Upgraded: Snakes in a car
A Florida woman got in her Enterprise rental car, only to find a 3 1/2 foot long red rat snake on the dashboard. Will “snake availability waivers” be the next add-on fee? And was it a Dodge Viper?

Upgraded: Convictions of liquid bombers
Prosecutors in the UK convicted three men of conspiracy to murder, as part of the 2006 liquid-explosives threat. Prosecutors want to re-try three of the men, for whom the jury could not reach a verdict. In connection with the trial, the BBC released a video ostensibly showing a liquid bomb of the type planned by the convicts.

Upgraded: Newcastle airport
UK officials are testing liquid-explosives scanners at Newcastle airport, using a device that scans liquid containers to judge whether their contents are a potential bomb ingredient or a harmless beverage, facial cream, or toothpaste. Could the 3-ounce liquid limit be up for review?… stay tuned.

Upgraded: Singapore’s A380
Global travel is in a slump. But if you’re expecting an empty seat in coach on board a Singapore Airbus A380, guess again. People still pack the plane. Full planes don’t mean a fat bottom line, though. The airline isn’t getting top dollar per ticket, even if the public seems to like the plane.

Upgraded: Hotel deals
The average rate for hotel rooms has dropped 17% in the first half of 2009 alone, making the average room the cheapest its been in five years. Bucking the trend: rates in Caribbean, down only 2% on average. (I’m sure there’s still a lot of variation between islands.)

Downgraded: Block 37
For years, “block 37″ in the center of the Chicago Loop (the block is bounded by Randolph, State, Washington, and Dearborn) stood vacant. It’s a construction site now, with plans for a central transit hub underground. And above ground, a Loews Hotel was planned, with rights sold to the company for $1. But the hotel chain can’t (or won’t) get financing for this prime downtown location, so yet another hotel project is up in the air.

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)

Downgraded: American Airlines considers going fully a la carte
American Airlines is considering ditching the “combo meal” approach to plane tickets and going fully a-la-carte with all its fares. This potentially means something along the lines of Air Canada’s model, not just adding on fees for baggage. Amusing, to me: Air Canada’s executives “look down their noses a bit at the actions of their U.S. counterparts, saying a la carte pricing should be about transparency and customer choice, not simply revenue.” The promise of price transparency is not a victory for consumers unless everyone does it the same way: Making apples-to-apples comparisons will be harder if some airlines publish fares one way and other airlines don’t.

Downgraded: Sun Country files for Chapter 11
Sun Country, the Minnesota-based discount airline, has filed for bankruptcy protection… again. But hey, they’re still operating! Beats the “We’re sorry, all flights are canceled” message on the homepage of so many failed airlines. The airline faced a cash crunch after the company’s owner was indicted on federal fraud charges.

Upgraded: Odds of actually bringing liquids through security
TSA and international counterparts are “within a year” of relaxing restrictions on carrying liquids through security checkpoints. “TSA has been testing X-ray machines that can detect liquid materials used in bomb-making and the technology is close to be ready for widespread use. The X-ray machines themselves are already widely deployed in the U.S., but the software necessary for the liquids detection and evaluation is still being tested.” Again, these are already in action in Japan. What’s the holdup?

(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

Reader Mark, who just flew US Airways and experienced firsthand how a small bottle of water now costs $2, reports that passengers are none too happy about having to pay for soft drinks. He sends in this anecdote:

I sat next to an off duty flight attendant and she told me people are rebelling by only paying with $20’s. Since they have no change, the flight attendants end up comping the drinks. Unique, at least…

Ouch. Exact change is even more appreciated now, I bet.

I feel bad for the flight attendants who have to enact the policy and deal with surly (or wise-ass) passengers. And having to explain to management why the till is empty has to be no fun, either, just another layer of hassle for the already beaten-up and subsequently disaffected inflight staff.

But I admire the passengers’ spunk!

(And yes, I’m sure the airlines that haven’t yet rolled out card-swipe machines for buy-on-board will unveil them soon enough, so work the system while you can.)

(image)

What’s perhaps even more frustrating is that this isn’t new technology: Osaka Kansai Airport started testing passenger liquids with a microwave tester nearly four years ago. By December 2006, the machines were installed across Japan.

