Airlines on The Huffington Post

Ed Zitron: JetBlues: Why I'd Rather Take The Train Over JFK's Terminal 5

2009-11-23T15:12:19Z

This week I had the pleasure of experiencing JetBlue and JFK's Terminal 5 - both of
which I had heard great things about. Terminal 5 was a great deal more pleasant
than many air terminals, feeling loungeier than the hospital mise en scène of
Heathrow (minus their Terminal 5), Logan International or Dulles International.

Naturally, the cracks formed when I sat down to get a square meal -
ridiculously over-priced and borderline inedible, with the Cheeburger Cheeburger inviting
me to eat fries and a burger at around 2000 calories for just over $14 (with a
drink). My colleagues were further swindled for $8 per miniscule sandwich, and
while we were all quite happy to plug in our laptops just about anywhere,
I think we'd have preferred more money in our respective pouches.

Full of fat and gristle and ready to roll, I lumbered onto the JetBlue
flight to see that it was just as dreary and uninviting as any other
coach-class venture. The seats were comfortable in the sense that they didn't
dig knives into my back, but were not fun to sit in for six hours. The screens
were scratchy with a constant humming in the background, and the satellite feed
decided to randomly cut out on me as I tried to enjoy The Office.

You know what? I'll cut to the chase. This was supposed to be the pinnacle
of A) airline technology and B) coach-class comfort. This was meant to be
significantly different to the experience of the other airlines, but was just
as bottom-shelf as the rest.

My question is this: Why does a $200+ flight provide me with less comfort
and technological features than the bloody BoltBus? Why, in an industry that crams
people like cattle into the smallest spaces and makes profits (even in a dirty,
filthy recession) treat its most numerous customers like garbage?

I took a return flight from Vegas this very same week on United - and it was
worse, too. More cramped, ruder staff, terrible amenities. I actually was less
angry than I was with JetBlue - if only because United was and remains to be so
resolute in its failure, in the same week charging me $50 to re-book a
ticket to add one letter to someone's second name.

I repeat the point, though, that there is simply no other industry that gets
away so brazenly and so rudely than the airlines do with screwing over its
customers. I have, in around six years of flying (a newbie, I know) experienced
business class once - the comfort equivalent of an Amtrak First Class ticket,
for a mere $1000 (minimum) more. I have not seen one significant improvement to
the coach experience across Virgin Atlantic, United, Us Airways, Delta,
JetBlue, or Northwestern. I can remember one remote improvement - British
Airways' inclusion of strange, remarkably strong head-pillows to let you rest
your head awkwardly and sleep.

Oh, and Virgin starting to charge a fee to get exit-row seats.

In this age of Priceline, Orbitz, Expedia and Travelocity (all of which gave
the same $1000+ fares back to England
this Christmas), you'd expect there to be some competitiveness in the airline
space. However, it appears that all the onset of the internet has done is allow
them to line their pockets mercilessly, and pretend like they're doing such a
great deal with the occasional bait-and-switch email alert. I think I've been
sent the same one a few times from BA.com - a few hundred for a roundtrip
between certain dates, but on booking, you're given something totally
different.

And, finally, nobody will admit that having your iPod on airplane mode, or
your PSP, or your DS, or any other non-signal-generating device on during
take-off actually has any effect. If that was the case, why would they want
to offer iPod integration in their seats?

Please note: I'm sure that business class is lovely. I'm sure
having a salary that actually lets me afford to pay upwards of $3000 a flight
is also lovely. I'm also, also sure that Virgin Trains and GNER/National Express trains are more
comfortable and give me more for my money, but haven't quite implemented the
Penn Station-to-King's Cross route yet.

So, here's to you, airlines. You are the least technologically-advanced and
abusive form of travel I can think of that doesn't involve saddling up a moose.

Not even the patron saint of 'coach-comfort,' JetBlue, can save us. Not even
JFK Terminal 5 - the most comfortable one I've ever seen - can provide the
comfort that makes up for an industry that profits on turning travelers into
battery hens.

