In particular, I’m referring to two of the online agency’s features, which it hopes will set it apart from the online competition. First, destination specialists — customer service reps trained to answer questions about the most popular vacation destinations. A caller (or online chatter) might be interested in, say, Cancun, and have questions about different hotels. The destination specialist (who may or may not be an Orbitz employee) should be able to answer some of those questions.

Second, there’s a suite of post-purchase follow-up services that Orbitz promises, under the umbrella of the “OrbitzTLC” label. Sure, it includes the automated “your flight is delayed” e-mails that the airlines offer, but what makes it interesting is the human element: Like a travel agent who would make arrangements for you when things went awry, Orbitz promises to work to rebook you when your flights are canceled or delayed. And going beyond the Main Street travel agent’s limits, a group of former air traffic controllers watches live ATC data to see where the problems arise. A team of former airline employees calls the airlines to proactively negotiate rebookings on your behalf, breaking out the legal mumbo jumbo from the contracts of carriage.

What makes both services interesting to me is the merger of higher-touch human contact with online shopping. But none of this is new. Destination specialists were rolled out at the company in 2008, and TLC has been around even longer. And the concepts behind both aren’t new at all — they’re at the very heart of what travel agencies used to earn their money doing: providing a service that extended beyond the booking of tickets.

I admit that I only considered any of this after a recent visit to Orbitz headquarters in Chicago, in the company of other travel bloggers. (Full disclosure: The flight and hotel were on Orbitz’ dime.) But most of the participants in the meeting — all people who watch the travel space closely — were unaware of the extent to which these services existed. Several of us honestly thought that OrbitzTLC was just the generic flight alerts to your phone or e-mail. That tells me that Orbitz hasn’t promoted these services clearly or effectively.

And let’s face it, the barriers to entry for other agencies aren’t insurmountable. Sure, there’s a recruiting and training expense that’s not negligible, but it’s manageable. It’s not like there’s an entire floor of a downtown Chicago office tower dedicated to these services. There’s nothing stopping a competitor from starting up a similar service. (Travelocity mentions “Proactive Contact” in their guarantees, but again, it’s not very clearly defined or well promoted.)

Orbitz would be wise to promote these services more aggressively, if they really believe these services are an important differentiator from other online (and offline) agencies.

(image)

Nine hotels have joined the scheme to stop “beach towel wars”, which see many Germans accused of hogging loungers.

Reserving a lounger and beach umbrella in advance will cost about three euros (£2.60) a day, on top of the holiday package.

Thomas Cook is offering the option at nine hotels in Turkey, Egypt and the Canary Islands.

For a weekly rate of 49 euros per room a family can reserve one lounger for each person, along with a beach umbrella and their own dining table at six Egyptian hotels.

The fact that people are currently getting up early to run downstairs, plop down a towel, only to sit in the same spot for hours and hours, broiling away in the sun, strikes me as sad.

But, from the perspective of the hotels and the booking agency, it’s a great way to boost revenue and improve those customers’ experience… if they book in advance. Otherwise, tourists might show up at a resort and find the pool completely reserved. And they’ll be dissatisfied, to say the least.

But if you’re a hotelier, how far do you take this? What else could be pre-reserve-able, to calm the nerves of guests who, for whatever reason, want nothing left to chance? The hour when housekeeping knocks? Buckets of ice from the machine? Treadmills in the gym?

So: What say you? Is permitting the reservation of a pool chair a good idea, or absurd overplanning? Hit the comments!

(image)

Downgraded: American’s luggage fees
Speaking of fees, this is more or less the norm: American is raising its checked baggage fees by $5, both for the first piece (now $20) and the second ($30).

Downgraded: Open Skies
OpenSkies, the all-premium class British Airways subsidiary, is dropping its New York-JFK to Amsterdam route and is focusing entirely on flights from Paris to Newark and JFK. Just days after announcing that the airline was for sale. A shame.

Downgraded: Government architecture
Just when they started making customs and border crossing buildings a little more interesting, they go ahead and roll it all back: The 21-foot-high letters spelling “United States” were deemed a target, and thus a security risk. Words fail me.

Upgraded: Deals at Starwood hotels
Starwood is cutting rates by up to 50%, albeit off rack rates. “Limited time only,” they say, but no end date.

