First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

Following up on yesterday’s French rail speed record, reader Randy offers this challenge:

That’s a fast train, but is it too fast to surf it?

Huh? That’s right: trainsurfing. Extreme transportation!

Check out this video of a kid who rides caboose on an ICE high-speed train in Germany. He actually rides on the sloped back of the train as it speeds along. (Cheesy soundtrack, but quite a video.)

Madness!

(Thanks to reader Randy!)

Reader Katie writes:

I have an persistent problem with my keycards for hotel rooms deactivating. The hotel chain does not matter -Starwood, Hyatt, Hilton-all the cards deactivate. My husband claims it because I store them in my wallet which I then put in my purse which also holds my blackberry. I say that although his theory for deactivation is possible, it is ridiculous that this happens. Where else would I supposed to store my room key except my wallet? So, my question(s) to you: do other people have this problem? Is the problem largely limited to women (or men) who carry purses which contain both their wallet and cellphone/blackberry? Can hotels fix this issue? And most importantly, is there anything I can do to prevent this-aluminum foil around the card or some other crazy hack?

This never would have happened with those hold-punched VingCards! (Ahh, memories!)

Your husband may be right, but it’s still not clear what the precise cause is, or why it happens so consistently.

Since the key card is really a magnetic strip attached to a piece of plastic, it can be affected by other things that have magnetic force. What kind of magnets are you carrying?!

I thought a cellphone would be a good bet, especially if it’s a flip phone, since those are often held shut with magnets. (I recall that my Motorola came with a warning to keep credit cards away from the phone for just that reason.) But if it’s a Blackberry or other non-flip-phone, then that’s not it.

Other cards, such as credit cards, are magnetic, too, but rarely exert enough of a charge to disable key cards, unless you are directly rubbing magnetic stripes together. Especially so consistently! (I always carry my keycards in my wallet, right next to the credit cards. Never had a problem.)

So to be honest, I’m stumped. As a solution, though, I’d consider a small static sleeve. My bank gave me a mylar sleeve for my ATM card years ago, and hotels often give the keycards in a paper pouch. Maybe that might help.

I’ll throw it open to readers: Do others have similar trouble? Any theories? Suggestions for how to prevent deactivation? Hit the comments!

(image)

Reader Tanya writes:

I know you’re all about the upgrade, but what about the rental car upgrade? I was offered a free upgrade to an SUV last week. I had reserved an economy or a compact, like I do every other week, and I was happy to drive my fuel-efficient Hyundai Accent or whatever. They wanted to upgrade me to a Ford Explorer. I didn’t want one. I don’t like SUVs, for environmental reasons, as well as the additional cost of gas. (I own my own business, so I care about the bill.) So what’s your take on car upgrades?

I’m with you, Tanya. Like you, I care about the environment — and my wallet — and would rather burn less fuel. Car rentals are the one type of free upgrade that actually end up costing you more, since the upgraded vehicle is typically a gas guzzler.

I’m admittedly pretty spartan with my rental car needs. I like a nice bed and a cushy seat on the plane, but I’m less demanding with my vehicles. Reasonably comfortable (no Kia Rio!), fuel efficient, reliable, and clean? Consider it rented.

Others may have different demands. They may need to transport clients, or a large number of family members, so greater comfort may be an issue. But in that case, they should be reserving an appropriate vehicle in the first place.

Still others might want to satisfy their aspirational fantasies at the rental car counter, so an upgrade might be welcome if they can get a car they’d never buy (or afford.) I can see this argument, especially if the car being offered is genuinely exotic.

There might be other sensible upgrades, for special circumstances, like getting bumped up to a convertible when you’re on vacation in Hawaii. (That’s an upgrade I’ve accepted.)

Remember that upgrades aren’t always a recognition of you as a valued customer. They’re often for the convenience of the agency. I’ve experienced this scenario several times, and in fact, I’ve declined an upgrade more than once.

