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!

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…)

Reader NPM writes in:

A few months ago, my wife and I received two United Airlines paper vouchers for $75 each to make up for an awful flight experience we had, with a delay of several hours for mechanical reasons and a non-working in-flight entertainment system.

Last month I decided to redeem these vouchers to buy two tickets from Chicago to NY City. I went on the United website and found two (ORD-LGA) tickets for $168.61 each. The fare was eligible/covered by the vouchers — I checked the fine print. Since you can’t finalize the reservation online and use the vouchers to pay for part of the tickets, I placed the tickets on hold and called United reservation service.

The representative told me I couldn’t use the vouchers with that fare and proposed instead I buy two tickets for the same flights for $198.61, effectively turning my $75 vouchers into $45 vouchers. Ugly. I complained a bit but since there was nothing she could do, I ended up buying the tickets…

A few days later, I checked my credit card statement and United charged me a $30 “ticket mailing fee” with my order, despite the fact that the tickets are electronic. This decreased the value of each value to $30. To add insult to injury their online system works so poorly that when I tried to enter my wife’s Mileage Plus number on her reservation, it requested a wheelchair for her instead. Thanks, but no thanks! Bye, bye United!

Ahh, the customer service voucher. A gesture of goodwill that turns around and creates more ill will when people try to redeem it. Sorry to hear you had such trouble.

United’s policy is asinine on so many levels. At the time the certificate is issued, it seems like they’re apologizing, and the voucher feels like a good-faith effort to make things right. Then they piss that goodwill away by making the redemption process a chore — and discounting the value of the voucher.

You say that the ticket was eligible for voucher use according to the terms on the back of the certificate. (Some booking codes are ineligible for voucher use, but those letter codes are outlined on the piece of paper.) At that point, you should have asked to speak with a supervisor when the agent denied your request to use the certificate for an eligible itinerary.

The $15/ticket fee they charged for “ticket by mail” is unfortunately simply their phone center charge. But this is a case where the airline is demanding the impossible: They charge you money for using their call center, instead of booking online. But with a voucher, you have no other booking option EXCEPT on the phone, or at an airport, both of which incur a fee. Frankly, the Federal Trade Commission might be interested…

At this point, I’d advise you to write to United’s customer relations. State that you feel that a refund of $90 is due to you — the value that your vouchers went down in value, thanks to the airline’s games. If they take more than two weeks to respond, or if the answer is not to your satisfaction, call or write again. But be warned: They might just send you more vouchers…

Cheryl in Victoria, BC writes:

Which is a more advantageous way to collect frequent flyer miles: with a credit card that credits points to a specific one of the three top air alliances or with a credit card that uses a travel agent to book flights on any airline? I live in British Columbia and usually fly to
the USA.

First off, kudos for thinking in terms ofalliances, and not just airlines. Many people forget that you can cash in your miles on airline partners. But to your real question:

You ask about the tradeoffs between two kinds of miles-earning credit cards. In reality, there are three kinds of miles-earning credit cards out there which earn three different kinds of points: Single-airline points, transferable points, and proprietary points. Let’s run through the pros and cons of each.

1. Cards with Single-Airline Points
This is the “traditional” miles-earning card, issued by a bank with an airline partner. In general, one dollar charged to such a card earns one mile deposited into your frequent flyer account with that airline. So if you have a Citibank AAdvantage card, your purchases earn miles in the American Airlines AAdvantage program. Every month, the bank transfers the miles over, and those miles fall under the rules of the airline.

This has a few advantages, but also disadvantages. Assuming you have an existing relationship with the airline, your credit card will be one of several earning sources. Combine your spending with flights, hotels, car rentals, and the thousands of other ways to earn miles, and the miles can really add up. The cards often offer sign-up bonuses that can boost your balance to the point you’re nearly at a free ticket. If you are looking to build up your existing airline-linked frequent flyer account, and you charge a lot on your credit card, this kind of card is probably your best bet.

At the same time, though, you’re trapped by the rules of the program you’re collecting those miles with. It’s not always easy to get free tickets to the places you want, when you want, since seats are limited. Planning ahead is necessary. (See here for some tips.)