Upgraded: Headline writing
A Southwest Airlines flight made an emergency landing shortly after leaving Hartford, due to an electrical problem emanating from a coffeemaker, but you’ve gotta love the Times of London’s headline for the incident: “Southwest Airlines flight grounded by coffee aroma.”

Upgraded: Eco-designations for hotels
AAA is planning to note an “eco-friendly” designation in their TourBook travel guides for properties that participate in local, regional, or third-party eco-accreditation systems. The patchwork approach means that a hotel might make the cut in one state but not in another, based on regional variation.

The State Department’s warning comes with the caveat that “hackers won’t find any practical use for data,” because personal information is encrypted. But that encryption has already been cracked.

So now the data and the accessibility of the chip have been compromised. Why are we using this technology, again?

Implementation of this technology means more hassle, more concern about your data, and, frankly, less convenience. Great.

As Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, notes, “By obliging Americans to use these sleeves [...] the government has, in effect, shifted the burden of privacy protection to the citizen.”

And while this is a completely remote possibility for everyday travelers…

In 2006, a mobile security company, Flexilis, conducted an experiment in which the transponder of a partially opened e-passport triggered an explosive planted in a trashcan when a dummy carrying the chipped passport approached the bin. A video of the experiment was shown that year at a security conference.

I like the old, non-IED-triggering plain-vanilla passports better.

The whole RFID controversy is so frustrating because it’s completely unnecessary. You don’t need a chip to create a counterfeit-resistant document in the first place. But by addressing one problem — counterfeiting — it creates a swath of new problems.

If you want to be sure, remember that there’s really only one surefire way to prevent your e-passport from broadcasting your personal information: Break the chip. Pound it with a hammer.

I’m admittedly a skeptic, though I jealously wonder how fat the margins are in this business.

On the one hand, I see the logic: If it’s wrapped tightly with plastic, it’s less likely to break open or be damaged by moisture. Some of these services, such as SecureWrap, also include some luggage insurance in the cost of the wrapping.

But how much protection is this, really? An airport security official looking to inspect your bag’s contents will just cut the plastic right off. A determined thief will do the same. How much protection is this, really? And for 6 euros (the price charged at Madrid) or 9 dollars (the price at JFK) per item, is this money well spent?

Hit the poll and the comments below the video.

(Reading this via the RSS feed? Visit the site to vote.)

There are some benefits. The obvious one is that you can book one-way award tickets, should that need arise. And it would now be possible to mix and match between booking classes, e.g., first class one way, coach class returning.

Another benefit might be on hard-to-book routes: Let’s say you can find availability on the outbound, but not the return. You can then go ahead and book the outbound, to lock that in, and keep checking back to see if/when the return opens up. (If this strategy fails, of course, you’d have some fees to cancel that one-way ticket, or you might end up buying a cash fare for the return… but it’s another tool in your arsenal.)

The one-way ticket also means you can string together a series of tickets that criss-cross the country, or the globe — say, New York to Albuquerque on one ticket, Albuquerque to Portland on another, Portland to Tampa on another, and Tampa to New York again on a final ticket. Of course, each city pair is its own ticket, but you could create some pretty complex itineraries that weren’t possible earlier.

But…

After seeing a post by lucky that pointed to a message board discussion of the policy changes, I knew there was a downside coming. What WAS possible before, and what’s been dampened alongside this change, was the free stopover when flying American Airlines or its partners on an roundtrip ticket.

The revised mileage chart shows only one-way fares, and reference to stopovers has disappeared. In the FAQ’s for the new One Way Flex Awards, there is this: “Awards between North America and Europe, India, Asia, and Central / South America allow a stopover at the North American gateway. However, other one-way awards do not allow stopovers.” That’s a function of the change from roundtrips to one-ways, but it’s lame.

The old rules (found via a quick search that yielded the original stopover rule text on a thread at Flyertalk) permitted stopovers at either the US or the international gateway. (International stopovers on oneworld alliance tickets, which are calculated on the basis of miles flown, are still possible, since you can string up to 16 flight segments together for one mileage fare.)

