Nicholas Kralev

Why airline alliances are good for fliers

nkralev — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:04:53 +0000

The Star Alliance's 15th birthday this month reminds me that a global airline alliance is one of the most fascinating concepts in the history of commercial aviation. It's also an example of the airline industry’s creative thinking aimed at increasing revenues. However, unlike some of the questionable practices I described in "Decoding Air Travel," this one has dramatically improved the customer experience.

It's fascinating for me personally, because it combines my two passions and areas of expertise, international affairs and air travel. In fact, what alliance executive teams do every day is nothing short of diplomacy. International negotiations and dispute resolution are two of their specialties, and a big part of their duties is selecting new members, not unlike NATO and the European Union.

When Star was formed in 1997, the idea was not only to represent its members’ best interests -- that’s primarily the job of trade associations -- but to boost business by feeding passengers from one carrier to another in the smoothest possible way. Soon, airline diplomacy began in earnest -- first among alliance members, which after all are rivals in a fiercely competitive industry, and then with airports, transportation authorities and governments around the world. The other two global alliances are Oneworld and SkyTeam.

“Much of what we do is diplomacy,” Jaan Albrecht, Star’s former CEO, told me when I first met him in the alliance’s Frankfurt office in 2008. “We try to educate airports, publics and governments about the benefits that come from a network like ours.” Albrecht is now CEO of Austrian Airlines, a Star member.

The benefits for customers that come with an alliance membership are both tangible and intangible. The first category includes interline ticketing and check-in, harmonized schedules to provide seamless connections, worldwide lounge access, mileage-earning and redemption opportunities, as well as elite-status recognition across the alliance, and round-the-world and other special-fare products.

It's also important to appreciate the intangible benefits. The most important to me is that the experience on an alliance’s various carriers is so similar and yet so different. I like the predictability created by consistent and aligned policies -- knowing how things work and what to expect gives me comfort at the airport and in the air. At the same time, I love the individual touches that each airline adds to the travel experience, based on its national, cultural and even corporate uniqueness.

For example, Scandinavian Airlines and Thai Airways are both Star members, and technically there is no difference which one you are booked on -- you will earn miles, check-in all the way through to your final destination and access their lounges anywhere in the world. But when you enter a lounge or board a plane, you will never confuse Scandinavian with Thai.

Critics of the alliance concept usually argue that consumers suffer, because closer cooperation among airlines leads to higher fares. They refer to special arrangements, known as anti-trust immunity exceptions, which are granted to some carriers so they can coordinate fares, schedules and inventory on certain routes. The largest members of the three alliances have received such waivers on intercontinental routes. Some have gone a step further, securing approval to operate certain routes as a joint venture. Price-fixing is illegal, so these carriers needed the exceptions to publish identical fares -- and if you compare their tariffs, you will see they are indeed identical.

When granting the immunity, the Department of Transportation is careful to exclude routes on which the only existing service is provided by the carriers seeking the waiver -- those exclusions are known as “carve-outs.” So the government is supposed to protect consumers, and it seems it’s doing its job. Overall, there is no question in my mind that airline alliances have had a positive impact on customers.

All three alliances have had troubles lately, as member-carriers have experienced hard times, filed for bankruptcy or disappeared all together. But that's the nature of the airline business. My only criticism is that none of the groups has done a good job at reaching out to a broad audience to explain and promote the benefits I described above.

Here is the current membership of each alliance:

Star Alliance

Adria, Aegean, Air Canada, Air China, Air New Zealand, All Nippon, Asiana, Austrian, Blue1, Brussels, Croatia, EgyptAir, Ethiopian, LOT Polish, Lufthansa, SAS, Singapore, South African, Swiss, TAM, TAP Portugal, Thai, Turkish, United, US Airways.

Accepted future members: Copa, Eva, Shenzhen, TACA.

Oneworld

AirBerlin, American, British, Cathay Pacific, Finnair, Iberia, Japan, LAN, Qantas, Royal Jordanian, S7.