Plus, airline cards generally come with a fee. If you don’t charge heavily, you shouldn’t bother In fact, if you don’t charge a lot every month, you’re probably better off with a cash-back card (Fidelity Investments offers a good one that refunds 1.5% of purchases.)

2. Cards with Transferable Points
Other cards collect points in an account that’s not attached to airlines, but that you can convert into “regular” airline miles. American Express Membership Rewards and Diners Club are the most famous examples, though the cards linked to some hotel programs like Starwood (link below) are definitely worthy of your consideration.

The way it works: You collect points, and you transfer the points into one of several possible airlines, hotels, or other affinity programs.

The benefit is that you have some flexibility as to where you put your miles. If you manage multiple frequent flyer accounts, perhaps in separate alliances, this might be your best option. Need 5000 miles in British Airways AND in United? Top them both up with a transfer. There are sometimes “bonuses” here too.

The downside: Point conversion rates aren’t always 1:1, and you can only transfer miles at certain thresholds, e.g., 5000 points at a time. Not all airlines participate, or participate at the same conversion rate. An annual fee is typical.

Bottom line: These programs are a great compromise, offering you a range of options.

3. Cards with Proprietary Points
In the United States, you’ve probably seen David Spade hawking CapitalOne’s “No Hassle” reward cards. That’s one of several such cards, but the principle is generally the same: Your purchases accrue points, issued by the card-issuing bank. The points aren’t transferable, and they’re not linked to an airline. You can’t use them to upgrade your flight, or to top up an account that’s just short of a free ticket. Your points are tied to the bank.

What’s appealing about this last option is that customers have a choice in how they redeem their points, within the bank’s rules. You effectively convert your points to cash and buy a ticket with the airline you want, using those points — as long as you use the bank’s in-house travel agent. Another benefit is that those tickets actually earn conventional frequent flyer miles in the airline’s program, once you actually fly with the ticket.

However, in most cases, these cards are a bad deal, and you should stay away. The reason: The value of your miles is based on the cash value of the ticket, and thus is always capped. Take the CapitalOne program’s rules, for example:

The number of miles required by the Cardholder for travel redemption will depend on the cost of the itinerary chosen by the Cardholder at the time of redemption. The mileage requirement is as follows: 15,000 miles are required for tickets up to $150; 35,000 miles are required for tickets from $150.01 up to $350; 60,000 miles are required for tickets from $350.01 up to $600. For tickets over $600 in value, the required number of miles will be determined by multiplying the cost of the ticket times 100 (ex. $768 ticket requires 76,800 miles).

So the maximum value of your points is 1 cent each. While this is marginally acceptable, you can get more value if you took real cash rebates, or if you had received traditional frequent flyer miles. (A first or business class ticket from North America to Australia, using traditional miles, could get you 10 cents/mile, easily.)

So: What kind of card is the best?
If you want miles, but you want those miles to be worth more than one cent each, you should stick to a card that like #1 or #2. Since I’ve been lucky (or skilled?) at getting a lot more bang for the buck mile, I stick with cards that give me real frequent flyer miles. But it’s a little bit of a gamble. If you prefer the flexibility of booking with any airline, skip the “reward points” game entirely, and demand the cold comfort of a cash refund.

Related:
- The value of frequent flyer miles
- Reader mail: Can I use credit card miles to upgrade a ticket?
- Miles or Buy: Pay Cash or Cash in Miles (frequent flyer mile tutorial)
- Starwood Preferred Guest American Express Card (affiliate)

Reader John asks:

Is it just me, or does it seem like they’ve been restricting each and every year how far the seats can recline?

It’s not just you. But it’s not every airline, either. Yet.

Scott McCartney reports in the Wall Street Journal that Southwest Airlines is standardizing recline across its fleet to 3 inches. Previous recline had been anywhere between 2 and 4.5 inches. Compare this to American, Delta, and jetBlue with 4 inches, United with 5, and Continental with 5 to 6 inches.

