Latest
How do you make sure a whirlwind trip round the world in just a week doesn’t wear you out and affect your productivity? Things went surprisingly well for me last week, as I flew from Washington to Munich to Paris to Bangkok to Islamabad, back to Bangkok, on to Seoul and back to Washington, so I thought I’d share the experience.
The first thing I have to say is that I don’t drink coffee or take sleeping pills. My only medicine when it comes to air travel is securing the best comfort and luxury I can — I need my flat beds, gourmet meals, lounges with showers, and sometimes even chauffeur-driven cars to connecting flights. I certainly can’t pay for them, but we’ll come to that momentarily.
Second, if you are going to circle the planet in a week, fly to the east, not the west. As much as I dislike those overnight flights from the U.S. East coast to Europe, because they are too short to get decent sleep, moving in that direction is much better in terms of adjusting to time differences. I was never jet-lagged during or after my journey.
The trip, which was blessed by the State Department, was part of the final research phase for my upcoming book on the U.S. Foreign Service, “America’s Other Army,” during which I visited the U.S. embassies in France, Thailand and Pakistan. Overall, I’ve visited almost 60 diplomatic and consular missions for this project, which began with my 2004 newspaper series, and interviewed more than 600 diplomats and other officials.
I used frequent-flier miles, but instead of getting what would have been a very expensive and restrictive round-the-world ticket, I issued two one-way tickets: One in First Class from Washington to Asia over the Atlantic, with a 24-hour stop in Europe, and another one in Business Class from Asia back home over the Pacific.
As I wrote in my first book, “Decoding Air Travel,” the best use of miles is for premium cabins. But why did I book First Class on the outbound for 80,000 miles, and not Business for 60,000? When I use miles, I make an effort to fly on the world’s best airlines. Of those, on my departure date Lufthansa was the only option, but it has some of the worst Business Class seats in the civilized world. First Class, on the other hand, is quite good, except for the small TV screen — that’s not the case with a few aircraft that have the new First seats with much bigger screens.
The more important reason for choosing First Class, however, was Thai Airways, which operates its Paris-Bangkok flights on planes leased from India’s Jet Airways that have private cabins with sliding doors in First. I had flown in one of those cabins from Tokyo to Bangkok a couple of months earlier and wanted to experience a much longer flight in such luxury. In addition, Thai Airways offers First Class passengers complimentary full-body massages in its Royal Orchid Spa at the Bangkok airport.
My Lufthansa flight from Washington to Munich was excellent, as expected, with top-notch flight attendants, which can’t be said of the ground staff at Dulles airport. I liked the new design of the pajamas they give First Class passengers. The food was consistent with my previous experiences, including the signature black caviar and several other appetizers. Although the seats are rather old by now, I always found the bed very comfortable.
I broke my habit of not having breakfast on overnight flights to Europe so I could have enough time for a shower in the First Class lounge in Munich before my connecting flight, since I had a full schedule as soon as I arrived in Paris. When it was time to board, I was whisked to my Paris plane in a Porsche.
The ambassador to France, Charles Rivkin, one of the best non-career ambassadors I know, couldn’t have been a better host, opening the doors of both his embassy and residence, and having a dinner in my honor, according to the elegant menu, with some of the top French journalists. My 24 hours in Paris were very productive, thanks to everyone I met, and especially spokesman Paul Patin, who put together my schedule at a very short notice.
It was time for the 11-hour flight to Bangkok, which didn’t disappoint, except for turbulence during most of it — and a 90-minute delay because of a flight attendant who fell ill just as we prepared to take off. After great meals, three films and a few hours of sleep behind closed doors, I was met by a Thai representative upon arrival in Bangkok and driven in a gold cart to the First Class lounge, where I took a shower before heading to the embassy.
Another full day of meetings and interviews followed, including two sessions with Ambassador Kristie Kenney, a career Foreign Service officer and one of the most capable, according to her colleagues — I hadn’t met her before. With the help of embassy spokesman Walter Braunohler, I covered enough ground with employees in several embassy buildings. The only slightly unpleasant part of the day was the 90°F temperature, especially after 20°F in Paris just hours earlier.
There was no time for a massage at the airport in the morning, but I managed to squeeze one in just before I flew to Islamabad in the evening. Unlike my plane from Paris, most Thai aircraft have old unimpressive seats in Business Class — and no First Class. Still, the food and service were up to standard, and I got some sleep before my 10:30 p.m. arrival in Pakistan.
