The Tin Lizard

A Sweet Airfare Deal - For The Airline (Part II)

Of course, we're all aware that the experience I described yesterday with having to cancel and rebook an air fare is only the tip of the iceberg where airlines' gouging of customers is concerned - less space, higher prices, baggage fees, fee fees, and the like.  Travel writer Christopher Elliott recently mentioned some more novel ones, such as playing up the fact they separate out fees for "transparency," even though you often can't see the fees until after you have booked (and good luck with trying to get a refund then!); or Delta's recent new class of service, the "completely nonrefundable" ticket.

Elliott's point in the article is that airlines, as well as car rental companies, hotels, and others who "serve" travelers, not only impose charges for "features" that no one is demanding, but seek to justify them as "benefits."  This is a very old and very common marketing technique, but often the claims have been laughably thin.  As the writer notes regarding the efforts hotels are making to block you from using any networks but their in-house one (for which they charge exorbitantly), they would like to have you believe they want to "jam your cellular hotspot for your own good." 

Whether these companies' silly claims are believable or not, the bottom line on many of these "benefits to consumers" actually is in fact, the bottom line -- they are immensely profitable.

Most of us just accept this kind of gouging without complaint or comment.  I wonder why.  Do we feel we have no other choice?

I'm particularly perturbed by a travel writer (i.e. and e.g. Mr. Elliott) who can write about these things and offer the wimpy advice to examine the claims and ask yourself, "who benefits?"  By implication, we should ask ourselves, but not the companies themselves.   Consumers and travelers KNOW who benefits, Mr. E, but as a "consumer advocate," as the blurb at the bottom of your column characterizes you, what are you doing to advocate?

A Sweet Airfare Deal - For The Airline (Part I)

In January, we had to cancel some flight reservations we had made, due to one of those "act of god" things - a hurricane destroyed our destination.  The tickets were purchased as a low-fare deal, many months ahead of our planned travel, and were non-refundable.  This was the first time we'd faced this situation, and we found some surprises.

First, that each airline apparently sets its own terms for how such cancellations are handled, and with what restrictions.  (Nearly all have a cancellation/rebooking fee, which seems reasonable if it isn't huge.)

Second, according to our particular airline's rules, any rebooking credits must be used for flight within a year of the date the tickets were originally purchased - not really possible, in our case.  (By contrast, some other airlines, we found, allow you to rebook within a year, but the actual travel can be as much as a year after the date of rebooking.)  Online, you can find advice on these issues, airline-by-airline.  For ours, it was "buy refundable tickets, or buy travel insurance!"  Of course, that in effect means, pay extra for your tickets.

I'm happy to report that the airline, in response to our wheedling, eventually made a "one-time exception" to their rules and provided us credit for our cancelled flight, albeit minus a fairly hefty rebooking fee.  (I'd argue the actual cost of rebooking is probably about 27 cents, rather than a few hundred dollars - but yes, something is better than nothing.)

Looking at the whole episode a little more closely though, I find it a rather amazing and lucrative business model.  For the airlines, it means potential windfall profits.  For the consumer, it means you can pay in advance for a service, and could stand to lose the entire cost of that service even if your plans were changed for reasons beyond your control.  After all, it's not as if the airline can't still provide the service - to fly you somewhere else, or to the same destination on a different date, with the understanding you pay a fee to change - but seriously, to forfeit all the moolah you've paid?  And get zip in return?

I suspect this model could be successfully challenged in courts.  Where else does a contract allow the seller to get away with that?  Consumer organizations, get busy!   

The Joys Of Twenty-First Century Travel

The Lizard was off the air for quite a while.  Too long. It all started when Tin got jealous of the Geico gecko, doing all that running around the country, and decided to take a trip with his wife (named "Liz," of course).  

To Alaska.  On a cruise.  Their first.  That part was kind of "OK," although even the lizards -- who are used to sitting around on a rock all day soaking up sun -- found the long sea voyages in between ports, looking at  nothing but choppy waves and trees, just a tad boring.  So, lesson learned.

