan of this the first time around. I’m still not. Yes, airport security sucks, but the market niche that this appeals to is so narrow: Travelers who would be willing to pay for a shorter line tend to be frequent fliers. And those frequent fliers are likely be elite members of their frequent flier program, which, in turn, would grant them access to shorter lines at major airports.

The availability of these lines at airports isn’t impressive, either. At this point, though it’s admittedly really early in the rebirth, it’s all about Indianapolis. (Really??) At its pre-bankruptcy heyday, Clear had 18 cities. Hardly comprehensive, either.

It was a concept without a core customer base when it launched the first time. It appears it’s still that way.

Your mileage may vary, of course, and if you’re a fan of Clear, I’d love to hear about it, but speaking for myself, I won’t be spending any money on either of these programs.

Related:
- Clear / Verified Identity Pass shuts down
- Do airlines’ most frequent flyers deserve shorter security lines?
- Would you pay a fee to reserve a time to pass through airport security?