My visit to Embassy Islamabad was the longest part of the trip — two full days and nights — and I was hosted by Ambassador Cameron Munter, whom I’ve known for eight years and consider one of the most brilliant serving U.S. diplomats. I also think he has possibly the most challenging job in the Foreign Service. He has assembled an outstanding team at the embassy, which actually surprised me, given the perception in Washington that few good officers volunteer to serve in Pakistan.
Munter went out of his way to accommodate my research needs, as did his chief of staff, Scott Kofmehl, with help from embassy spokesman Mark Stroh and many others.
On my flight back to Bangkok, I managed to get one of the embassy employees on a coach ticket into Business Class, thanks to an oversold Economy cabin. I had a long enough layover in Bangkok for a light breakfast in the lounge, some work and a foot massage, which is offered to Business Class passengers.
Then my Thai flight to Beijing had a significant mechanical delay, causing me to miss my connection to Washington on United Airlines.
While the Thai staff in the Business lounge scrambled for two hours to find an alternative way to get me home, I decided to apply in practice one of the things I preach in “Decoding Air Travel”: How to turn a negative airline situation into a positive one. In any case, I was looking at an arrival in Washington more than 12 hours later than scheduled, so the goal was to minimize my delay and stay in Business Class — preferably on an airline that has fully flat beds.
Korean Air met those requirements, and I added to my list a very good airline I’d never flown before — in fact, the 52nd carrier on that list. Korean Air is not in the Star Alliance, but to their credit, the Thais agreed to pay the Koreans a full Business Class fare in order to accommodate me, even though I was on an award ticket. They also agreed to let me spend the remaining 10 hours before my flight to Seoul in the First Class lounge, where I had a great lunch, did more work and slept for a few hours in a real bed, in one of their sleeping rooms.
Of course, they wouldn’t have done any of those things had I not been insistent — actually, a pain may be a better description. But I felt it was their fault, and they were responsible for rectifying the situation. I also knew they wouldn’t offer any compensation — Asia doesn’t have the rules Europe, and to some extent the United States, have — so I had to get whatever I could in other forms.
To sum up, my weeklong round-the-world trip didn’t wear me out — and now you know why.
Related stories:
Round-the-world fare mysteries revealed
Foreign Service series: America’s other army
The greatest understated U.S. diplomat
Who qualifies to be a U.S. ambassador?
In air with Clinton on first trip abroad
Continue reading about Round the world in a week, without pain
It’s no secret that the U.S. government wastes huge amounts of money on airfare, and that waste has been institutionalized. So it’s hardly a surprise that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has done the same, as an Associated Press story pointed out yesterday.
The reason for the story was the apparent discrepancy between Paul’s crusade against excessive government spending and his own spending. But while he did waste taxpayers’ money, he didn’t break any rules. So perhaps it’s time for the rules to change.
Government employees are usually required to buy full-fare tickets — meaning Y or B booking class — when traveling on business. The main reason for that is to have the flexibility to change and cancel those tickets for free.
Because of the massive amount of business the federal government gives the airlines, they provide it with special fares, which still carry the Y and B codes but are much cheaper than the regular published Y and B fares. For instance, the discount on a round-trip coach ticket to Europe can be over $2,500. I gave a specific example in a column last July.
However, those special fares are still much more expensive than the lowest published fares, which of course come with penalties for changes and cancellations — and while most of them are non-refundable, one can almost always use the amount paid, minus the change fee, for a future ticket.
I would guess that buying regular non-special fares and paying the penalty if necessary would be much cheaper than purchasing full-fare tickets. History shows that changes are not made too frequently.
There is another source of waste. Although the government fares are free to change and cancel, that “free” applies only to the airlines, meaning there are no airline-imposed penalties. Booking government travel is handled by large travel agencies, which charge as much as $90 per transaction — every time one of their agents touches a ticket to issue, change or cancel it.
First and Business Class tickets are usually allowed only on very long intercontinental flights, though each government agency can set its own policy. The rules are often bent for top management, and members of Congress certainly fall in that category.
The AP story said that Paul flew in paid First Class dozens of times since May 2009 on Continental flights between Washington and his Texas district. In addition, even when his office bough coach tickets, he often got upgraded, because Continental offers instant upgrades on Y and B fares, depending on availability.
So while it may be more prudent for Paul to put his money where his mouth is, the much bigger question is whether the current rules for government air travel need a fresh look.
In fact, any government agency could probably save millions if it used the Kralev Method from “Decoding Air Travel.” Pardon the shameless plug, but I’d be happy to teach them.
Related stories:
ExpertFlyer boosts airfare transparency
Myths vs. realities of celebrity travel
In air with Clinton on first trip abroad
Clinton weathers job’s long flights
Continue reading about Rethinking government air travel costs
The media was full of stories last week about the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) requirement that advertised airfares include all taxes and fees, which goes into effect Jan. 26. But most stories missed the detail that promoting each-way fares “based on a required round-trip purchase” will still be allowed.