In those instances, the upgrade is a function of vehicle supply. They upgrade you because they’ve run out of the vehicle category you actually reserved. First they try to upsell you to the higher category, but if you refuse they give you the car anyway. It goes like this:

Them: “Would you like to upgrade to an SUV for only $13.95 extra per day?”
Me: “No thank you, the compact will be fine.”
Them: “It’ll be a much more comfortable ride! Lots more space!”
Me: “No thank you, I prefer the compact.”
Them: “Ok, here are your keys… sign here, etc. etc.”
Me: (looking at the keys or the contract details) “Hey, this is an SUV!”
Them: “Yes, I upgraded you for free.”
Me: “I just told you I didn’t want the SUV. I didn’t want it for $13.95, and I don’t want it free. Thanks, but no thanks. May I please have the compact?”
Them: “Sorry, sir, we’re out of compacts.”

Lucky me…

Love the car upgrade? Hate it? Wish you’d get one? Sound off in comments!

A reminder: Reader mail is always welcome. Just use the “contact” form at the top right of the blog to send a secure e-mail. Don’t forget to indicate how you’d like to be referred to, and if you have a blog or website of your own to which you’d like a linkback.

(image)

I’ve really tried to avoid writing about the passengers’ bill of rights for a few days now. Really, I have.

But as much as I wanted to avoid The Story That Won’t Go Away for a few days, I realize I promised you a post which included some of your answers to my poll (now closed) regarding a bill of rights and its odds of becoming law.

As you may recall from an earlier post, a whopping 69% of you expressed the belief that, yes, a PBOR would become law. If the same poll were taken today, we might see an even bigger number.

Why? Just last week, United joined the club of airlines leaving passengers stuck on board a plane for hours. Seven hours, to be precise. Nice work. And great timing.

PBOR naysayers argue that this doesn’t happen that often, and that this is a case of over-reporting, not a major trend in the air travel experience. So let’s see the numbers! Well, okay, here you go.

An AP report provides some statistics:

To be precise, statistics show that passengers sat for two to five hours on 7,369 flights parked on taxiways before taking off in 2006 — not as rare an occurrence as some airline advocates argue, but still only a tiny fraction of the year’s total 7,141,922 flights. Another 36 airliners were stuck on taxiways for more than five hours after leaving the gate last year, according the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Two more were parked for more than five hours after landing.

Fair enough, 38 total flights stuck for five or more hours is a tiny percentage. 0.0005%, give or take a few decimal points. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do something about it.

Imagine a city mayor saying that there were “only 38 murders” in a city that year, so he was going to let the police force go. (No, I’m not saying that being stuck in a plane for hours is equivalent to murder. I’m just saying that a low rate of incidence doesn’t excuse inaction.) And besides, 7,369 flights were stuck on taxiways between 2 and 5 hours. That’s still a small percentage (0.10% of flights) but let’s put that in human terms:

Even if all those delayed planes only carried 50 people each, that comes to more than 350,000 people whose lives were put on hold for hours and hours. That’s big.

(As an aside, I’d love to see the numbers broken down by hour. 2 hour delays and 5 hour delays aren’t comparable, in my view. Anyway…)

So what’s happening? Bills have been introduced in Congress, and will be entering committee for debate. Now, separately, the Department of Transportation is getting in on the game, investigating airline policies, to see what went wrong and how it could be prevented in the future. We’ll see where it leads.

So what did you folks say when asked if a PBOR would pass? Roll the tape.

Yes. Democrats are in power, and the public is sufficiently pissed off. But the devil is in the details. I bet we see a bill that addresses delays, but doesn’t require cash payments.

Yes. The real question is, will any of the various bills of rights floating around actually fix the problem?

No. People have short memories and shallow pockets - won’t want to pay more, and the airlines will tell them that the bill would increase prices.

Yes. If this ever happens to me, I will pop the door and pull the emergency chute and let them arrest me. I’m sure the rest of my fellow passengers would put up bail money.

No. At the last minute, Homeland Security will come out and call this a security risk, and then it will die. Of course that will not be the truth, but welcome to America!

Thanks for these and the many other comments. I think you’re raising the right questions, and you’re appropriately cynical. The unbridled cynicism of the last comment makes me chuckle, but only because it sounds so plausible. Sadly, I think that might be right.

First off, I’d like to officially declare that I’m tired of the jetBlue story. But it remains the belle of the ball, if by “ball” we mean “e-mail inbox.” Buckle up.

For starters: Late last week, I solicited reader opinions on whether or not the passengers’ bill of rights would become law. This was before the jetBlue fiasco went from a small number of planes stuck on the ground to a multi-day festival of flight cancellations. There were some interesting long-form responses in there, which I’ll address in another post, but the summary:

69% of you predicted that, yes, a passengers’ bill of rights would become law, while 31% said no.