Accepted future members: Kingfisher, Malaysia.

SkyTeam

Aeroflot, AeroMexico, AirEuropa, Air France, Alitalia, China Airlines, China Eastern, China Southern, Czech, Delta, Kenya, KLM, Korean, Tarom, Vietnam.

Accepted future members: Garuda Indonesia, Aerolíneas Argentinas, Saudi Arabian, Middle East, Xiamen.

American tries to entice top United fliers

nkralev — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:22:29 +0000

American Airlines has finally decided to take advantage of the problems many United Airlines fliers have experienced since the merger with Continental Airlines was completed on March 3. In an extremely rare move, American is now offering conditions-free top-elite status match to United's most loyal customers.

Having read and heard about many United customers' troubles after the carrier adopted Continental's reservations system -- and having encountered some problems myself -- I e-mailed American spokesman Tim Smith on March 16. Smith has been the best PR person to deal with at any airline since I started writing my column in the Washington Times in 2008. I asked him whether American had any intention of capitalizing on United customers' dissatisfaction by stealing some of them away through a status-match offer.

He involved his colleague Stacey Frantz, who works directly with American's AAdvantage program. She said she couldn't comment on "marketing strategies," but it was apparent from her and Smith's messages that American wasn't considering such a move at the time. More than a month later, however, it decided to follow my suggestion -- not that I'm taking any credit.

When the promotion first started last week, elite United fliers at all levels were eligible, but on Friday, American decided to limit participation only to United Premier 1K members, the highest published level. A memo was sent out to customer service agents on that day. So if you are a 1K, you can get Executive Platinum status on American.

The carrier is not advertising the promotion, so you need to call AAdvantage Customer Service to request an e-mail outlining the offer. Status is valid through February 2013, and all you have to do is submit proof of your current elite status with United. On the rare occasions when American has offered matches in the past, it has extended challenges, meaning you had to fly a certain number of miles during a certain period to qualify. There are no conditions this time. Challenges to Executive Platinum have been even rarer than to other levels.

But is Executive Platinum better than 1K, and is American better than United? Let's review.

Executive Platinum advantages

This is truly American's top elite level. Concierge Key, the unpublished super status that George Clooney's character had in "Up in the Air," is awarded only by invitation to very few hyper-frequent and high-paying travelers. In contract, United's Global Services status has been given to so many people -- albeit still "by invitation" -- that it has somewhat devalued the 1K level.

Executive Platinum members are the only ones eligible for complimentary domestic upgrades that clear as early as 100 hours before a flight -- at United, all elite fliers are, and lower-level elites on full-fare tickets trump 1K members on discounted fares. United also aggressively sells domestic upgrades at check-in for as little as tens of dollars to non-elites, while elites linger on waiting lists. As a result, the upgrade rates for 1Ks have gone down significantly.

As for international -- or systemwide -- upgrades, American is much more generous than United. Executive Platinum members get eight of those so-called eVIP certificates each year, compared to six for 1Ks. More importantly, on American, they are valid on all published fares, while United excludes its five lowest booking classes -- S, T, L, K and G -- requiring at least W class. That means you need to pay hundreds of dollars more on W class, and if your upgrade doesn't clear, you've wasted your money.

American has the best domestic First Class soft product. It's the only airline to still use linens and menus during meal service, as well as pillows and blankets on transcontinental flights. United used to have linens, pillows and blankets before the merger with Continental, but it lost them. The food also tends to be better on American. Many of its domestic planes have no in-flight entertainment at all, though wi-fi has been installed on a big part of its fleet.

As an Executive Platinum, you get Emerald status on the global Oneworld alliance, which gives you access to First Class lounges on foreign Oneworld members, such as Cathay Pacific and Qantas. The Star Alliance has only two levels, instead of Oneworld's three, so United Gold, Platinum and 1K members get the same access to Business Class lounges.