This means that a $220 fare you see advertised may not be the actual final price, after all — despite DOT’s much trumpeted pursuit of transparency and consumer protection. In its ruling last April that finalized the new requirements, it only demanded that the fine print be more prominent.
“The department is codifying existing enforcement policy, allowing sellers of air transportation to advertise an each-way price that is contingent on a round-trip ticket purchase, so long as the round-trip purchase requirement is clearly and conspicuously disclosed in a location that is prominent and proximate to the advertised fare,” the final ruling said.
I suppose it’s easy enough to double $220 and quickly arrive at the $440 round-trip price, if there is a notation next to the fare that a round trip is mandatory. But at the same time, isn’t it even easier to just put $440 instead of half that amount plus the fine print?
DOT said that its ruling “allows sellers of air transportation to be flexible in the way they advertise round-trip fares while still requiring all pertinent disclosures to consumers.”
Who are we kidding? The only reason airlines use this marketing ploy is to mislead and manipulate customers. They can easily prove me wrong by ending the practice.
“While the department understands that some consumers would prefer the full round-trip price to be displayed, the department has not found that the current regime has led to consumer confusion or deception, and it does permit certain types of advertising that are beneficial,” DOT said.
I’ve written about this issue several times, and it’s hard for me to see anything “beneficial” in false each-way fare advertising — for consumers, that is. I have no trouble seeing how this practice benefits airlines. As I’ve pointed out before, many airlines do advertise actual round-trip fares.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with promoting one-way fares that can indeed be purchased as such, without the round-trip requirement.
DOT has taken important steps to address false fare advertising — including fines on carriers that break the rules — but there is much more to be desired if it’s really serious about protecting consumers.
On a somewhat different note, the new rules also increase the denied-boarding compensation airlines are required to offer passengers who are left behind because their flight was oversold. Carriers usually try to entice volunteers with travel vouchers, but if that fails, they must give the affected customers cash or a check.
If such travelers’ new flights delay arrival at their final destination between 1 and 2 hours for domestic flights and between 1 and 4 hours for international ones, the compensation must be 200 percent of the one-way fare or $650, whichever is lower. For longer delays, the numbers go up to 400 percent of the fare or $1,300.
Airlines are exempt from these rules if the denied boarding is due to substituting the scheduled aircraft with a smaller plane, or if the plane has fewer than 30 seats. The rules don’t apply to international flights inbound to the United States, though the European Commission has even stricter rules for flights originating in the European Union.
Related stories:
DOT cracks down on airfare advertising
Proper airfare advertising comes to U.S.
Fare sales often lost in translation
When an airfare sale is not quite a sale
Airlines find new way to overcharge fliers
Continue reading about DOT keeps false ‘each-way’ airfare ads
How do you know that an airline agent is trying to charge you much more than necessary to change a ticket? Two agents attempted that on me just yesterday, but they quickly realized they were messing with the wrong guy and retreated from their positions. The difference was thousands of dollars.
In my book, I explain why it helps to know what exactly you want before calling an airline, and more importantly, to know the outcome of an agent’s actions. I never trust agents to tell me how much I need to pay for anything — I call them simply to accomplish something I can’t do online.
A couple of months ago, I issued a Business Class ticket for a client who flew the outbound portion but had to cancel the return. I called the airline to take him off that flight and said I wasn’t ready to rebook yet but would call back when I was. The agent said, fine, call us then.
That’s what I did yesterday, but the agent I got was told by the rate desk that the new flight had to be booked at the same time the original segment was canceled — in other words, it was too late. That was the biggest claptrap I’d heard in a long time, so I hung up. After all, what was the alternative? Buying a new ticket?
I immediately called again to speak to another agent, but in the one minute that took, the first agent had managed to notate the record that changes weren’t allowed. As calm as I try to stay with reservations on the phone, spiteful agents like that one annoy me hugely. Naturally, I asked for a supervisor to make my case that the rate-desk person was wrong.
First, even if the change had to be made at the same time as the original cancellation, I should have been informed of that when I made the cancellation, if that would leave the ticket with no value — not when it was too late.
Second, the fare rules said the following: “Original reservations are cancelled prior to the original scheduled flight and the new intended travel is scheduled.” If the authors of that sentence meant that both actions had to be completed at the same time, they would have put “and the new intended travel is scheduled” before the words “prior to the original scheduled flight.” In that case, both actions would have been covered by “prior to…” — as I understand it here, the first action does need to take place “prior to…,” but not the second.