But the main delay in T.L.'s getting back to work was thanks to his airline.  United.

First was the trip from Vancouver to Chicago.  The plane was one of those Euro-things, with a model number like maybe 317.  It didn't take long (about 30 seconds) to note that the seats were peculiarly shallow (front of seat to back).  They seemed to be only about 12-13" deep, and were very uncomfortable, providing no thigh support at all.  They were also set too close to the floor. 

It was evident once again that that Vietnamese cabin designer whom I've mentioned before, the guy who used to design the tiger cages for American prisoners such as Sen. John McCain, seems to have found employment laying out passenger cabins for airlines.  While these Euroseats may have been OK for short Euroflights of a couple of hourse, they were pure torture to sit in for five hours.   T.L. hobbled around in pain for about two days after he got home to Virginia.

But the airline wanted to do a thorough job.  So, on the connecting flight from Chicago, it placed a hacking, sneezing, coughing -- I'm saying SICK, here -- young fellow right in front of Tin and Liz.   So it was no big surprise that, about the time they stopped hobbling around, they came down with probably the worst colds they had ever had.  Even as healthy reptiles in good condition, it took them nearly three weeks to get back to "normal."  (We wonder how many others on that flight got ill.  Well, the silver lining was that at least it wasn't ebola.)

So again, lesson learned:   Want to go away for a week?  Think twice.  Even a perfect trip can represent serious discontinuity for a blogger.  Remember, travel disrupts -- and for all we know, absolute travel may disrupt absolutely.

 

Icy A Problem

One of the minor entertainments of the past few days, as a major blast of ice, snow, and freezing temperatures made its way across the whole country, was to watch the endless preoccupation of the news media with weather reporting.

A subset of that was the occurrence of several multi-car pileups on major highways around the country.  One in particular attracted my attention:  A film clip (by the way, who are these people who are always standing around these days with a phonecam, photographing completely uneventful scenes until something suddenly happens?) ...

Er, as I was saying, a film clip of a pile-up occurring in Wisconsin.  A few cars involved at first, with more and more careening into those first ones.  It's tragic, because I believe people died in that pileup, but ...

People seem not to behave very sensibly.  In this particular clip, one person was seen out of his vehicle, wandering around on the highway amongst the bumper cars sliding around.  Maybe he was dazed from an impact.  More to the point, it was evident that those who later joined the fray were all traveling at a very high rate of speed - far too fast for prudent driving on a sheet of ice.  Did they know they were on a sheet of ice?  They may not have known for sure, but they ought to have been expecting it.  This was the epitome of reckless driving (not "aggressive," ladies - and sadly, not "wreckless" either) .

In our Washington DC area, people originally from places like Wisconsin like to pooh-pooh the idea that two inches of snow here can shut down traffic.  There are many reasons why that is so, but the northerners like to brag that they "know how to drive in winter."  The Wisconsin film certainly puts paid to that fiction.  Unless of course all those recklessly speeding drivers just happened to be people originally from Alabama?

 

Postscript for regular readers:  If you thought you missed posts recently, you probably didn't.  There haven't been any since Thanksgiving.  Looks like the transition to chilly weather kept the cold-blooded Lizard deep in his burrow for a while.  But T.L. seems to have acquired a glassed-in heated terrarium or something, and has promised more frequent dispatches in future.

Related articles

Massive pileup on Wisconsin highway caught on video

Travel By Train In The 21st Century

In connection with my recent exploration of the intimate details of the CRJ-200 "regional jet," I also had the opportunity to travel across the entire U.S., from Washington DC to Amtrak's western terminus in Emeryville, California (aka Oakland).  My wife and I had done lengthy train trips before, but it had been 20-25 years.   Had things changed?