American has dedicated agents working on the Executive Platinum phone line, and they are not only the best trained agents in the airline industry, but also the ones given the most authority and discretion to help customers in any way possible, even if that means sometimes bending the rules. United's so-called 1K Desk is not really a dedicated desk -- those agents service all callers, but 1Ks get priority in the queue.

No one knows if any of the above might change as a result of American's Chapter 11 restructuring or in a potential merger with US Airways, but this is where things stand right now. For me, American's main disadvantages are the limits of Oneworld, whose size is about half the Star Alliance's, the hefty fuel surcharges imposed on award tickets with British Airways flights, and those old McDonnell Douglas planes American still flies. In addition, if you live in a United hub, it might be hard to give up nonstop flights to many destinations in favor of connections on American. That said, American often offers very low fares out of United hubs, while United does the same out of American hubs.

Premier 1K advantages

United offers 1K members so-called regional upgrade certificates, which can be used to confirm an upgrade on North and Central American flights at the time of ticketing -- just like using miles or systemwide upgrades. Unfortunately, this year, United reduced the regional certificates from eight to four a year. It also eliminated the two upgrades million-mile fliers used to get annually. It's worth noting that the Executive Platinum exclusive perk of complimentary upgrades on American compensates for the lack of certificates to a large extent, though those can be confirmed only within 100 of departure.

United offers instant upgrades without requiring any "instrument" to 1Ks on domestic M fares -- all elites get the same benefit on the higher Y and B fares -- as soon as the time of ticketing. The inventory is controlled separately and is not the same as regular First Class availability (it books in PN class).

United waives same-day confirmed changes on domestic flights for 1Ks, while American doesn't for Executive Platinums. United also waives award booking, change and redeposit fees on tickets issued with 1K members' miles -- regardless of who the passenger is. American does so only if the Executive Platinum member is the passenger.

United allows stopovers on round-trip international award tickets. American permits those only in U.S. gateways -- the city where you leave or arrive in the United States.

The biggest advantage United has is its membership in the Star Alliance, which has 25 member-carriers, including some of the best in the world, such as All Nippon, Asiana, Singapore, Air New Zealand and Swiss.

The biggest problem with United is that its new management doesn't value long-term loyalty nearly as much as American's -- or United's previous leadership team, for that matter. Unfortunately, my prediction in 2010, based on warnings from departing United executives at the time, came true after the merger was finalized. The current management apparently cares much more about making a quick buck. It prefers to sell an upgrade seat from Seattle to Washington Dulles to a non-elite flier for $99, as reported on FlyerTalk by a passenger who took advantage of that offer, rather than give the seat to a 1K member who spends tens of thousands of dollars on United a year. So much for complimentary upgrades.

At the end of the day, the choice is yours. If I've missed anything on either airline, feel free to let me know.

RETURN TO MAIN COLUMN PAGE

Related stories:

Did United choose the best rez system?

United, Continental execs at odds over loyalty program

American ends stopovers on ‘awards’

Continental shows new transparency

United executive breaks old barriers

Rare airport luxury, almost wasted

nkralev — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:20:25 +0000

Turkish Airlines has built an impressive business lounge at its hub is Istanbul, with the best sleeping rooms I've seen anywhere in the world, including in First Class lounges. The best, that is, until you try to sleep -- unless you don't mind loud noise that even Bose headphones on top of earplugs can't block out.

As I've written before, Turkish has made significant progress in recent years toward becoming a world-class carrier, but it's still a long way from being anywhere close to the top. It rushes to do something it deems top-notch but doesn't really think it through -- and for high-end customers, a little glitz doesn't sparkle brightly enough if the entire experience is inconsistent and unpredictable.

So Turkish designed these fabulous sleeping rooms in its relatively new Istanbul lounge, which are no different from really nice, albeit small, hotel rooms -- with a real bed, comfortable and clean linens, desk, closet, bathrobe and slippers. But then it put shower suites right across from the sleeping-room doors, just a few feet away.