Sarah O'Leary: Marketing in Disguise

2009-11-16T10:20:17Z

The primary job of marketing is to promote sales, and those in the industry use a myriad of tactics to entice consumers to action. Advertising, direct mail, sales promotion and PR experts have a host of persuasive armament in their arsenals. When we communicate a meaningful message that delivers on the wants/needs/desires of the consumer, sales increase.

However, the manner in which marketers put the carrot in front of the consumer isn't always black and white. Certainly, we know not every consumer will take advantage of every offer presented. Yet, when we knowingly play in the darker parts of the gray to drive sales, we're doing a disservice to the consumer and the industry. A good deal not a good deal when marketers misinform consumers and/or misrepresent offers.

Here Are Just a Few Examples:

The Nearly If Not Impossible Mail-in Rebate

The mail-in rebate began with the best of intentions. A retailer might not have wanted to drop a price of a product, for example, but the manufacturer wanted to give something back on the price to reward the consumer. The engaged consumer viewed the enticement positively, and took action. Many present day rebates, unfortunately, have become art forms of complication rather than real rewards.

Some marketers design rebate offers that generate sales while making redemption nearly impossible. We want to be able to say consumers can get $100 back on a new printer because that might be just the right enticement, but we don't want them to actually do it. The reason for purchase and the reality of reward make for an unsuccessful consumer experience. There has been and always will be a place for the mail-in rebate as a marketing tactic. However, no rebate should be executed with consumer deception in its cross hairs.

Sadly, sometimes the consumer doesn't even know he or she is being rebated. A hotel chain offered a "lowest price guarantee" on its web site. When I found a lower price on another web site, I called the frequent traveler 800# and asked why the price on the hotel's site wasn't the lowest. I was told to book the stay on the hotel's web site at the higher price and pay for it at the higher price. Within 24 hours of check-in, I needed to download a form from the site and submit it with documentation of the lower price I found on the competitive site. (Note: not many travelers hit the road with their lap tops and their printers).

After hotel corporate received and verified the documentation, the consumer would be rebated the difference and given a $50 gift card that was only redeemable at the hotel. As a marketer, I would guess the number of consumers who take advantage of the offer and actually get the lowest price is less than .5%. The offer is framed so that the hotel can advertise a guarantee that it created in hopes consumers would simply believe the guarantee. Further, it counted on those consumers who checked the guarantee not going through the trouble of taking advantage of it. Rebates, in whatever form, should be attainable to consumers without unnecessary effort. Otherwise, marketers are designing to deceive.

Product Downsizing

"We don't need to raise prices, let's just make the product smaller!" Certainly, from a profit perspective, this might be a necessary evil in some instances. Realize, however, that Suzie Shopper knows you're doing it, and you might risk her wrath. Price does not solely equal value. Price plus quality plus product usage (size fits into this) equals value.

Within the realm of product downsizing lives the serving size slight of hand. Anyone who has read the side of a regular soda or a cereal box knows how marketers try to make products seem more appealing. The soda is only 110 calories, provided you only drink half of the single serve bottle. The can of soup is only 8 grams of fat, provided you leave half of it in the can. Amazingly, the bag of potato chips you put in the cart has enough individual servings for a family of 20. Serving size reality as well as nutritional information should be considered by government regulators.

No Supply and Lots of Demand

Try as it might, the government can't watch over every retailer in the country advertising a steal on a new flat screen TV or a killer deal on an entry level car.

My brother once worked at a car dealership. The sales force was told that if anyone sold the lowest priced car (there was only one and it was carried in all of their advertising), they would be fired on the spot. The dealership banked on the salesman's ability to up-sell the consumers into higher priced vehicles. When the bait is non-existent and the switch to another product is planned, it is unethical and often illegal. Yes, products sell out. Yes, the objective is to sell products and services. However, if a consumer is lured into a store for a deal that the retailer knows is non-existent for all intensive purposes, the retailer puts consumer trust (along with its on ethos) in jeopardy.