In a word, "no."  The train can still be a comfortable way to travel, if you're not in a hurry, don't need the stimulation of television/radio/internet every second, and enjoy scenery.  But those are essential conditions.   Being seated randomly with others in the dining car; we got great insight into why people were on the train.  There were young people (20s) and old (retirees) - though far more of the latter; there were couples, but there were a surprising number of people traveling singly; there were Americans, but there was a large contingent of tourists who undertook a train trip as a way of seeing the U.S. countryside, perhaps hoping to comprehend the vastness of the North American interior.

One demographic was entirely lacking amongst our fellow passengers:  There was no one who was on the train because they thought it was the best way to get from one place to another (except for a handful of students we saw, traversing short distances to college).

The passenger train has changed relatively little in the last two or three decades.  Passenger accommodations depend of course on what you pay for, but most categories are clean, comfortable, and offer good value for the money.  [Possibly to be avoided, if you're not aware of the details beforehand, are the "roomettes," where your daytime setup offers a pair of facing seats, one of which has a handy side table which proves to be ... the lid of your chemical toilet!  Many of our fellow passengers seemed surprised by those...]

To continue:  Train dining cars serve up tolerably-good-but-not-gourmet food and snack bars have predictably limited, but adequate, choices.  Service is generally very good; and the crew seems to take genuine pride in that, not to mention honesty -- no one worries about the fact the cabins can't be locked, and a suitcase can travel all the way across country in the baggage car without being either lost or ransacked.  You'll get a lot of reading done, and you'll seldom be bothered by the ringing of a telephone or the need to answer a text, since you'll have little chance to connect to the world electronically except when you're passing through an urban area.

This harkening back to another era is, of course, the main value for many long-distance train riders today.  Also key, on the route we took from Chicago to California, is the amazingly beautiful scenery of the Rocky Mountains.  It's scenery that can't be duplicated (exactly) by any other means of travel, because the train takes its own route through the mountains in places where the roads don't follow.

Perhaps these things are enough, though it does seem that the numbers of people who want them is certain to decline, making passenger trains even more dinosaur-like.  As with other nostalgic experiences, do it while you can.

Airlines - They're Not All Bad

I recently took a hop across the country in an airplane. 

Well, actually it was two hops, one from Monterey, California to Denver, from there onward to Washington DC.

That opening is enough, probably, to make you think I'm about to lambast the airline for making air travel an enervating, unpleasant, costly experience, right?  Nobody ever says anything good about a flying experience. 

Well, this is different.  Sometimes, the powers that be do stuff that deserves a "well done" and a slap on the fuselage.  Here is such a case, involving the plane used for the first leg of my flight, by United Airlines's subcarrier called "Skywest Airways dba United Express."

The airplane, I found by looking at the card in the seat pocket, was a CRJ-200.  That stands for "Canadian Regional Jet." Now, I don't usually look at those cards, but I confess I found it a bit cramped to get into my seat, and I wanted to know what aircraft I was in.

So right away, you have to give United and its sub-lines a shout-out for "education while flying," because I would otherwise never have known that - apparently - Canadians are much shorter and skinnier than other people!

"But wait!"  (As they say on infomercials), "There's More!" 

Maybe it was just because my flight originated in Monterey, where one of the major industries used to be sardine canning, that it hit me:  These kind folks who built the plane must be employing the sons and daughters of all those sardine canners who had to go out of business; obviously, their expertise made them shoo-ins for jobs as designers of aircraft passenger compartments. 

And when you think about it, don't you suppose they probably found a place also for the Vietnamese families whose trade used to be building those tiger cages where they kept captives like John McCain during the war with the U.S.?  But now, all is forgiven, and they're offering the descendants a place where they can use their inherited or learned skills.   (Incidentally, have you noticed that people emerging from these flights have the same wild-eyed look that McCain has?)

Well, enough.  I don't want my praise to seem fulsome or fawning, but let's give credit where credit is due:  We may be discomfited a bit by the CRJ-200, but I say, hooray for United and Bombardier for helping to keep people employed. 