Admittedly, my first thought when I saw that setup was, "How convenient." I used one of those rooms in the early morning hours several weeks ago after misconnecting on my way to Iraq. I took a shower and hoped to get at least three hours of sleep. Unfortunately, halfway through my rest, I was awoken by loud noise coming from passengers using the showers and staff cleaning the suites -- not the actual showering and cleaning, but the talking and laughing right outside my door.

Since my earplugs were obviously not helping, I added my Bose headphones as reinforcement, even though sleeping with them is not exactly comfortable -- all in vein. There was no more sleep. The glass divide that served as a wall also prevented the room from becoming sufficiently dark, but there are eyeshades for that.

At the end of the day, a great idea and superb product didn't leave me with a great overall experience because of poor floor design and execution. Perhaps better soundproofing would have minimized the noise, if there was no way to isolate the sleeping room at least somewhat from the main lounge area. One could argue that lying in a real bed is still a luxury at an airport, even if you can't sleep, but that's not the point. Why not just put open beds right in the middle of the lounge? Or why have beds at all?

Two weeks earlier, I had used a sleeping room in Thai Airways' First Class lounge in Bangkok. The rooms and beds weren't nearly as fancy and comfortable as those in Istanbul, but the main lounge area was much farther away. Both Turkish and Thai are members of the global Star Alliance.

I suppose we can't have it all.

RETURN TO MAIN COLUMN PAGE

Related stories:

Airlines neglect non-flying experience

Round the world in a week, without pain

Dulles Airport enters the modern age

Military lounges are airport oases

Delayed at the airport? Enjoy!

Diplomats decry new United pet policy

nkralev — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:34:58 +0000

Nearly 3,000 U.S. diplomats have urged United Airlines to extend to them a waiver from its more expensive and "unfriendly" new pet travel policy that the carrier has granted the military, the diplomats' union said. While it took United just days to exempt the military, it has been mulling the State Department's request for weeks.

The biggest hurdle appears to be the lack of understanding by United's management -- as is the case with most people -- what the Foreign Service does, and why diplomats' service to their country is no less important than the military's. That's exactly why -- long before this issue arose -- I decided to write my upcoming book "America's Other Army."

"Our immediate goal is for United to extend the waiver they have granted our military colleagues to civilian federal employees traveling on official 'permanent change of station' orders," said Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). "This would allow federal employees assigned to embassies and missions abroad to continue to ship companion animals not eligible to travel in cabin as accompanied baggage at excess baggage rates, and makes use of professional pet shippers, freight forwarders, or cargo handlers optional."

AFSA first sent a letter to United's CEO Jeff Smisek on March 2, the day before the new policy took effect, Johnson said. The policy, known as PetSafe, had been used by Continental Airlines for more than decade, according to a former Continental employee whose daughter is in the Foreign Service. After the United-Continental merger was completed, the combined carrier's pet policy followed what Continental used to do -- just like almost everything else, including the reservations system, about which I wrote earlier this month. Smisek was Continental's CEO.

Under the old policy, which was similar to that of most other airlines, pets that were too big to take in the cabin could be checked as excess luggage handled by the carrier, at an average rate of about $250 per each way. PetSafe requires that those animals be treated as cargo. In many countries, all cargo is subject to inspections and other customs formalities, which are typically handled by third-party vendors. The fees for those services range from hundreds to thousands of dollars.

Following the military's outcry late last month, United quickly decided to allow personnel traveling to a new station to check pets as luggage and avoid a third-party provider -- and the higher fees. However, United spokeswoman Mary Ryan said in an e-mail message, "We do not have plans to extend this exemption to anyone beyond military members who are traveling on orders or permanent change of station only."

Mike Oslansky, senior manager for cargo marketing, customer service and business systems, responded to AFSA's letter to Smisek, saying that United developed the waiver for the military "in recognition of the commitment made by members of our military and the family members (including the four-legged ones) who share in their sacrifice" and intends to limit this "special process" to military families only, Johnson said.