Savvy travelers have long made good use of free stopovers to make their miles go further. This has especially been true internationally, where one could add a few days’ jetlag recovery in one city before catching a flight to the intended final destination. Those stopovers will still be possible under the new policy, but they’ll cost you an additional flight segment’s miles. That’s a downgrade.

A shame, really. American Airlines’ one-way awards would otherwise have been praised as a nice upgrade. Too bad they giveth, and they taketh away.

Downgraded: Colgan Air
The National Transportation Safety Board has released transcripts of cockpit conversations before the doomed Colgan Air-operated Continental Flight 3407. The Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 went down in icy conditions. More disturbing: the cockpit recordings showed that one of the pilots felt under-trained for the experience. The quote, minutes before things got a lot worse: “I’ve never seen icing conditions. I’ve never de-iced. I’ve never seen any — I’ve never experienced any of that. I don’t want to have to experience that and make those kinds of call[s]. You know I’d have freaked out. I’d have, like, seen this much ice and thought, ‘Oh, my gosh, we’re going to crash.’” Pilots who haven’t had de-icing training? Flying to Buffalo?? In February???

Downgraded: Your luggage… because it’s been sucked into a jet engine
Passengers on board Japan Air Lines flight 61 got a treat as their plane began its taxi to the runway. Engine number 1 of the Boeing 747 sucked in a misplaced luggage container. Passengers and ground personnel were unharmed, but it made for good imagery.

Downgraded: Embassy Suites’ notion of the suite
Embassy Suites is considering shrinking the size of its rooms, but keeping the current price. Then, they’ll charge a premium for the current suite configuration. Somehow, they’ll try to spin this as an improvement, I’m sure.

Upgraded: Opaque booking of hotels
Travelocity is rolling out opaque booking for select hotels. Interspersed with named hotels, you’ll find “secret” hotels whose identity is only revealed after purchase. This sort of sale is typically associated with Priceline and Hotwire, but it’s hardly new. GTA Hotels has done this for ages. EasyClickTravel used to offer “off the record” hotels, but they have discontinued the practice. A company like Travelocity might be able to get this to work alongside its named offerings, because of its size, but the competition from the established opaque booking specialists seems to be pretty strong. We’ll see if it lasts.

When I searched the site earlier that day from my office, I searched in Spanish. A one-way ticket from Barcelona to Madrid could be had for around 44 euros on a “tarifa Web,” their Internet special fare with 30 day advance purchase.

When I was at home, ready to finalize my purchase, I opted to search with the site language set to English. The price was nearly 110 euros.

(On the positive side, RENFE’s full-fare ticket is still less than the $253 per person that Rail Europe is charging… Where on earth is that fare coming from?…)

A little digging revealed that the Spanish-language RENFE site offered three tiers of ticket, including the deep-discounted 15-day advance purchase “Tarifa Web” and the discounted 7-day advance purchase “Tarifa Estrella.” (Terms of which are described here.)

The English-language site only offered the full-price fare, with an indication of how much that fare would cost if you bought it in the station vs. on the web. Web and Estrella fares were missing.

My one year of high school Spanish, limited travel experience in the Spanish-speaking world, and Google Translate were enough to figure out what I was buying on the Spanish-language site. And I was able to get the lower fare, using a US billing address and an American Visa card, with two tickets costing less than one ticket on the English site. But why is this necessary?

A quick search shows that other English-speakers have had similar experiences, and that some users have been unable to complete a purchase at all.

The bothersome part is that RENFE has actively constructed a site that looks and acts differently for different users, based solely on their language. It’s not based on your IP address, or your billing address. It affects Americans, Britons, and anyone who opts for English in the same way.

I just did another search, for different dates, and it’s not just a fluke. It’s systematic. Here’s a screenshot of Spanish-language search results (note that fares in the search images below are different from what I booked):

And here’s the same search, on the English site:

A very different look on the English site. And no discounts.

(The two-price system reminds me of a trip through eastern Europe in 1992. At the Vilnius train station, where I was trying to buy a ticket to Warsaw, the rail station cashiers had a simple standard for outsiders: The fare was 200. 200 rubles, dollars, Deutschmarks, whatever. Your nationality determined your currency. It always cost 200.)

Segmenting your customers, and pitching different products to them accordingly, is one thing. Discriminating against them wholesale is quite another.