Passenger Rights

My wife and I shopped for a car recently.  We've always been a one-car family, even when we were working.  But that situation is such a rarity these days that it's almost amusing - and a little enervating - to observe, as we did at the Washington DC Car Show and later at individual dealers, how much carmakers seem to believe there will only be one person in the car.

Because passengers (Rodney Dangerfield, where are you?) "don't get no respect."  We found, for example, that in terms of seat adjustments and comfort amenities, very few manufacturers offer the passenger the same deal as the driver.  Across the board, even in some relatively high-end makes, even in the premium trims, the "shotgun" gets a short stick:  8-way seat adjustment v. 4-way (or even two-way), power seat adjustment v. manual, lumbar support v. none, heated seat v. no heated seat.  

The dichotomy varies, but there seems always to be something where the manufacturer cuts a corner or two at the passenger's expense.  (Kudos to the one exception we noted -- Volvo.) 

Also, we found no brand offering seat "memory" to the passenger, even if it's available for the driver.  Since we share a car and the driving, this lack bugged us more than a little.  Do they think the passenger seat has no need of memory?  Not so.  It's eminently practical, for the times when drivers switch off, or the passenger is someone other than the second driver, or when you turn your car over to a car wash.

Remote keyless entry hasn't been thought through for two drivers in one car, either.  In most of these systems, if you're the only driver, your master key will automatically adjust to your settings for seat, mirrors, and even heat and music in some cases; but it will be confused if it encounters two keys with different "favorite" settings in the same car.  In today's cars, technology has trumped convenience.

Maybe the answer, for us old clunkers, is to go find and drive an old clunker?  Like the 1954 Nash Ambassador that was "my" first car, perhaps. 

Another Reason To Despise Airlines

I'm happy to see the Washington Post is calling attention to the problem caused by airlines' resorting to extra charges for those who want "premium" seating - such as an aisle or a window.  This reduces the number of available contiguous seats, so families on a budget often will have difficulty getting seated together. 

I don't travel with children but I'm pretty sure it's a difficult thing to do, especially if your kids are wee.  Does anyone need the airlines making it more difficult to do so?  This system inconveniences everyone, causing uncertainty and tension for the families, who often have to rely on finding a sympathetic stewardess, or a sympathetic fellow passenger, during the boarding process, who is willing to swap seats.  It slows loading the plane and delays everyone.  It's a nuisance, too, for those who aren't traveling with kids and aren't really looking forward to minding someone else's.

Shame on the airlines, and shame on one Jamie Pearson, who runs a website called Travel Savvy Mom, who is quoted in this article with the opinion that people should stop "whining" about this problem and just suck it up, because that's the way things are and "airlines aren't nonprofits."  (I suspect Pearson has a background with one of the airlines.)  

No, airlines aren't nonprofits.  They are businesses.  Businesses that deliver a service.  A service with an implied contract.  And in every business there are certain elements that are considered normal parts of the service.  My wife and I went out to dinner last night.  The restaurant did not seat her in a vacant space with that big office party of 20, and place me across the room.  Airline travelers, too, have a right to expect that their party will be seated together, whether it's a couple, a family of seven, or even an entire choral group.

If we "must" pay extra for an aisle or window seat, I suggest families should be able to pay for only one such seat, with a guarantee of contiguous seating for the whole group.  This ought to be possible because family groups, I think, are far more likely to make their reservations early, i.e. well before most of the "premium" seats have been booked up by business travelers.  Families who do book later, of course, will have to take their lumps.

A last word for you families:  If the three of you do end up, say, with two seats together in one part of the plane and a single seat elsewhere, do NOT under any circumstances do what I saw one family do:  The two parents sat together, and dispatched their offspring to annoy complete strangers.  NO!  Not permitted.

 

Electronic Gadgets And Airplanes - Unfriendly Skies

There is apparently some hope for air travelers that the latest generation of portable entertainment devices (i.e. electronic book readers, tablets, and the like) might some day become usable on passenger aircraft at levels below 10,000 feet.  That, at least, is the promise of the FAA's intent to look into more effective means of testing such devices to determine if they really have an effect on aircraft safety.