Thanks for all the votes. Follow-up soon. To the mailbag:

The jetBlue ground delays stemmed in large part from the fact that the planes backed away from the jetway, even though they weren’t going to take off. Reader Stephanie writes:

I’ve noticed more and more often that planes are pushing away from the gate on time, and then sitting on the ground for up to an hour, hour and a half before leaving. They then call the flight “on time”… Is this the latest thing airlines are doing to get past saying their flights are late?

For the most part, yes, leaving the gate means the plane has departed on time. But the government’s statistics measure arrival, so a flight that leaves the gate early but doesn’t go anywhere won’t be considered on-time if it arrives late.

Leaving the gate isn’t done to cheat the customer, per se. (The airlines DO pad the flight time a lot, though, making it easier for them to meet a very relaxed “on-time” standard.) Rather, the hurry-up-and-wait policy 1) lets the ground crew meet their on-time departure targets (quotas?), when their job performance is being considered, and 2) opens up the gate for another plane to arrive.

I usually fly in and out of O’Hare, and arriving to find an “occupied gate” is unfortunately very common. I’m generally more annoyed by waiting to deplane than waiting to take off, but I’m sure others feel differently.

Reader Paul writes:

Now that JetBlue has a BOR, do you think that’s enough to stop Congress from debating a bill?

No. I don’t. Three main reasons. 1) It’s only jetBlue. No other airline has a similar policy. Until the others do, the pressure will remain on. 2) JetBlue’s policy doesn’t cover all the issues that most proposals for a PBOR do. It’s just about delays. 3) It doesn’t have sufficient teeth.

Yesterday, I suggested that the loopholes in the policy were large enough to taxi an Airbus A320 through. (”Controllable Irregularity.”) And vouchers are just glorified coupons, and a rather insincere form of “payment.” If you ever look at a supermarket coupon’s fine print, they usually list a cash value that’s well below the face value (e.g., 1/100th of a cent). Same principle here.

Others have pointed out further flaws of the jetBlue plan.

Bottom line, jetBlue’s policy is an okay conversation starter, but it’s not the final word.

Reader Steven writes:

What do you think about Mike Boyd’s commentary that all the journalists (and bloggers?) who call for a bill-of-rights are idiots?

Well, I’ll respectfully disagree. He has a lot of opinions. So do I. If he wants to consider a reasoned set of arguments for an increased set of passenger rights as the impassioned plea of “nitwit consumerist gadflies,” then let him. I think he’s far too dismissive of the actual problems that are endemic to the airline industry. It’s not just one or two flights. It’s the policies and practices that allow such things to happen.

Sure, some politicians are grandstanding now, but that’s just what they do. At the end of the day, the policy that results is what matters.

Reader S A asks:

A PBOR’s rights sound great, but how would a PBOR be enforced?

I assume a claim would be filed with the airline. Yes, passing a bill of rights will create hassles for the airlines, the airports, and everyone in between, as they point fingers, pointing out whom to blame. I initially felt that a PBOR would be difficult to implement for precisely such reasons. But as commenter Oliver pointed out, that would be the airline’s problem, not yours. If a regulation exists that mandates a minimum threshold of service, then it should be up to the airline to meet that threshold, if necessary by putting pressure on vendors, airports, and regulatory bodies to make sure it happens.

Reader Larry H. writes:

I know I’m heading to Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in September. How far in advance should I reserve my rental car?

Larry, it’s never too soon to start. Find the lowest rate you can, make a reservation now, and keep checking back for lower rates. I’m assuming you don’t have a preference as to rental car provider.

Unlike buying airline tickets, you’re generally not paying any money up front when you reserve a rental car. And if prices go down, you can always make a new reservation and then cancel the old one. (Note, on some airlines, you can get a refund on your airfare when the price drops, too, but unless you’re buying higher-priced refundable fares, you can’t just cancel your old reservations and make fresh ones willy-nilly without paying fees.)

So you should always revisit your old reservations and try to whittle that price down. As the date creeps closer, you’d also do well to check with Hotwire or Priceline, to try to beat the rate you’ve got reserved. Remember, though, that Hotwire and Priceline reservations are fully prepaid and nonrefundable. They don’t earn any points, either.