The good Lord himself wouldn't have the credit rating necessary to take advantage of 99.9% of the automotive offers we've seen on TV. "$2000 cash back and no money down for qualified buyers!" is the ultimate offer bait and switch. Get the consumer into the show room, get them interested, and then eventually tell them they can't have the deal that drove them to the dealership in the first place. Certainly, when applying for credit, those with higher scores deserve better pricing as they are less risk. However, touting an offer that almost no one can take advantage of as those it was the answer for the masses should not be legally allowed.

The Unseen Add-ons

Frequent fliers amass airline miles that may be redeemed for free travel. If you're lucky enough to find the flights you need available for use with your reward, most airlines require you pay them upwards of $200 to use the miles for the "free travel" you've earned as part of a "service fee."

"Plus shipping and handling" has been a mainstay since the 70s, flying quietly below the government's radar. That Amazing Knife Set is only "$5! - a $50 Value!", plus shipping and handling. What's shipping and handling? Well, consumers can find that out when they call or go on-line order the product. In truth, the knife set is not $5. Not even close.

Full price disclosure should be required by law, not accepted as a surprise add-on a consumer finds out after engaging in the purchase process.

Unlike the American Medical Association or the American Bar Association or other self governing bodies, the various marketing associations (AAAA, AMA, etc) cannot disbar or cancel the certification of marketers. The vast majority of those in the industry are committed to the integrity of their work and the honesty of their efforts. However, the few who are not ethical taint our industry. Those playing within the rules are harmed by those who are not, and typically are in support of fair regulation in areas where the government can intercede. In the areas outside of government intervention, however, it is up to marketers to self govern. If we want to believe, we must be fervent in our commitment to consistently telling a more perfect truth.

Ms. O'Leary owns a boutique marketing agency in Marina del Rey, CA. She can be reached at soleary@thelogicagency.com

Man Denied First-Class Seat Because His Tracksuit Was "Too Casual" (VIDEO)

2009-11-04T12:08:56Z

Another day, another customer service screw-up for United Airlines.

(Check out the hilarious "United Break Guitars" video here.)

As MyFoxAtlanta.com reports, a Maryland man claims a United Airlines gate agent refused to let him take his seat in first class because his outfit, a Puma tracksuit, didn't meet the dress code. On October 26, Armando Alvarez, a vice president at Best Buy, was flying from Dulles International to Connecticut for business. A frequent flyer, Alvarez received a free upgrade to first class on the flight, but when the gate agent saw what he was wearing, he told him he "wasn't properly dressed" for first class and revoked the upgrade.

Not surprisingly, Alvarez was incensed.

Read the entire story at MyFoxAtlanta.com here or WATCH their report:

Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter!

Bird Strike Sends Delta Flight Back To Phoenix Airport

2009-11-02T15:29:13Z

PHOENIX — Authorities say a Delta Air Lines flight headed to Utah has safely returned to Phoenix after one or more birds hit the aircraft.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Ian Gregor says Flight 1232 took off from Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport around 8:40 a.m. Monday on its way to Salt Lake City.

Edward Wytkind: Time to Change the Game for Airline and Railroad Workers

2009-10-29T16:26:24Z

The deck is stacked against airline and railroad workers when it comes to union elections. That's why airline CEOs are working so hard to defend current election procedures that count all workers who sit out elections as "no" votes.

Americans are accustomed to elections where a simple majority of those voting decides the outcome -- whether they're voting for PTA president or U.S. Senator. Not so for airline and railroad workers -- who must first ensure that turnout exceeds 50 percent. How can we justify imposing higher turnout standards on airline and railroad union elections than we do in elections for the highest office of our land? We can't.

Let's take a moment to consider typical voter turnout data. The 2008 presidential election had the highest turnout in decades; nearly 57 percent of this country's eligible voters participated. While our presidential elections manage to draw just over half the country's eligible voters, mid-term elections bring out less than 40 percent. In fact, in every mid-term election since 1930 the national turnout was below 50 percent. What happens to eligible voters who choose not to vote in our local and national elections? The answer, of course, is that they do not factor into the election outcome.