The supervisor didn’t even argue with me. She deleted the spiteful notes and authorized the change.
But the rate desk’s shenanigans were far from over. The original Z booking class wasn’t eligible for an upgrade to First Class, which was available on the new flight and my client wanted it, so he had to buy up to the higher D class. I’d looked at the airline’s tariff and determined that the difference in fare would be about $1,000.
However, the rate desk wanted to charge $4,000. Customers don’t have access to the rate desk, so I had to reason with a reservation agent. I pointed out what I’d seen on the tariff and explained that the rate desk wanted to charge a one-way D fare, but this was a round-trip ticket, and they should be charing half of the lower round-trip D fare.
The agent suggested that perhaps the lower D fare was not combinable with the Z fare on the already flown outbound flight. I had an answer to that, too: The last three letters of both fare-basis codes were the same, so they were indeed combinable. I could also prove that by booking a new reservation in Z class on the outbound and D class on the return.
She went back to the rate desk and quickly returned with the news that I was right and the fare difference would be about $1,000.
Was this incompetence or did they try to take me for a ride? I don’t know — what I do know is that something that should have taken 10 minutes took instead more than an hour to accomplish.
So make sure you do your homework and don’t trust agents, even if they tell you that they have 20 years of experience.
Related stories:
Airlines neglect non-flying experience
Singapore Air’s inept agents, dark side
British Air loses bags on $12,000 ticket
The peculiarities of airline agent training
Continue reading about Fighting airlines’ attempts to overcharge
The owners of FareCompare.com have apparently decided to destroy what used to be one of the most useful websites for consumer travel. Its best features were removed last weekend, and many of the remaining ones are not working properly. Talk about fixing something that wasn’t broken.
For a couple of years, FareCompare has been talking about catering more to the airline industry than consumers, proposing a system to track mistake fares and alert carriers, so they can correct them. The company has also stepped up advertising — both on the site and in e-mail messages.
Could it be that it feels pressure to make it more difficult for consumers to find better deals and spend less money on air travel?
In both my book and my classes, I stress the importance of monitoring fares and learning when a low fare is published — regardless of travel dates and seat availability — so you can take advantage of it before it disappears. As I say, I want to know what’s possible, and then I’ll do whatever I can to get the best price. That was one of FareCompare’s main strengths.
You could program your account — in the “My Trips” section — to keep track of various city-pairs, specify an airline, if you like, and request e-mail alerts every time a new fare on a certain route was filed. When you logged in, all your saved routes appeared on the same page, showing the current lowest fares, along with their place on an airline’s tariff, and the last several lowest filings on that route for comparison. You could also rearrange the city-pairs by price or other criteria.
The “My Trips” section is still there, but most of its previous functions no longer exist. You can’t rearrange the routes, you can’t specify an airline, you don’t see any data from the tariff, such as fare basis codes and valid dates, and you don’t get historical data for comparison. In fact, as I write this, all my 65 saved routes say that a “price is not currently available.”
There have been problems with e-mail alerts for years, but now they seem to have multiplied — the problems, not the alerts.
Finally, FareCompare was great at giving us idea for trips. For example, if you wanted to get away for a long weekend, you could see a list of destinations either by total price or price per mile. However, the page that used to show how far you could fly for the least amount of money — also known as the FlyerTalk page and incredibly useful to leisure travelers — has been removed. There is a message that a new version is “coming soon,” but no one knows why the old version was taken down before the replacement was ready.
There are already frustrated travelers who have posted in two threads on FlyerTalk. Some of them note the conspicuous silence of FareCompare, which actually started one of the threads in 2008.
To be fair, the site does have a map showing fares from any given city to any destination in the world, but I have four problems with it: First, it’s very difficult to use graphically, because many fares appear on top of each other due to the cities’ proximity. Second, you have to specify a month in which you want to travel, which leaves out many fares. Third, the tool that specifies an airline isn’t working. Fourth and most important, some fares are simply wrong.
FareCompare is a free site, and I’m sure some people think we have no right to criticize it or have demands. But I think there is rarely a truly “free” site anymore. We pay for using it one way or another — if not with a subscription fee, perhaps by enduring various ads. And who knows where our e-mail addresses end up?
If FareCompare doesn’t restore its most useful tools, it would be handing AirfareWatchdog.com a great opportunity to fill a much-needed void.
Related stories:
U.S. fares now filed four times a day
When an airfare sale is not quite a sale
DOT cracks down on airfare advertising
When airfares jump on you for no reason
Proper airfare advertising comes to U.S.
Continue reading about FareCompare guts airfare search tools