I haven’t seen these machines in action myself, but the perpetually mobile Tyler Brûlé has helpfully published a photo of a liquid tester on the Monocle website. See below for a peek of what the rest of the world might get its hands on someday.

The bigger question remains: Why is this device good enough for Japan, but not the United States or Europe? There’s money to burn for backscatter x-ray machines and puffer-machines that scan for explosives, but a customer-friendly device like a liquid tester is out of bounds. Priorities.

(image)

Reader J writes in, with the excellent subject line “Sidestepping government buffoonery”:

So I was wondering if you know if it’s possible to get a temporary PO box or a similar thing in order to mail your shampoo, cologne and other liquids to yourself at your destination city ahead of time to make sure you know it’s there before you even step on the plane. Are there such services?

Why yes!

You’ve got a few options, actually, and as long as you’re packing well and not mailing things that violate postal service regulations, then this could be a great way to avoid checked luggage, avoid the theatrics of the TSA war on moisture, and avoid having to buy stuff at your destination, all in one swoop!

There are essentially three options:

1. Your hotel
   Where you stayin’? Call the hotel, ask if they hold mail for guests, and what the restrictions are. In all likelihood, this will be the most convenient and most reliable way for you to receive packages. Tip: Be sure you include “hotel guest” after your name when you address the package.
2. Post office
   The magic words: “Poste restante,” or “general delivery.” Poste restante is an old fashioned mail-pickup service that most countries’ postal services still provide. Mail is addressed to a person, but in lieu of an address for delivery, the mail is sent to a post office branch, where you pick it up. You’ll usually address mail to Name, Poste Restante, the specific name of the post office (usually the main, central office), that branch’s street location, city, postal code, and country. Of course, you need to KNOW the location you’ll be picking it up from beforehand. Check the website of your destination’s postal service before you ship things off. FYI: The USPS’s sparse info page for general delivery is here.
3. American Express
   American Express cardmembers and travelers’ check holders can have mail sent to an American Express Travel Services office anywhere in the world. I took advantage of this once, and it worked great, but it’s been a while (1994). See here to find an office. Call them before sending them mail, and ask if they receive and hold Amex client mail. Not every office will do it.

In all of these cases, underline the addressee’s last name for good measure, or write it in all caps. It can’t hurt to put a statement like “Hold until (date)” on the front of the envelope or package, too.

There may be some restrictions, such as weight. Take New Zealand’s poste restante rules, for example: Packages under 2kg are stored at no charge. Over that weight, and you’ll pay a fee to pick up the goods. Be sure to check with your destination’s post office rules before you ship stuff off poste restante.

Locations holding your mail won’t hold it forever, either. 30 days in the norm, but it’s not universal. (In Mexico, for example, it might only be 10 days.) When in doubt, call ahead.

And even if you mail things to yourself at your destination, be sure you’re not mailing something you’d be upset to lose. Mail can be slow, or can disappear. If you care about the contents, insure.

So the bottom line: Yes, you CAN mail things ahead of time. But at the end of the day, which is the bigger hassle? Dealing with the TSA, or dealing with the post office?

Related:
- Update: TSA compresses 100ml to 3.0 fluid ounces
- Airport Security: TSA Re-Allows Lighters on Board; Non-Flammable Water Still a Threat to Safety
- Rescuing your prohibited carry-on items from the trash
- Japan and China introduce liquid-explosive detectors: Why can’t the US?
- American Express (aff)

(image)

Last week, TSA Director Kip Hawley briefed a group of travel journalists, and friend-of-the-blog Benet Wilson of AviationWeek asked the Kipster about that pet peeve of mine, restrictions on transporting duty free liquor.

My long-standing take: If it’s deemed safe for purchase behind security lines in one airport, it should be considered safe for transportation to — and through — other airports.

But that’s not the way it works in reality. You might buy booze (or perfume, or anything liquid) in one airport, fly from one city to the next, and have the liquids confiscated when trying to board your next flight. Idiotic. (Though not nearly as idiotic as the limits within the same airport, a la Munich…)

If you think that there’s a solution at hand, you’re wrong.

