Are Children People Too?

Few of us who have experienced air travel have avoided the annoyance of being stuck in a small space with a screaming or obnoxious child. This blog has offered up advice to the parents of young children in an effort to help any would listen make air travel smoother for all.

But several Asian airlines are now in the process of either banning children from certain flights or creating "child-free zones."

And even on American carriers, new fees to select seats (on many airlines you must pay extra to choose aisle or window seats) make it very difficult, not to mention prohibitively expensive, for a family to travel seated together.

Before the advent of allowing travelers to select their own seats, airline representatives would seat families near the rear of the plane automatically. But with the advent of seat selection, it became a little trickier. Initially, families might select to sit up in the front of the plane, very close to first class and business class sections. Increasingly, airlines have started to reserve those seats for frequent travelers and those willing to cough up extra money to sit near the front in an effort to keep families to the back. The logic is that paying $59 for a seat fee is one thing; paying $59 for five different people gives most people more pause. And most children are not frequent fliers.

But a ban? A ban disturbs my freedom-loving, "created equal" American consciousness.  If we can ban children from a flight, or even a section of a flight, who else will we ban?



Sources: "Airline to roll out child-free 'Quiet Zone' in coach class," USA Today
"Flying solo: New airline policy keeps family and friends from sitting together on flights," AP.

Leave Me Alone!

There was a day when I was booking coworkers on a business trip when I would work very hard to get them in seats next to each other or across the aisle from each other. In the back of my mind I would wonder if I were going on the trip if I wouldn't rather just be alone where I could read my book in peace.

But it wasn't until Karen* told me when booking her flight "Please do not put me ANYWHERE near them" that I finally realized that I wasn't the only one who prefers to travel silently, finally getting the peace and quiet that is so lacking from our daily lives. 

Kimberly Benzel, flight attendant for an unnamed airline, told me her company is still debating whether or not to offer wireless on flights. Why? "Very few people are willing to purchase it." Prices for wi-fi are very modest, particularly for business passengers who usually add luggage fees, upgraded seat fees and are willing to plop down $10 for a drink. My guess is that most of us find the few hours in a plane the only time we have without a ringing cell phone, emailed questions and problems, and people barraging us with chatter.

Flying is a bit of peace, a time to catch up on all the reading that we need to do for our jobs but gets interrupted when we are at our desks. Oh, and maybe we don't want to read any more white papers and flying gives us a chance to pull out our Kindles and paperbacks and read the latest Patterson novel.

What about you? Do you want to sit next to your coworker on a trip? Or do you just want the world to quit talking for two minutes?

*name has been changed for fun

Travel Reminder: Always book with a credit card

As many of us attempt to become less dependent on credit, it remains a good rule of thumb to continue to use a credit card whenever you make certain purchases. Always use a major credit card when booking flights, traveling internationally, or booking with a hotel that takes a deposit.

When Direct Air filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations in March 2012, customers were told to contact their credit card companies to seek reimbursement for tickets purchased that would not be honored. While the company wasn't honoring their obligations, the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) gives consumers a chance to recoup their losses if they used a credit card for purchase. Customers using a debit card were out of luck.

The economic downturn has affected hotels, tour operators, and other travel-related areas of business, and if you venture to countries that have less stability in financial infrastructure, you stand to lose it all if you've traveled using a debit card.


Sources: Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission
"Direct Air under fire as it files for bankruptcy," USA Today, March 20, 2012

Ten Most Complained About Airlines

One of my clients objected to the only non-stop flight to her destination this week. Why? The airline that flies that route has lost her luggage. She went with a one-stop flight on an airline she thinks more of. The airline she objected to tops the list of the "Ten Most Complained About Airlines" and brings up an important point:

Pay more for a better airline.
Which hardly seems like a budget travel recommendation.
But the more travel I book, the more I realize that extra value should be placed upon a travel company that has good policies. My mental checklist includes:
1) Do you have to pay more for water? (U.S. Airways charged me $1 for a plastic cup of water. Not cool.)
2) Do I have to pay to select seats? (I paid $10 to put a client in an aisle or a window seat on Sun Country Airlines recently. I won't even consider AirTran for the same reason.)
3) If the price drops, will I get my money back (or credit)? Jet Blue and Alaska Airlines come through on this one for me.
4) If I need to cancel a flight, what is the policy? Most airlines (United, Alaska, Delta, etc...) will give you 24 hours after booking to cancel or change a flight with no penalty. American has no grace period.
5) Change fees? Southwest comes out big here, the only airline that lets you change without a fee.

Customer service matters. For the average person who doesn't book a lot of flights, lists that say who gets the complaints are important.

Sometimes bottom dollar is just not worth it.

New Flier Protections In Effect

A host of new consumer protection policies went in to effect earlier this month. Most of the provisions are a good idea. In fact, the great airlines brought most of them about. But it will be interesting to see what regulating will cost the consumer in rising prices. Not to mention the cost to the taxpayer of regulating those changes.