Related:
- Hotwire rental cars (affiliate)
- Priceline rental cars (affiliate)

Reader Raul S. asks:

You’ve mentioned paid upgrades at check in, but how much does that actually cost?

The price depends on a variety of factors, such as the route, how full the plane is, and possibly other, secret factors. It’s impossible to accurately predict an offer of a paid upgrade, but it can never hurt to ask. Not all airlines offer upgrades for sale at check-in, either; in fact, I’d say the number that DO sell them is in the minority.

U.S. carriers are far and away the most likely to try to squeeze out some extra revenue if business or first class seats remain available.

Alaska Airlines is the most explicit in describing their paid-upgrade policy, and they’re also the cheapest. As outlined in their chart, upgrades only cost $50 for every 1250 miles flown. US Airways charges a little more. United has lately been selling domestic upgrades at check-in at a rate of $65 for every 500 miles (or portion thereof) flown. I’ve seen higher, too, but $65/500 is the normal rate.

Internationally, it seems to vary more. On United, I recall being offered an upgrade from coach to business for $550 on the Washington-Amsterdam route — on award tickets — and $450 on paid tickets from Chicago to Frankfurt. $550 is a seemingly magic number that comes up a lot for trans-Pacific routes. American’s upgrades are similarly priced — and considering they charge a fee to use miles for upgrades, the all-cash upgrades are a decent deal. British Airways also occasionally offers upgrades for sale — even on board. I’ve heard of upgrades from regular economy to premium economy for about $250, but that was several years ago.

All these upgrades are one-way, of course. If it’s available on the return flight, you can expect to pay up again. And it may not be the same price. Crapshoot!

Note also that you don’t earn any class-of-service bonus miles for sitting in the bigger seats, even if you’re paying money for it. It’s still an upgrade from a lower booking class, not a purchase of a premium-class ticket.

Is it worth it? Depends on you. But at least you’ll be sitting up front.

(image)

Reader Bill writes:

I need help! I accidentally booked flights for the wrong weekend via Air Tran. The flight is from Chicago to Sarasota, and it was a promotional fare that ended last night. Not only are they charging me to switch the flight (it’s in APRIL!), but they are also charging me the difference in fare because the promotion is over. Anything you can suggest?

Sorry to give you bad news, but you may be out of luck. AirTran has a pretty standard set of rules — published here — and requires a $60 fee plus any difference in the fare if you want to change a ticket.

I don’t see any way you’re going to get out of that policy, unless you can sweet talk the call center into making an exception.

Alternatively, instead of rebooking the tickets, you could pay $60 to cancel these tickets, and have the value of the tickets put into a credit voucher, for you to use within one year. (I assume they’d just deduct $60 in value from each ticket, rather than making you actually pay $60.)

This voucher option may be the way to go. If AirTran has another fare sale, you could potentially get better bang for your buck than you could right now. But it’s a gamble, and you may not be able to use the voucher for the Sarasota trip as planned.

UPDATE: Looks like Bill is quite the sweet-talker after all!

Thanks Mark! I ended up speaking with a supervisor who waived the $60 change of ticket fee, meaning I only had to pay for the difference in fare (around $65). Not too bad.

Not too bad, indeed. That supervisor was a good soul, since you didn’t have a legal leg to stand on. But it proves that a friendly request can go a long way.

Reader Julie writes:

I read this problem-solver article in the Washington Post last week but I’m not satisfied with the answer the newspaper gave.

Why would a person with a $711 [airline] credit not be allowed to use that voucher on a $500 ticket? Isn’t there anything the woman could have done?

Yes, Julie, there is.

Here’s the background:

After canceling a trip on United Airlines, Sarah Anderson of the District was left with a $711 credit. An agent told her she couldn’t use the credit for a $500 ticket, even though she was willing to forfeit the difference. “This seems crazy to me, since it would be my loss,” Anderson wrote […] Many international nonrefundable tickets state that any value of an unused ticket must be applied toward the purchase of a new ticket at an equal or greater fare, said United spokeswoman Robin Urbanski. She added, “This tends to be common throughout the industry.”

A stupid rule, indeed. If Ms. Anderson had wanted to put that credit to use, she should have requested a ticket in a higher (more expensive) fare class for the same flight. The phone agent was pricing out the itinerary as cheaply as possible, but that most certainly wasn’t the only fare for sale.