Hawley said that everyone is looking for a private sector solution where there is an assured supply chain, one way or the other. “If they can find an appropriate supply chain bringing the duty-free goods to the airport and protecting it along the way, we’re open to it,” he said. “But as of today, there’s not a bag that is commonly agreed to that meets all of our standards.”

This is essentially a private sector opportunity to adjust their business model to meet security requirements, said Hawley. “But we won’t spend taxpayer dollars on finding ways to make it easier to buy duty-free liquids,” he warned.

Protecting the duty free goods along the way? Like a Secret Service motorcade? Or an armored car?

Something tells me that the food and drink served up at airport restaurants isn’t subjected to the same demands for protection. But the (hopefully non-explosive) sandwich you buy after security is safe to carry between airports. Double standard.

Sigh. So buyer beware. If you’re changing planes on an international itinerary, you might have trouble bringing duty free liquids into the United States.

Once again, we’re dealing with security theater, not real security. Makes me want to pour a stiff (duty-free) drink.

Related:
- Duty free liquids allowed on board, except when they’re not
- Update: Munich Airport responds to questions about its duty free policy
- Traveling with booze: Policy clarifications and changes
- Duty free liquids soon to be liberated?

Downgraded: Any last smidgen of credibility for inflight radio interviews
If you’ve ever flipped through the inflight audio dial on American Airlines, you’ll know that there’s a channel (#9) devoted to “interviews.” University of Chicago economist and Freakonomics author Steve Levitt was invited to participate… for the low, low price of $3995.00. I honestly never gave those interviews advertorials much of a listen, but the participants pay-to-play? And for that much?? Wow. ZERO credibility. (Thanks, Dr. Vino!)

Upgraded, possibly: The international airport welcome wagon
The U.S. Senate has passed a bill expanding the “model airport” program to other international ports of entry.

In April, the DHS designated Houston’s Bush International Airport as the first “model” port of entry, adding multilingual signs and informational videos narrated in Spanish, French, German and English to guide arriving travelers through the customs and immigration process. Arriving visitors are also presented with a “Welcome to the U.S.” brochure.

Unclear if general tone of the arrivals halls will feel any less like a police station, what with the fingerprinting and generally gruff attitude of every employee, but here’s hoping it helps.

Downgraded: British Airways’ standing among royal Qataris
Members of Qatar’s royal family were kicked off a British Airways flight for not following safety procedures, when they refused to take their seats. Why wouldn’t they sit? “After boarding, the women complained about the seats they had been allocated because they were next to men they did not know.” Setting aside the culture clash: None of this would have happened if British Airways would actually allow advance seat assignments for passengers on fares lower than the most expensive tickets. (Given their seating concerns, I imagine the royals flew discounted business business class.)

Downgraded: Your privacy (who knew it could be downgraded more?)
Under an expanded security agreement between the US and the EU, gobs and gobs of personal data can and will be shared with governments. If asked, airlines will be required to hand over any information they collect from you. Ask for a king-size bed as part of your package? Homeland Security will know. (Via Consumerist)

Upgraded: TSA Chief Kip Hawley’s internet presence
Downgraded: Logical explanations
Security guru Bruce Schneier is running a multi-part interview with TSA Director Kip Hawley this week. The first part is here. Bruce questions the logic of the 3-ounce liquid restrictions, etc. I’m happy to see Hawley reaching out again, but some of the answers just don’t cut it. For example: “If a TSO finds you or the contents of your bag suspicious, you might get interviewed and/or have your bags more closely examined. If the TSO throws your liquids in the trash, they don’t find you a threat.” Huh? What? Read the whole thing.

(image)

The TSA has ruled that lighters will once again be legal to take onto airplanes, effective August 4. Not Zippo lighters or other “torch” lighters, just “common” lighters.

Amazing. Bottled water is still illegal, but a container containing a flammable liquid is permissible. That’s freedom, baby.

And why the two week delay? Do lighters’ magical terrorist powers somehow expire at midnight on August 3?

Sounds like a big step forward in the expansion plans of all-smoking airline Smintair!