I’m always wary of these generalizations, since it seems that the recline, pitch, and width of the seat differ by aircraft type within each airline. A 737 might give you, say, four inches, while a 757 might give you three. (I’m pulling these numbers out of thin air.) On Southwest, however, with their all-737 fleet, it may be easier to standardize.

Whether or not you should recline is a matter for debate. Always look before you lean to avoid crushing any laptops.

Frankly, I’d guess it’s not really necessary for most people to lean back on short flights, say, sub-two hours. As the flight gets longer, the more permissible it is. If you’re sitting in an economy seat with extra legroom, such as Economy Plus or in front of an exit row, go for it. (The irony: Most seats in front of the exit row are locked in the upright position.)

But having one standard recline angle across an entire plane may be inappropriate. I agree with this sentiment:

How close the seats are to one another, measured in “seat pitch” at airlines, should determine how much recline is allowed, seat manufacturers say. “The bigger the pitch, the more recline is possible,” says a spokeswoman for Recaro Aircraft Seating GmbH, a major airline seat company based in Germany.

In any case, it’ll be interesting to see public reaction to Southwest’s reduced recline. Will the masses be upset? Or will they even notice?

Reader Julie writes:

I’m looking to buy tickets from Newark to San Francisco for the holidays, and Expedia has the lowest price for tickets on United. (Even lower than united.com) Can I upgrade these tickets if I buy them from Expedia? Thanks!

You’re in luck! For travel within the United States, most every airline allows upgrades if the tickets were purchased from online agencies like Travelocity, Expedia, Orbitz, CheapTickets, etc. As long as the booking class is legally upgradable, it doesn’t matter where you buy it.

(The exception: If you bought “opaque” tickets from Hotwire or Priceline, i.e., you didn’t select the airline and/or flight times when you made your purchase, then you can’t upgrade.)

For international tickets, upgrades are generally a little more complicated. Not all booking classes are upgradable, either with miles or certificates. But again, as long as the ticket you buy conforms to the upgrade rules of the airline, then it shouldn’t matter where you buy the ticket. As long as you are buying a “published” fare, you should be fine. (And even then: I’ve upgraded a ticket purchased from a consolidator. But it’s up to each airline to set such rules.)

Buy the ticket from Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity, or wherever it’s cheapest. And good luck getting the upgrade!

P.S. In theory, you could buy the ticket from United and invoke their low fare guarantee by pointing to the lower fare on Expedia to get $50 in credit, but it’s probably not worth the trouble…
(image)

Readers are always invited to send in questions, comments, or, as the case of Neale H. exemplifies, their rants. Neale is one unsatisfied Ryanair customer. His e-mail demonstrates that people don’t just want a cheap fare — sometimes absurdly cheap if you buy far enough in advance — they want to be treated with a modicum of respect.

Neale’s requests: The chance to sit together with his kids, and a pooled-luggage policy that doesn’t charge him the equivalent of $100 for going overweight. His e-mail, below the fold, outlines his objections in all their righteous detail.

Ryanair doesn’t come out smelling too clean after Neale is done with his assault. And he doesn’t even mention their skimpy legroom (photographic proof!). And indeed, it sounds like they don’t want kids onboard. But I disagree that Ryanair therefore appeals to the “lonely.” Hey, I’ve got no offspring, either, but that doesn’t mean I’m lacking affection or a social life…

Think Neale is right on? Think he’s being unreasonable? Sound off in comments. And if you don’t think this could happen in the U.S. of A., I have one word for you: Skybus. Click “Read more” to see Neale’s rant.

(more…)

Reader Diane writes in:

My family bought 3 roundtrip tickets on American Airlines […] with a connection through St. Louis, due to a cheap fare. Last week, my hubby got an e-mail of schedule changes. The changes are terrible, but it was a non-refundable fare. The flight now requires a 5:30 am departure and twice as long layovers each way through St. Louis. Looking for advice and/or direction that you might be able to give. Do we have any options with American Airlines or are we totally stuck?