——

UPDATE 1:
An unnamed RENFE representative writes in:

Subject: Renfe website doesn’t charge double
The information found in the Upgrade Travel Better blog, stating that the price for tickets purchased in the English language option on Renfe’s website is much more expensive than in the Spanish version, is incorrect. The prices referred to in the above-mentioned information relate exclusively to the Timetables Search section; legally, Renfe is obliged to publish the prices to which the various discounts are applied. However, when tickets are actually acquired (by pressing the shopping trolley icon) the purchaser is taken directly to the ticket purchase application, which shows all special offer prices, identically in all languages. The area designed for purchasing tickets also has an English version.

As I indicated in my comment last night, it is indeed possible to find the discounted web fares. But this misses the point: The initial English quoted price is still double the initial Spanish quoted price. Why would anyone who searches in English assume that the price would go down from there? There’s no indication on the initial English search page that web or estrella fares even exist.

Renfe’s English site is the equivalent of going to a supermarket and seeing a pack of gum labeled for sale for $5. If you see the $5 price, you’ll probably just leave it there. Or, you could ask the cashier about the price, and when he doesn’t know why it’s so expensive, he could call over the manager, who would politely explain that you could buy the pack of gum for $1. So, yes, after much time and negotiation, the gum actually costs $1, but why would you go through that trouble?

Renfe’s response shows that they’re content to sell their services with mislabeled prices. Why is this an acceptable business practice, exactly?

UPDATE 2:
The folks from Renfe just won’t give up on denying that their site misrepresents their prices! But they admit their site needs work, and they indicate that a relaunch of the site is coming. If the response to this post is any indicator, that relaunch can’t come soon enough.

This post is already incredibly long, so I share their latest e-mail to me, and my response to it, after the jump.

Subject: The prices quote are the same, definetively

Dear Mark,

Your update of the post regarding Renfe’s website maintains the same mistake there was in the main post, as it’s to say “The initial English quoted price is still double the initial Spanish quoted price”. That’s no true, so let’s hope we could break the misunderstanding. Spanish Renfe’s home have two different sections: Tickets Sale (Venta de Billetes) and Timetable Search (Buscador de Horarios). If you enter into the second section you’ll find, of course, only timetables with general fares. But if you want actually purchase the tickets, then –and only then- you have to enter into the first section. There you can choose your train, the web “question” the system about the availability of tickets and shows the places, the offers, etc.

Since a simple timetable can’t say anything about availability, it’s as well not possible for it say anything about discount or special fares, that are subjected to a availability and, furthermore, they’re changing (the discount are NOT 40 or 60%, but UP TO 40 or 60).

The misunderstanding begins when you select a language (any language, not only English) and you’re droved directly to “Timetable Search”. If you want to know how are the prices and availability you’re addressed to the proper section. Maybe all these steps are not so clear for everyone, so from now on we’ll put a note explaining that if you want to check’em you have to go to Ticket Sales.

In short, when you say “the initial Spanish quoted price” probably you mean the banner with a list of fares: Estrella, up to 40%, etc. But, Mark, this is not a quoted price, neither a price! It’s only an advertisement…

Moreover, it’s not a double price of any other, since you don’t even know if there’s a discount available for your train!

On the other hand, this “English website”, like the other languages websites, is only a provisional solution, because we’re currently building a brand new website, clearer for the purchaser and with proper translations.

Sincerely,
Renfe Operadora
Press Office

My response, in an attempt to be as detailed as possible, to avoid any further misunderstandings, and hopefully guide their efforts to improve the customer experience…:

First, thank you for your note. I appreciate the fact that RENFE is answering these concerns, though I disagree strongly with your assessment. The problems are not simply a “misunderstanding.” They are a failure of RENFE to build a sensible website, and your defensiveness shows a lack of comprehension of the consumer experience.

So, dear RENFE, let me try to help you. I think you need to understand how visitors actually enter your site, rather than the abstract notion of what information is out there on your site.

Let’s compare the user experience of the Spanish-speaker and the English-speaker.

Here’s the Spanish-language flow through the site:
1) I go to www.renfe.es. On the left sidebar, I choose cities, dates, etc., in Spanish. I click “buscar.”