It seems United's management doesn't think that American diplomats make any sacrifices when serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, the Congo and many other extremely dangerous places. Not all diplomats are posted to London and Paris -- not that those "cushy" in most people's minds posts are not dangerous, judging by the 2005 London terrorist attacks or last week's murders in the French city of Toulouse.

By many accounts, PetSafe has been very successful domestically. United takes care of the pets without using third-party vendors, it automatically transfers the animals to connecting flights on its own aircraft and keeps them in air-conditioned facilities during layovers. Although the pets are checked in as cargo, there are no customs or other bureaucratic formalities, so the service is not too expensive.

However, that doesn't work internationally most of the time. Very few diplomats take a nonstop flight to their new post. In some cases, they make two or even three connections. In each city, they are now forced to leave the passenger terminal, walk or take a taxi to the cargo terminal, collect their pets, recheck them in -- often on a different airline, which could add more fees -- then return to the passenger terminal, go through security again, and finally arrive at their next gate. By the time all that happens, they may well miss their connecting flight. Even worse if a single parent with small children is trying to accomplish those tasks.

Because of the so-called Fly America Act, the federal government must book its employees on U.S. carriers -- on full-fare tickets. Foreign Service members and their families often end up on United, and many of them are elite MileagePlus members. The State Department and its 50,000 employees around the world have supported United for decades. Not to mention that one of the missions of the Foreign Service is to help create and expand business opportunities for U.S. companies, and airlines tend to benefit from that significantly.

The State Department is not seeking a waiver from the new policy for all 50,000 employees. In fact, more than 30,000 are locally hired foreign nationals who don't travel as much as the American officials. At issue are only the 12,000 Foreign Service members -- a fraction of the overseas military personnel -- and only when they change posts, not Washington-based officials who may travel several times a month. After all, anyone moving from Bolivia to Uganda would find PetSafe very challenging, indeed.

Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, has spoken with Marc Anderson, United's senior vice president of corporate and government affairs, Johnson said, but that conversation has yet to produce results. More than 2,800 AFSA members have sent e-mail messages to Smisek and other United executives, she added.

"I love the Foreign Service," an officer in Southeast Asia told me, "but moving my family is getting harder and harder."

RETURN TO MAIN COLUMN PAGE

Related stories:

Foreign Service: America’s other army

Round the world in a week, without pain

Did United choose the best rez system?

United, Continental execs at odds over loyalty program

Continental shows new transparency

United executive breaks old barriers

United pilot earns top praise

Did United choose the best rez system?

nkralev — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:42:04 +0000

The decision by United Airlines' management to use Continental's Shares reservations system for the merged carrier has been causing serious problems since its implementation last weekend. So the news that the airline is working on a new version of its IT platform, integrating some of the features of the pre-merger United's Apollo system, is very welcome, indeed.

It was hardly surprising that CEO Jeff Smisek and his team chose to keep Shares, given that most policies and practices of the combined carrier have followed the way Continental did business under Smisek. But in this case, the decision made good financial sense -- Continental has owned Shares for years, while United paid Travelport, the company that owns Apollo.

As I completed the last research trip for my upcoming book on the U.S. Foreign Service on Sunday, I was worried much less than many passengers and United employees, who had warned me not to fly during the first days of the integrated system. The merger was first announced in May 2010, so the company surely had plenty of time to prepare -- and if not, it would have delayed integration, I thought.

I was wrong. On the first day of the new era, March 3, I monitored the situation from Frankfurt, where I overnighted on my way back from Iraq. Delays were widespread, which the United employees I talked to the next day attributed largely to their inability to board passengers automatically by scanning boarding passes -- each person had to be boarded manually.

The other reason for the problems was how unprepared pre-merger United agents were to use Shares. They had been trained, but obviously not quite enough -- actually, it may be more a matter of experience than training.

The real issue is Shares' complexity, clumsiness, use-unfriendliness and lack of intuitiveness compared to Apollo. That was my first impression when I initially looked at it at three different airports, and it was confirmed by several longtime United employees, some of whom showed me long multiple-page instructions for basic functions, which resembled complex formulas.