• Probably the change that will effect most travelers is this one: "Airlines must prominently disclose all optional fees on their websites, including but not limited to fees for baggage, meals, canceling or changing reservations, or advanced or upgraded seating." (Department of Transportation)  Delta's website brought up a spreadsheet about checked and carry-on baggage fees when I booked a flight yesterday. Baggage fees have changed multiple times during the past two years on some airlines and while I book enough flights to know what airlines charge what, for most travelers, having that information up front is a good idea.

• Airlines are now required to refund the fee you paid to check your bag if they lose your bag. They already had to reimburse you for loss or damage to the bag and its contents. Refunding the fee you paid them to take care of your bag when they didn't is common sense, right?

• If you are involuntarily bumped from a flight and your airline can get you to your destination within two hours of your original arrival time, you are owed a refund of twice your original ticket amount up to $650. If it takes longer than two hours, you get four times the ticket amount, up to $1300. While most airlines oversell flights, it is rare that passengers are involuntarily bumped. Most airlines get by with only using incentives for bumped travelers.

• The other change will attempt to curb airline practices. There is now a fine for both domestic (imposed earlier) and international flights (and airlines) that delay takeoff on the tarmac for more than four hours. The airline could be fined up to $27,500 per passenger. That's a pretty hefty fine, scary enough for airlines to be aware of it and comply. Whether or not it will be enforced is to be seen. 

Other regulations are due to go into effect on January 24, 2012. The airlines requested more time to reach compliance.

Sources: USA Today, Budget Travel, Department of Transportation

The TSA: Giving in to Reason

Today, the TSA issued a press release stating they were "taking the next steps to further enhance passenger privacy." How? They've decided to upgrade their scanners to a version they could have gone with in the first place and saved a great deal of time and expense. I wrote about this in 2009 when the TSA first started using their controversial screeners in some airports. When given the opportunity to choose slightly more expensive machines (estimated to be about $10,000 more) used by high-level security firms and proven to be effective without revealing detailed images of bodies, the TSA opted to go with the slightly cheaper machines that were controversial from the beginning.

If it were about security or even cost-savings to the taxpayer, that would be one thing.

But it wasn't. Because now they are making the change. And the cost was always more with the revealing machines because it required two TSA personnel to the the one required by the newer machines. My original article achieved a hot response from "James" who states he is a "TSA employee" who wrote: "...my thought is-do you want us to stand around and look pretty, or do you want real security?"

James, the problem is that I don't want you to stand around and look pretty. Nor do I want taxpayer dollars and airport security fees to be used to pay two of you when only one is needed.

And I don't want to have my privacy violated for no better reason than keeping people on the federal payroll.

For more, see the Fox News story.

Is Delta Wrong?

Update on 6/28/11 

The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia issued this statement on 6/27/11:

Rumors being circulated via the Internet regarding passenger flight restrictions on Saudi Arabian Airlines are completely false. The Government of Saudi Arabia does not deny visas to U.S. citizens based on their religion.

It doesn't change the content of my article in any way. 

I've watched the growing rancor all over the internet as Delta's new alliance with Saudi Arabian Airlines is more closely examined. USA Today reported on it and then withdrew their article as being incomplete. The issue is that with the new alliance, when you buy a ticket to Riyadh from Delta (which will connect you to Saudi Arabian Air), Delta will have to enforce Saudi Arabia's laws and not board passengers with an Israeli passport stamp.
Delta Airlines attempted to clarify on its blog. Delta representative Trebor Banstetter wrote:

We, like all international airlines, are required to comply with all applicable laws governing entry into every country we serve. You as passengers are responsible for obtaining the necessary travel documents, such as visas and certification of required vaccinations, and we’re responsible for making sure that you have the proper documentation before you board.

 Not everyone is buying it. Rabbi Jason Miller wrote in The Huffington Post:

The issue here is one of principle. Delta isn't being forced to include Saudi Arabian Airlines into its Sky Team Alliance. In fact, Delta could stand on principle and refuse to include Saudi Arabian Airlines based on its discriminatory policy. No, it's not Delta's fault that the Saudi government is anti-Semitic, but it doesn't have to go along with it. It's as if the Saudis are telling Delta that when it comes to Jewish passengers it's name should become an acronym: "Don't Even Let Them Aboard."

And while the focus is on Jews, Religion News Service also reports that Saudi Arabia can deny entrance to anyone carrying a non-Islamic item of faith, e.g. Bible. Women also must be dressed according to Saudi standards of modesty and "be met at the Saudi airport by a man who will act as a chaperone."

While I find this discrimination despicable, it seems Delta is caught in a quagmire. We are not at war with Saudi Arabia, but much of what this little nation stands for rankles most Americans. (And many others.) The Saudi Arabian government is considered an ally by our government in the War on Terror. Should we forbid Americans entry into this country based on its discriminatory policies? Many have legitimate reasons to fly to Riyadh, much as they can't stomach the government who enacted these policies. Delta is not only abiding by the laws of the passenger's final destination but also protecting passengers from being denied entry at the other end.

The sticky point is that Saudi Arabian Airlines is not a free enterprise in a free-market economy. It is a government-owned airline.

So by joining forces for the purposes of business with a Saudi government-owned business, is Delta wrong?