2) A new window opens (annoying, I might add). The fares are all there, including web and estrella fares. Fares are as low as 43.80 euros for a one-way AVE ticket between Barcelona and Madrid. (THIS is what I refer to as the “initial Spanish quoted price” in the post above. Not the advertised “fares as low as 60% off” banner, which you seem to think I’m referring to.) I choose a specific train/fare option, scroll to the bottom, enter the CAPTCHA number, and click “continuar.”

3) Next screen: I enter my billing information, check the terms/conditions box, and click “comprar.”

The Spanish version is relatively simple. (Of course, when booking two tickets, and choosing web fare, your site sometimes hiccups when only one seat is available at that price… that’s another problem but let’s stay on topic…)

In contrast, here’s the English-language experience. If you haven’t done this yourself, try it sometime, and imagine that you don’t understand the Spanish words that appear on the screen…:

1) I go to www.renfe.es. I look for something that suggests an option to view in another language, which most sites indicate with, say, the word “English,” or a small icon of a UK flag. Alas, there isn’t anything obvious for those who can’t read Spanish. Instead, at the bottom left, there is a pulldown labeled “Seleccione su idioma” with a stylized European Union flag adjacent. Somehow, despite the lack of clarity, I don’t give up, and I click on the pulldown and choose “English.” Next page automatically loads…

2) I arrive at a page entitled “Timetables and Prices.” There is no indication that this page is just information, vs. a way to purchase. The English-speaking visitor is unaware, at this point, that there is a separate process for buying tickets, and that there might conceivably be any discounts available. There is no mention of web or estrella fares. I choose my cities, my date of travel, etc., and I click “search.”

3) A new window opens (annoying, again). Fares are listed in the English-language format as pictured in the original post above. Despite this being the English site, fares are labeled in Spanish: “precio Internet,” for example. No discounts are shown. Again, no information about the EXISTENCE or POSSIBILITY of discounted web or estrella fares is shown. Prices here are full-fare, with the lowest fare at 109.50 euros; I refer to this as the “initial English quoted price” above. I click the shopping cart icon in the column labeled “compra,” rather than “buy.”

4) Another new window opens (have I mentioned that all these new windows are annoying?). I’m brought to a page that’s entirely in Spanish. Irritated, I start looking for a way to change the language to English. At the bottom left, I see some text in Spanish, and a pulldown with the word “espanol” on it. I click it, and see English as an option. I choose English…

5) The page refreshes, with the left sidebar and tabs at the top in partial English. The main frame of the screen is in Spanish. I now need to re-enter all the information I entered earlier (annoying, again) to perform a new search. I enter my cities, dates, etc., and click “buscar” — again, in Spanish, not in English, despite this being the “English” version.

6) FINALLY, I get a screen with bookable fares, with web and estrella discounts. I choose a fare, enter the CAPTCHA, and click “continue.”

7) Billing information, terms/conditions, etc., with a “purchase” option at the bottom.

Why are there all these unnecessary steps in the English version? Why not simply bring an English user to the search page that features bookable fares, as you do for Spanish customers? Instead, you route English-language visitors to timetables which look like booking pages. Note also that a reasonable person should expect the quoted price to be the price available for purchase. If you’re listing the highest prices, with no indication of alternative fares, you’re doing yourselves and your customers a grave disservice.

You’re costing yourselves sales, and good will.

I look forward to seeing the promised improvements to the website. But above all, I look forward to my travel between Barcelona and Madrid.

Sincerely,
Mark Ashley

The flu scare has nearly everyone edgy. CNN isn’t helping — a friend sent me a note that their TV coverage yesterday was labeled “Humanity Under Threat.” Come on. Sure, it’s a serious concern, but that’s just outright fearmongering. So is there a silver lining to the 24-7 flu news bombardment?

If you wanted to travel to Mexico, there is. Much as Warren Buffett says the time to buy stocks is when fear is highest, I’m taking a close look at travel to Mexico right about now.

Fares to the cities as well as the resort towns are dirt cheap right now, as demand for flights has fallen off a cliff. As FareCompare CEO and friend of the blog Rick Seaney puts it, “If you’re paying more than $300 right now to anywhere in Mexico, you’re nuts.”