Idiotic, I know, but United won’t give partial refunds of unused vouchers, so you might as well get SOMETHING for the voucher rather than letting it expire. (It’s a crappy policy. American’s policy of issuing vouchers for any leftover balance is far better.)

Note also that you might end up paying a small sum of cash in order to use the voucher, since the total fare has to exceed the certificate’s value, and you’re responsible for the difference.

It’s dumb to have to buy a more expensive ticket in order to get any value from a voucher, but if that’s the only way to use hundreds of dollars of credit that will otherwise expire worthless, it’s still worth doing.

Related:
- Reader mail: Why is a $75 airline voucher only worth $30?

Reader Joe H. writes:

In your link to Bob Rosner’s column, I think you missed a point that’s just as big as the 3 versus 3.5 oz. debate. Fourth paragraph:

For example, on my most recent flight I had my baggie full of gels and liquids out and ready to show anyone who wanted to know the secret for my youthful appearance. A TSA staffer scrutinized the bag. She informed me that she’d have to empty one of my bottles because, she explained, they only allowed gels and liquids in their original containers — no camping-style plain plastic bottles are allowed. She methodically emptied out my soap from its container. Apparently terrorists have not figured out how to empty shampoo bottles to put something more dangerous inside.

There’s no regulation anywhere on the TSA Web site that says this. Never heard of it, never seen it. So here’s my question: how would you handle a situation where a TSA agent isn’t acting sans common sense (e.g., you have one two-ounce container, but it’s not in the plastic bag), but is flat out, no-doubt-about-it *wrong*?

I asked my mom (a more frequent traveler than I) what she’d do, and she said she wouldn’t argue. I said I now carry the TSA PDF printouts with me, and I’d immediately ask for a supervisor (nicely, of course).

I’d love to hear your thoughts, and perhaps those of other readers.

There are two, or maybe even three, issues here. The first is about TSA policy, i.e., are the mini-bottles required to be in original packaging, or are empty 3 oz. bottles, refilled with mouthwash, lotion, or whatever, legal?

As you say, Joe, I can’t find anything on the TSA site that suggests that you need to have shampoo in its original package. The only category of items that specifically requires a labeled container is medication:

Please make sure your medications are properly labeled with a professionally printed label identifying the medication and manufacturer’s name or pharmaceutical label. The prescription medicine must match the name on the passenger’s ticket.

So according to the publicly available rules, no one should have to dump out shampoo, soap, or mouthwash, just because it’s in an unlabeled bottle.

(By the way, the New York Times’ Roger Collis got some very similar e-mail this week. He couldn’t find any requirement for labeled bottles in either U.S. or E.U. rules, either.)

Joe’s second question is more about passenger behavior when you face an agent who makes up rules like this, or misinterprets the rules to apply more broadly than they’re published.

Carrying a printout of the rules for permitted/prohibited items, and politely requesting that the agent or a supervisor consider the published rules before confiscating the goods is a good idea. I’m a fan of having the facts on paper (or at least saved as an online PDF on the laptop). That goes for airline contracts-of-carriage, too, but that’s another point…

But honestly, as much as I support civil liberties, I probably wouldn’t fight every fight. So how would I respond to a TSA agent inventing rules? It depends on how much hardship the agent’s inventiveness is actually imposing on me. How much does the item cost? How easily will I be able to replace it? How much time do I have before my flight? Do I feel lucky? If you do fight it, always remain calm, polite, and follow the agents’ instructions if asked to step aside, etc.

But what if YOU screw up and accidentally leave one small (legal-sized) bottle out of the one-quart plastic bag? If the agent gives you a hard time, I’d ask to have the item put back in the bag and rescanned, if necessary. If that didn’t work, then I’d try to speak to a supervisor, taking into account the calculus above (will I miss my flight if I ask for a supervisor… how much is this item worth to me…)

Finally, don’t hesitate to make a mental note of the agent’s name if they disregard the published rules or don’t offer you a common-sense chance to rectify a minor, non-dangerous mistake. Then write a letter to the TSA, and cc: your local Congressperson and Senator.

Reader Todd writes:

Not much word from you lately about all the airline mergers in the news. What do you think will happen? Is this going to suck or rock?