Well, Diane, the options you have are limited. The American Airlines Conditions of Carriage statement, the contract which governs the ticket you purchase from them, contains this lovely provision (emphasis mine):

American will endeavor to carry you and your baggage with reasonable dispatch, but times shown in timetables or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. American may, without notice, substitute alternate carriers or aircraft and, if necessary, may alter or omit stopping places shown on the ticket. Schedules are subject to change without notice. American is not responsible for or liable for failure to make connections, or to operate any flight according to schedule, or for a change to the schedule of any flight. Under no circumstances shall American be liable for any special, incidental or consequential damages arising from the foregoing.

Wow. I knew the airlines were absolving themselves of responsibility, but the degree to which American Airlines describes its own timetable as meaningless is amazing.

That said, the airline is known to be more flexible than that. American has traditionally allowed one itinerary change or a complete refund if your departure or arrival times changes by 90 minutes or more. It’s my understanding that such a refund would be considered “involuntary” and thus incur no change fees.

Without knowing what times your flights were originally scheduled for, it’s hard to say if you qualify for a free re-routing. But it’s worth a call. For now, I’ll assume your times changed more than 90 minutes, in which case you can request a reaccomodation, regardless of the fare you paid. Check the timetable online to see what flights might work better for you. Then call, say your flight times were changed, and ask to make a change. Make sure you’re not charged a fee.

If the times were changed less than 90 minutes, then you may not have any recourse.

Incidentally, these rules are more explicitly and publicly codified by other airlines. Both Continental and United, for example, publish their 90-minute rule.

Bottom line: If an airline changes its schedule after you buy the ticket, and the itinerary becomes problematic, it’s always worth calling to try to change it.

(image)

Reader Dave S. writes in:

I read your “open letter” to Lufthansa with some interest. I’m also frustrated with Lufthansa, but for slightly different reasons. They keep deleting my seat assignments for a flight I’m taking in December. I am one of those people who carefully picks his seats in advance, and then obsessively looks up the seating chart every few weeks, and every time, the original assignment is cancelled. Sometimes the seats we chose are still blank (we have an aisle and a middle) but sometimes they put someone else in the aisle seat we reserved. I call them up and they tell me there’s nothing they can do. What am I doing wrong?

Dave, you’re not alone, and you’re not doing anything wrong. Just last month I heard some stories of people losing their seats repeatedly on Lufthansa.

Lufthansa may be worse than others, though I have no statistics to support that allegation, but it’s not alone, either. Most airlines offer seat reservations for longhaul routes, but won’t necessarily guarantee them, in a Seinfeld-ian way.

Some seat changes are understandable, especially if there is ever an equipment change. If the carrier swaps, say, an Airbus 340 for a Boeing 747, your seat assignments may be lost.

But you are right to try to pre-select and defend your seats. Smart seat selection is one of the easiest way to maximize your travel comfort, especially on long flights, so I advise readers to consult SeatGuru and SeatExpert for advice on choosing the best seat.

Then, stay on top of the airline. Some airlines let you view your seat assignments when you log in using your frequent flyer number. But to be sure, periodically run a search for your flights and look at the seatmap. (Try an agency like Orbitz or Expedia if the operating airline doesn’t make real-time seatmaps conveniently accessible.) If something looks suspicious, call and verify.

Not having a seat assignment can put you at a further disadvantage when you’re checking in: You’re stuck with the limited supply of seats that more proactive passengers have left you. Or even worse, you might be first in line to get involuntarily bumped off the flight, if the plane is overbooked and you’re without a seat.

Keep records of whom you spoke with if you made assignments on the phone, or print copies of reservations if changes are made online. If seats are deleted again, call their customer service number to complain. But there’s unfortunately no way to guarantee your seats aren’t taken away.

(Note: E-mail from readers is always welcome. Got a problem, a question, a complaint, or a compliment related to travel, for business or pleasure? Use the “contact” link at the top right of the screen and drop a line anytime.)

(image)

When John Brownlee, expatriate American and co-captain of the Consumerist.com ship, isn’t discussing how my building’s current lack of hot water affects my privates, he’s offering helpful advice and a platform for people who’ve been wronged by lousy customer service.

