Downgraded: Hilton hotels in Venezuela
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has nationalized another Hilton-managed property, this one on Margarita Island. It looks like the 154 timeshare owners are out of luck. And yet, the hotel is still in the Hilton system, and maintains the Hilton branding. Huh?!

Downgraded: Hotel reviews… for libel
TripAdvisor contributors, take note: If you’re writing a scathing review of a small Australian hotel or inn, you may find yourself the defendant in a libel suit. Companies with fewer than 10 employees are legally less restricted in suing for libel than larger firms, apparently. But the best defense for libel remains the truth.

Downgraded: USA Today
USA Today’s circulation took a 17% hit, and Gannett’s management placed the blame on a decline in travel. Those papers that show up in front of the hotel door sure do add up!

Downgraded: Pilots’ holsters
Remember the pilot who discharged his pistol in the cockpit and shot a hole through the fuselage, in-flight? He’s been permitted to fly again, 18 months after being fired by US Airways for the incident. In his defense, “the Department of Homeland Security faulted the design of holsters used by pilots who carry their weapons on board planes. The department’s inspector general said the design increased the chance of accidental discharge when pilots inserted their guns in the holsters.” But why a pilot needs a holstered sidearm — behind a locked cockpit door — in the first place isn’t clear to me. The pilot is no longer allowed to carry a weapon aboard.

Upgraded: Peep shows for UK airport security
The US isn’t the only country installing full-body through-the-clothes scanners at airports. The UK is doing so as well. Yes, the systems are designed to show hidden weapons. But “the full body scans will also show up breast enlargements, body piercings and a clear black-and-white outline of passengers’ genitals.” Black-and-white nude silhouettes are already visible to security personnel at Manchester Airport. Passengers have the right opt out of that screen and choose a more traditional scan instead.

Downgraded: Glib descriptions of getting upgrades
Upgraded: Smackdowns
Gary Leff and I got the same e-mail from the folks at TripBase, promoting a post on their blog describing how to “almost always” get upgrades. The post is yet another piece of upgrade disinformation, perpetuating mythologies that may have once held sway but no longer mean anything in today’s airline environment. Gary has a fantastic point-by-point takedown of the piece.

Downgraded: Delta’s SkyMiles
It’s not coming as a surprise, but Delta has added a third tier to its frequent flyer program. I have expected this since last year, when Delta eliminated the “last seat availability” clause and added restrictions to its “SkyChoice” tier of frequent flyer tickets. (Previously, if you were willing to pay about double the miles, and if a seat were still for sale on your desired flight, you’d be guaranteed the opportunity to buy it. Much like full-fare tickets.) Now you have to pay TRIPLE the miles for the “last seat availability.” Bad enough. But there’s insult added to this injury. We know that miles are being devalued, and we understand that airlines are trying to make a buck (by screwing their most loyal customers, ahem), but it’s disingenuous when the airline says it’s giving travelers “more choice” or “flexibility,” when in reality that flexibility was taken away and then replaced at higher prices. I’m in complete agreement with Jared Blank on this one: Delta is pissing on us and telling us it’s raining.

Bonus: Since you’re going to need more miles, why not get some for very little effort, and have a story to tell your friends over a beer? Via Gary Leff, get 20,000 Delta miles by getting a free hair loss restoration consultation. Even if you’re a hirsute Adonis with a flowing mane (or, for the sake of equality, it seems, even if you’ve got the Crystal Gayle look), you’re eligible.

Downgraded: Standby on Frontier
Frontier has eliminated the complimentary standby policy and has moved to a Southwest-style model. You can still get on an earlier flight, but you’ll have to pay the difference between the ticket you’re holding and the walkup fare for the desired flight. If you’re on a full-fare ticket, then rock on. But walkups are most likely far more than what you’re holding. (Hat tip to Dan Webb.)

Bonus: A decent summary of most major US airlines’ standby policies, as of July 3, is here. (via FlightWisdom)

Upgraded: OpenSkies dumps economy, plans flights to Amsterdam
OpenSkies to fly JFK-AMS
British Airways’ new subsidiary OpenSkies just announced a new route from New York to Amsterdam, adding to their New York-Paris flights. At the same time, after only flying for a few weeks now, they’re giving up on their economy cabin, making the Boeing 757s a split between premium economy (using a version of the old BA biz class seats) and true lie-flat business class.

Downgraded: Le génie de Jerry Lewis
Jerry Lewis carried a gun in his carry-on luggage at Las Vegas’ McCarran Airport. Some confusion arose over whether the gun was a prop or not. Either way, stupid.

Upgraded: Google Maps adds walking directions
I just stumbled across this, in looking for directions within Boston: Google Maps now features walking directions, and not just driving directions. Of course, this only makes sense if you’re in a walkable city, and it’s not rolled out everywhere yet, but it’s a good start.