Ha! Well, Todd, as I’ve said before, on the “suck - rock continuum,” I think mergers are closer to “suck” for consumers. (See here and here.) Sure you might get a few more potential destinations or routings for your flights, but the total number of flights is bound to be cut, and prices in turn are bound to rise. Prices are already rising, despite oil prices dropping significantly in recent weeks. (Neil Bainton has the fare hike play-by-play.) With less competition, it’ll be easier than ever to raise fares and make them stick.

I expect some sort of deal is coming. Last week saw quite a bit of airline merger news. AirTran raised its offer for Midwest by 18%. One day earlier, US Airways increased its offer for Delta by 20% — an offer which Delta continues to reject. But with Delta in bankruptcy, will the creditors say no to the sweetened deal?…

Adding more intrigue, it turns out that Delta has been playing the field, doing everything it can to avoid merging with US Airways. Delta has been discussing merger possibilities with Northwest and United. We knew United was fishing for a partner, and has confirmed discussions with Continental. Now we know Northwest is up on the block, too. Add another name to the mix.

For some arcana: If Northwest merges with anyone, then that makes it easier for Continental to make a deal. Northwest holds a “golden stake” in Continental, and those super-deluxe shares have a veto power clause attached to them. Continental can’t merge with anyone unless Northwest agrees. That is, unless Northwest merges first. Oh, the humanity! So right now, I’m guessing that United and Continental are rooting for a Northwest-Delta merger, so everyone can merge and all the CEOs can have their huge payday.

Now Congress is getting in on the game, too, with both houses planning to hold hearings on the effect of mergers on airfares, and on the economy.

The hearings will likely be a lot of grandstanding. But make no mistake: Industry consolidation will mean higher fares. And it’s not just me saying that, or a media-hungry congressman. It’s the airline chiefs themselves. Delta is talking about decreasing service and raising revenue. That’s not even a particularly veiled threat of raising fares.

I’m not about to predict which specific deals will close, but I am sure one or more will happen. But I’ll continue to root against them.

Related:
- Here we go again: Airline merger madness, back in the news
- Reader mail: What’s in the cards for a United merger?

Reader Tyler, aka Dr. Vino, writes in:

One of my friends told me that he subscribes to the Financial Times using some orphan miles. Do you know the details? I couldn’t find anything on line about it.

Indeed, some U.S.-based airlines’ programs let you cash in miles for magazine or newspaper subscriptions. Some do it directly through their websites, usually through a relationship with Magazines for Miles. (NOTE: This link doesn’t let you buy any magazines, though it may appear to do so. But keep reading for links that DO work…)

Magazines for Miles doesn’t generate a lot of faith in their viability as a business, if you look closely at their website. They misspell “Hawaiian” in the airline of the same name, and they still list America West and US Airways as separate airlines. But the company is, in fact, legit.

The Magazines for Miles main site only offers a very limited number of magazines to choose from, but lets you pick one of several airlines’ miles to pay for the subscription: American, America West (now US Airways), Continental, Delta, Hawaiian, Midwest, Northwest, United, and US Airways.

Some airlines’ own websites have a wider selection of magazines — though the actual redemption is typically processed by the very same Magazines for Miles company. (The Financial Times subscription you asked for in the original question is available through Delta, Midwest, or Northwest.) Rates will vary between programs, though, so one magazine might cost more miles on one airline than another. If you have multiple orphaned-mile accounts, shop around.

Click for American, Continental, Delta, Hawaiian, Midwest, Northwest, and United (newspapers only on UA, though), and US Airways. AirTran, jetBlue, and Southwest don’t have a magazine option of any kind.

It used to be even easier, when a company called MilePoint ran a clearinghouse of sorts for converting miles to magazines. The really nice thing was that you could combine miles from multiple separate accounts to complete your order. MilePoint was bought by points.com, and that option has disappeared, alas.

If you’ve got some orphaned miles, this is a pretty good way to cash them in. And nothing says holiday cheer like unloading some miles onto your friends and relatives in the form of a magazine subscription.

UPDATE: Using miles for a Financial Times subscription is terrific value, by the way. A one-year subscription to the paper costs $99.00 on Amazon.com, or 2000 Delta or Northwest miles. That comes to 4.95 cents per mile. Fantastic value! (Not all subscriptions come in at such a good rate. Compare the cash subscription rate first…)