Before anyone jumps down my throat: I’m not advocating flying into a crisis area, much as I wouldn’t suggest flying into a region that’s been hit with a coup, a tsunami, or a devastating earthquake. If there’s a problem that needs cleaning up, and you’re not there to help, you’ll just be in the way. But taking advantage of a temporary dip in a locale’s desirability (for lack of a better word) can make your buck go a lot further.

Importantly, the deals that are out there aren’t just for next week or next month. Look further out, and the prices are still low. How about December 2009? By next winter, this scare will have hopefully passed. Chicago to Cancun on Mexicana Airlines can be had for $184 ($280 including all taxes, flights may be operated by American Airlines). Packages to resort locales could save you big, too, but be careful about cancellation policies.

And flu scare or no flu scare, you can get sick any time of year, and “regular” flu kills more people than swine flu. Good personal hygiene habits will go a long way toward prevention. That doesn’t necessarily mean masks, which are good if you have the flu, but not so much otherwise.

The bigger risk might be canceled flights, if airlines see a steep enough drop in their bookings. Be sure your hotel reservations can be canceled or refunded, and that you won’t end up losing out.

Be the vulture, not the carrion.

(image)

Downgraded: Flight plans
Way to freak out an entire city: A backup 747 in the colors of the presidential plane known as Air Force One (but only when he’s onboard…) gave the city of New York quite a scare when it gave Manhattan a low fly-over. New Yorkers got the fleeting sense of deja vu. The White House apologized.

Downgraded: Airport upgrades
Fewer passengers, fewer airplanes, reduced cash flow at airports. No surprises there. The result: Airports cutting back on planned improvements. Sydney’s airport is delaying a new baggage handling system and an aircraft parking plan.

Downgraded: Promo materials
Ever go to a hotel, a restaurant, or a destination, and the reality isn’t quite what it looked like on the website? Then perhaps you’ll enjoy this lovely photo from a restaurant website, and mocked (”Tatooine’s finest restaurant”) at PhotoshopDisasters.com. I love the two suns, the perpendicular tides, and the break in the horizon. If you want to attract visitors, give the people as many suns as you can! (Thanks, J!)

An act of terrorism, caught on film.

Upgraded: Hostels
The NYT has a piece on European hostels, and how they’ve improved over the years, reaching out to travelers who want more privacy (e.g., a double room instead of a bunk in a dormitory) and more luxury (if an ensuite bathroom is your idea of luxury… my bar is a tad higher). Remember, though, that no matter what the appointments are and the increase in private rooms, hostels are designed to bring people together. A (good) night’s rest may be coincidental to the social mission, so if you’re not feeling social, hostels are not for you. Maybe I’m a cranky old fart, but I prefer to choose the moments when I want to be social. Subsequently, hostels are not my cup of tea.

Downgraded: Offshore outsourcing
Airline call centers have famously been outsourced to offshore call centers, but as passenger numbers (and call volume) shrink, the size of the call center operation has shrunk alongside. Delta has now announced that they will no longer send calls to India, where they’ve been routing calls since 2002. Delta will also reduce call center operations in South Africa and Jamaica. Like most people, I’ve dealt with international call centers, but my complaint hasn’t ever been about understanding the person on the other end of the line. Acoustically, I could understand them. But on more than one occasion, they couldn’t understand what I wanted to do, or they were unable to perform any but the simplest reservation tasks. I often wondered if these outsourced call centers were costing the company more money (in disgruntled customers) than they saved in salaries and benefits. It took a while, but perhaps that equation has finally tilted back toward better-trained in-house employees. (Via FlightWisdom)

Upgraded: Hotel deals in Tampa
The sharpest hotel rate declines in the US? They’re in Tampa, with a 31% decrease, year-over-year, according to Hotwire.

(image)

At least you’ve got a guardrail. I’ve experienced far more frightening drives in Alaska, California, or New Zealand, off the top of my head, without the luxury of a metal barrier.

Route 1 is a gorgeous road with amazing vistas, but fear shouldn’t be the central emotion you experience. (Except perhaps if you pull into the gas station in San Simeon and see the markup…)

You want real fear at the wheel? Or even better, on a mountain bike? Try this: the Death Road in Bolivia. Not the “Ooh, there’s no guardrail” Road. Death Road.

Have a look:

And a video:

(Thanks, Bill!)