Downgraded: United
United is taking its pilots to court, accusing them of sick-outs and work slowdowns. I’m in no position to judge the validity of the charges, but this sort of acrimony isn’t exactly the kind of thing a person making travel plans wants to see. Flying is undependable enough, especially in summer, and no one needs another layer of uncertainty. If you had the choice between United and any other airline, and you saw that the pilots and management were swiping at each other, with “work stoppage” and “sick-out” being tossed around, how comfortable would you be booking with United?

(image)

Irony is clearly not dead. On the one hand, we travelers are perpetually being told about all the restrictions that are in place to protect us. We take off our shoes. We pull the laptop out of its case. We toss out the beverage. We have our stuff searched and scanned. And even though a lack of identification never blew up a plane, we’re required to show the TSA our papers.

We’re told that the TSA is there to protect us. Their dapper new uniforms, first modeled last year, but recently rolled out in airports across America, are designed to make them look like real cops, to make us feel safer. (Real cops, on the other hand, aren’t happy with the new outfits.) Again, you’re being sold the feeling of safety.

But now, a gun rights group is taking advantage of a recent decision by Georgia’s state legislature to relax the restrictions on concealed weapons by suing the Atlanta-Hartsfield Airport in an effort to allow licensed citizens to pack heat in the airport. Does that make anyone other than the gun-carrier feel safe?

A Georgia gun rights group filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Atlanta on Tuesday after airport officials said they would continue to enforce a ban on concealed weapons in the terminal despite the changes to the state law. The changes, which were approved by the Georgia legislature in the spring and took effect on Tuesday, relax the state’s prohibition on carrying weapons on public transportation and in some other areas, including restaurants serving alcohol.

Benjamin R. DeCosta, the airport director, said the changes applied only to public transportation like buses and the city subway and were not intended to allow people to carry guns at the airport. He said allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons in the terminal, which serves millions of travelers each year, would pose severe problems for the police and airport security workers.

Not to mention that it would undermine the entire TSA security apparatus and all it stands for. And while I am no fan of the TSA, I’m less of a fan of walking around public spaces surrounded by people carrying loaded firearms.

“Only in America,” European readers are muttering right now, as they rebook their flights to avoid changing planes in Atlanta.

Related:
- Packing heat: Ensure your checked luggage arrives safely by packing firearms
- Feeling safe? Armed pilot discharges pistol in cockpit

(image)

After 9/11, there was a debate over whether pilots should be trained in small firearms and permitted (or required) to carry a pistol in the cockpit. From the get-go, I objected. I felt that the risks of firearms exceeded their benefit, especially if the Federal Air Marshals program already had armed law enforcement officers on board.

The risk of an accidental discharge, or worse, a pilot with less-than-honorable purposes, makes guns in the cockpit a substantial risk. And now it’s happened: A US Airways pilot discharged his weapon during approach to Charlotte.

What on earth was the pilot doing with his pistol during the approach? Shouldn’t he have been working on landing the plane? And why wasn’t his weapon holstered, with the safety on? What were they doing up there, talking about their favorite (and still, to this day, most disturbing) scenes in Christopher Walken movies?

The whole thing makes me feel less safe. Both because I don’t like the idea of hot lead flying through the fuselage, and because I like my pilots to be flying, not playing with guns.

The pro-gun argument has always been that armed pilots serve as the last line of defense in the case of a hijacking or other incident. Or that armed pilots are themselves a deterrent to hijackers.

But it’s impossible to prove whether or not the arming of pilots actually improves safety by scaring potential bad guys from trying anything on board a plane. You can’t prove or disprove that proposition, unless you’ve got an al Qaeda focus group that you’re running.

A more concrete case that would support the pro-arming side would be incidents of threats who were subdued by an armed pilot. I haven’t heard of a single incident wherein a pilot was called upon to unholster his or her weapon in flight. If readers have a link to such a case, please send it my way.

As it is, the passengers on this plane were lucky that nothing worse happened. Arming pilots remains a bad idea.

(Thanks to David, Kim, and Richard for sending this one in!)

UPDATE:
Here’s a photo of the gunshot hole, via the Associated Press:

Pack a pistol in your luggage.

Bruce Schneier links to a discussion on a photographer’s blog, in which high-end equipment owners discuss their options. The solution is brilliant:

• Weapons (including starter pistols, which don’t require a permit since they don’t fire bullets) must be declared by the passenger and packed in checked luggage.
• Thereafter, the suitcase is given priority handling by TSA and the airline, since no one wants to be responsible for letting a weapon fall into “the wrong hands.”
• Therefore, putting a gun in your suitcase ensures that your luggage will be handled carefully, and will certainly reach its destination. It’s essentially like sending your suitcase via registered mail.

(image)