Some agents are still having trouble printing boarding passes for flights for which I'd checked in online -- one said, "It would have taken me five seconds in Apollo." Others find it challenging to decipher seat maps.

I didn't want to make a final judgment on Shares without consulting Continental employees, who have been using the system for years, and I had a chance to do that yesterday. Those agents had been sent to pre-merger United stations to help their inexperienced new colleagues -- but from what I could see, there was much more demand than supply.

Those Continental agents, who also had some knowledge of Apollo, agreed with my first impressions of Shares. They also told me that Continental hadn't invested much in modernizing Shares, but that was about to change. In a few months, they said, there will be a new version combining current features with some of the best Apollo functions.

One can only hope. The question is, why couldn't integration wait until then? Those poor pre-merger United agents have to learn one system now, and another -- apparently less complicated -- in a few months?

I asked a corporate contact at United about the new plans and received the following response: "I think you’ve been hearing about a new GUI [graphical user interface] that will be added to Shares later this year. It will make it more user-friendly for our agents. We didn’t want to postpone the customer benefits that were gained by going to one passenger service system -- one frequent-flier program, one website, any agent able to help any customer, etc. -- by waiting until the GUI was in place."

A task of this magnitude will always be accompanied by problems, especially at the world's largest airline. At least for me, however, those problems have been much worse than I expected. Perhaps this is due in part to the higher numbers of pre-merger United employees compared to Continental's -- after all, United was the bigger airline.

Shares is incapable of performing some vital functions that Apollo offered. For example, upgrades using miles or certificates can no longer be waitlisted less than 24 hours before departure. So if your international flight, which you have upgraded with miles, is canceled and you are rebooked on another flight, you won't be put on an upgrade waitlist on the day of travel. If, however, there is an available upgrade seat, you should be able to get it.

Another problem that is affecting thousands of passengers has to do with upgrades waitlisted in Apollo before the conversion. All segments waitlisted in NF booking class, which United used for upgrades to First Class, converted into ON in Shares. ON inventory exists only on three-cabin aircraft. On two-cabin planes however, the correct code is R. So if you are waitlisted in ON on a two-cabin domestic flight, you will never clear, because there will never be availability in that booking class.

United has a representative on FlyerTalk who monitors various comments, and she has indicated the carrier is aware of the incorrect conversion issue but hasn't yet found a solution.

One of my favorite features of the old Continental website, which United's didn't have, was the information about where your aircraft is coming from. I was very happy it was preserved on the new site, but my happiness has been seriously tempered this week. The tool is offering plenty of erroneous data.

Just one example: Today's flight 984 from San Francisco to Portland, OR, is operated on a Boeing 757. According to the website, the plane is coming from Monterey, CA. The problem is that the aircraft flying back from Monterey is an Embraer regional jet.

Here is the silver lining in all this: Whatever the problems at the new United, they pale in comparison to the systemic breakdowns that occurred during the US Airways-America West merger in the middle of the last decade.

RETURN TO MAIN COLUMN PAGE

Related stories:

United steps up fake ‘direct’ flights

United, Continental execs at odds over loyalty program

Continental shows new transparency

United executive breaks old barriers

United pilot earns top praise

Round the world in a week, without pain

nkralev — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:43:49 +0000

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.

RETURN TO MAIN COLUMN PAGE

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

Rethinking government air travel costs

nkralev — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:00:18 +0000

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.

RETURN TO MAIN COLUMN PAGE

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

DOT keeps false ‘each-way’ airfare ads

nkralev — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:00:13 +0000

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.

RETURN TO MAIN COLUMN PAGE

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

Fighting airlines’ attempts to overcharge

nkralev — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:00:03 +0000

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.

RETURN TO MAIN COLUMN PAGE

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

FareCompare guts airfare search tools

nkralev — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:00:10 +0000

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.

RETURN TO MAIN COLUMN PAGE

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.