Ever since I first acquired a Kindle, I wondered about the ban on their use on planes.  It turns out, as the above report explains, it's just as I suspected:  There is little reason to think that these devices have any effect on airline safety, but as always in the security field, the choice is always to err on the side of extreme caution.  It's easier (for the airlines).  

Most of us understand I think, that the original ban on cell phone use may make some sense:  We instinctively "get" that an electronic device actively receiving/transmitting during flight could represent a danger -- not so much out of concern for a bomb (because we assume the terrorist who put it there will NOT have turned it off) but for its potential effect on the aircraft's guidance system and instruments.  OK.

But technically, this is not a concern with e-readers, tablets, and the latest generation of smart phones, nearly all of which provide a way to switch off the internet connection while still using the device.  The concerns expressed by various airline and safety officials about the effects of "several hundred people using their devices at once" simply aren't relevant here.  So why shouldn't we be able to use them, in their "disconnected" or "airplane" mode, when there are l-o-n-g waits to be whiled away, and hardly anyone is carrying an actual book anymore?

Two reasons:  One is bureaucratic lethargy.  It's just easier to issue a blanket ban.  The other is more real:  human nature.  If you've attended any public gathering lately at which people are cautioned ahead of time to turn off their phones, you're still likely to hear a half-dozen or more phones ringing during the program.  People are idiots, and can't be relied on for responsible behavior; even the best of us suffer memory lapses or make mistakes. 

So while the FAA's efforts may be a step in the right direction, they're unlikely to provide an immediate solution.   Meanwhile, it's probably not reasonable for airlines to permit people to use their devices "disconnected," when clearly some won't be. The only solution I can think of is that maybe the next generation of devices should have a light of a specific color, clearly visible on the face of the device, indicating it's truly disconnected.  Then airplane crews might be able to check effectively.    

Driving Right (Or Not) When Traveling

I liked the fun-but-serious article "When the Right Side of the Road is Wrong" in the travel section of the Washington Post a couple of days ago.  If you can't guess, it's about places (there are quite a few of them) where traffic drives on the left side of the road.  Great Britain, for example, and much of the former British Commonwealth.  Author Christopher Elliott has some good observations on the perils, for us right-side drivers, of driving on the left. 

I've done that in a few different situations - Scotland for two weeks, The Bahamas for a week every year recently, and two weeks in Ireland in autumn 2010 - and can say that everything he relates here is valid, but I might add a few thoughts (and I suspect you can too, if you've had that experience):

It makes a huge difference whether your car's steering wheel is also on the right.  In Scotland, I had my own car (left-hand steering) brought over from Germany, and in the Bahamas, they have mostly American cars (l.h.s., again) but drive them on the "wrong" side.  It's easy if you remain cautious.  Only in Ireland did I go all the way, using a rented car with right-hand steering, and that's the only case where I ran into problems.  I believe the difference is that if the steering wheel is where you're used to having it, you're in at least some part of a familiar comfort zone; otherwise, you have to do a double adjustment.

I don't find turns are the most difficult thing.  For me, at least, the difficulty arose from the unfamiliar feel of driving from the right.  Distance was hard to judge. I've been driving so long that I never actively consider stand-off distance on my left, at home.  But my downfall was in approaching a toll booth, not more than 10 minutes out of the airport, when a momentary lapse in considering where the left side of the car was led me to scrape the entire left side of it on the jersey wall.

Last, Elliott's report that car-rental companies in Ireland more or less expect that drivers from the U.S. or the continent will have accidents is spot-on.  What needs to be said in addition is that, if you are in the habit of relying on the additional insurance your credit card may give you when driving abroad, be aware that Ireland and certain other countries are specifically excluded from that coverage.  So as an American visitor to the Emerald Isle, be sure to take the collision damage coverage.  It adds quite a bit to the rental cost, but it will likely be far cheaper than major body work.