Speaking of Smintair, the tobbaco-laden German/British airline with the absurd claim that its air will be healthier than nonsmoking airlines’, looks like it’s actually making headway. They recently put up a timetable (pdf) that has them flying Dusseldorf to Tokyo and on to Shanghai starting October 28. The countdown is on.

The Smintair website remains one of my favorites, for sheer comedy. Everything from the poorly translated English, to the 1970s porn-esque styling, to nuggets like this line from the employment page: “Allergics to any kind of smoke or aviation specific conditions, militant Anti-Smokers, or people with other social deficiencies are kindly asked to not apply.”

(image)

Regular readers know how frustrated I have been with inconsistent liquid-ban enforcement and the subsequent confusion over duty free purchases that ensues, like the finger-pointing contradiction-fest I experienced in Munich a while back. Travelers changing planes on multi-leg international flights (say, flying from New York to Frankfurt and on to Johannesburg) were especially hard-hit, with several different layers of regulation hitting them and their liquid cargo.

For the traveler with liquids in tow, two items may be of interest.

First, the European Commission adopted new rules for travelers changing planes in the EU member states, plus Switzerland, Norway, or Iceland. If the airport where you purchased your duty-free liquor adheres to “the two ICAO state letters (1 December 2006 and 30 March 2007), which set standards for tamper evident bags and security levels for supply chains to airport retailing,” then your precious cargo will not be confiscated by European airport personnel or law enforcement authorities. This effectively means that the European Commission now recognizes the security procedures of other airports as acceptable and adequate.

Of course, the problem is, how do you know that your departure airport fits the bill? And it may take some time before the new rules filter down to the people who enforce these rules on the ground. Still: A step forward for common sense.

Second, a reminder from Upgrade: Travel Better contributor Tyler Colman on the rules regarding duty-free limits on wine (or other alcohol, for that matter.) Very often, airport and airline staff unfortunately tell passengers about the “limits” on liquor, when in fact they’re referring only to the duty-free limits. As if the duty free limit is all you’re allowed to carry into the country. Not so!

If you’re flying back to the United States, you can carry in several cases of wine if you like, assuming 1) that you check it as baggage, packed nicely in a padded wine box, 2) that you have receipts indicating the purchase price of the wine, and 3) that you declare the wine to the customs agents when you arrive, and on your declaration form. You can bring plenty back from your travels, if you are willing to pay the taxes, but you only get very limited amounts duty-free. And how much are those taxes? 3%. THREE! That’s nothing! And travelers report that customs agents can’t be bothered to fill out the paperwork on such small amounts, so you might get off with a duty-free case or two.

Of course, carrying that much back means you’re dragging boxes through airports and possibly paying the airline an excess baggage charge. But don’t let anyone tell you you can’t take it with you.

Cheers!

Update:
Reader Steve writes in to point out that I glossed over an important point in Dr. Vino’s post: The rules on how much alcohol you can bring into the country are also set by the state where you land. A snippet from Steve’s e-mail, with a story of zealous liquor enforcement, below:

Your posting on booze coming back into the US is true, but incomplete.

While it is true that the Feds place no restriction on the amount of alcohol you can bring in some states do (or at least used to). So if your first port of entry is NY and NY State only allows two bottle (which used to be the case) then you can be forced to throw everything out beyond that.

That is exactly what happened to me, however it was almost 20 years ago and it is likely (though not certain) that the rules have changed. But since states are still firmly in control of these laws if you intend on bringing in more than the federal limit it would be prudent to call the ABC of the state you will be clearing customs in and ask what the regulations are.

Thanks, Steve!

(image)

As a peripatetic wine writer I often get asked the question: can you take wine on a plane? In this day and age of the Global War on Toiletries, the short answer is no.

However, the good folks at Reef sandals may be on their way to helping plane travelers in need of a nip. They have a pair of sandals known as “the dram” (aff) that has a 1.5 ounce reservoir in each sole. Three ounces? That sounds like the TSA magic number for liquids to me!

The only catch is that you would have to have feet small enough so that the sandals fit inside the infamous one-quart plastic bag. Oh, and the fluid would have to be less than 140 proof (as the TSA helpfully elaborates, that includes 150 proof rum and 95% grain alcohol).

Tyler Colman checked wine in the hold and has some tips from his experience.