Via e-mail, he suggests this potential workaround to chip-and-PIN requirements for non-European credit card holders. He verifies that this trick works in Ireland:

I don’t know if this will work in Denmark, but what I used to do (when I lost my pin) was plug it in and just wait. After about twenty seconds of you not doing anything, a receipt is automatically printed out.

Obviously this won’t work at self-service gas stations or train ticket vending machines, but it’s worth a shot if you encounter a clerk who’s unwilling/unable/untrained to print out a swipe-and-sign receipt.

Whether you want to stand there and wait 20 seconds, doing nothing, when people are waiting behind you is a another matter.

Related:
- Rotten in Denmark: Credit cards with mandatory PIN
- We prefer Visa cards, just not yours

(image: PanDeva)

Reader Mike writes in:

I thought I’d share something I encountered on a recent vacation to Denmark. When I tried to use any of my credit or debit cards at stores, I was asked to enter a PIN code. It turns out that in Denmark, they instituted a PIN code to replace signatures, and this is different from an ATM PIN code you would have for a debit or credit card. Some stores were able to bypass the PIN and then print a receipt for a signature - hotels and some restaurants did this - but most other stores - supermarkets, mobile phone stores, gas stations - did not. I had a mobile phone store even call American Express, and eventually told me they could not process a purchase without a PIN code. As a result, we simply used the ATMs to withdraw and pay with cash.

We’ve mentioned this phenomenon before in an earlier post about the frustrations of not having a “ChipKnip” feature when traveling the Netherlands with U.S.-issued credit cards. But the chip-and-PIN requirement wasn’t nearly as widespread in Holland. We got off comparatively easy. It sounds much closer to mandatory in Denmark.

The whole point of a global credit card network like Visa or MasterCard is that you can use your card globally. If you have extra local requirements that take precedence, then Danish Visa cards might as well drop the Visa name. (Heck, call them Carlsberg cards.)

Of course, Danes can bring their cards to the U.S. to swipe and sign, so they enjoy the advantages of a global card network. But shouldn’t the major credit card networks clamp down on this kind of local variation?

Which countries are the biggest offenders? The issue seems isolated to Europe thus far. We count the UK and the Netherlands as moderately problematic. Germany and France are no problem at all. And Denmark is trouble with a capital T.

Where else? Comments are open, e-mail tips encouraged.

Related:
- We prefer Visa cards, just not yours

(image)

Reader THC writes:

I’ve been in airports a lot lately, with CNN Airport playing on TVs everywhere. But I didn’t know about the plane crash in Brazil until I got home. Does CNN Airport filter air crash news?

Yep. Apparently the directors behind CNN Airport Network do indeed censor the news to keep “disturbing” images off the terminal TVs.

The exception was 9/11, when the network reported the events of the day. But otherwise, CNN has broadcasted other news, or even video of singing cowboys.

One writer went so far as to solicit the official CNN policy:

“Oh, yes, Airport Network programming is sensitive to travelers,” the cheerful Ms. Hammann told me when I asked if in fact they do cut out disturbing airline-related news. She sounded just like one of the on-air honey blondes, warm and overwhelmingly reassuring.

“So, we don’t show sensitive materials like that,” she continued. “We use our discretion. If it is something that is specific to the airline industry, something that is particularly upsetting or disturbing to travelers, then it’s not shown. That’s always been our policy, and we make that known to the airports and the airlines and they’re fully in agreement with that policy.”

There you have it. Frankly, I wouldn’t shed any tears if the CNN monitors were removed from airports. My eyes inevitably drift up to watch, no matter how much I’d rather not look.

But is the failure to report disturbing news of air disasters an act of sensitivity, or censorship? I’m on the fence. I’m not sure I’d want to hear about a crash just as I’m about to get on a plane, and I’m pretty hardy in the face of such news. But if the televisions are broadcasting news, shouldn’t it be the real news of the day, and not just singing cowboys?

(image: 1541)