The "majority rules" concept for elections is grounded in American democratic principles. But what if we arbitrarily assigned meaning to a voter who doesn't participate? Imagine if not voting was tabulated as a vote for or against something, such as "every non-vote counts as a vote for Obama," or conversely, "every non-voter must have intended to vote for McCain." Not only would this policy significantly skew election results, but it would nullify the expressed intent and incite outrage among those who actually voted.

Although it defies logic, this is the system aviation and rail workers must abide by for union elections. It makes no sense, and it is well beyond time for a change. That's why the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO has asked the National Mediation Board (NMB), the federal agency that oversees these matters, to reform its election procedures to conform to the norms of American democracy: the majority of those casting a vote will decide the outcome and those who do not vote are not counted.

Think about this. Even when more than 90 percent of those who vote choose a union, they are routinely denied representation by those who didn't vote. It's a "veto by silence" principle at work. Other than airline CEOs and their lobbyists, no one else can defend this system. I wonder if some of the U.S. Senators who are carrying the airline industry's water would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution or to the election law in their state that forces them to face the voters under such onerous rules? I doubt it because in most of their elections, they would have lost.

Unionization in the airline industry has slowed in recent years. Why? Union-busting campaigns are alive and well -- because the current election policy encourages and rewards employer-run voter suppression campaigns. For example, almost 100 percent of Delta flight attendants voted in favor of unionization in 2008. But thanks to Delta's campaign to discourage its employees from voting (the company called it "Give a Rip" and was essentially instructing employees to destroy government-issued ballots), turnout was below 50 percent and the overwhelming support for a union was nullified. Shockingly, the Bush NMB saw no evil in Delta's unlawful conduct and voted 2-1 to refuse to even investigate more than 100 charges of illegal interference and coercion.

Some call our request for fairness an effort to circumvent the law. Nice try. The law does not require that elections be run this way at all. Voting procedures are set by the NMB, which has the authority to change its policies. In fact, the Supreme Court has said that the law does not require a majority of the entire workforce to vote in union elections for results to be valid.

Airline management is arguing against our request, insisting that "the rules are being changed in the middle of the game" because some union elections may get scheduled on some future date. But there are always going to be potential or expected union elections. For the airlines, it will never be a convenient time to change a status quo that favors them so heavily. But for the workers, who have been facing an unfair standard for decades, change cannot come soon enough.

It's time to let those who actually come out and vote decide the outcome of union elections in the airline and railroad industries. The airlines are essentially arguing against a voting system that has been the law of the land for more than 200 years in American democracy.

Boeing Assembly Line ANNOUNCED: South Carolina Picked For New 787 Plant

2009-10-29T10:08:51Z

SEATTLE — Boeing Co. will open a second assembly line for its long-delayed 787 jetliner in South Carolina, expanding beyond its longtime manufacturing base in Washington state to take advantage of economic incentives and a nonunion work force.

The Chicago-based airplane maker said Wednesday it chose the site in North Charleston over Everett, Wash., because it best suited plans to boost production of the highly anticipated jet, designed to carry up to 250 passengers.

Dr. Michael J. Breus: Pilot Fatigue to Blame?

2009-10-26T12:26:58Z

If you learned upon landing that your plane's pilots had overshot the airport by 150 miles because they fell asleep at the controls, what would you feel?

Terrified?
Shocked?
Lucky?

I'd feel a mix of the above. In this week's latest hit to the airline industry, a Northwest flight to Minneapolis overshot its destination and pilot fatigue could be to blame. Of course, the pilots are saying they were in an argument at the time and that's the reason for the blunder (not that I'd like to see my pilots so distracted over a "debate" that they still overshoot the runway!).

Fatigue among pilots has been a recurring theme this year, punctuated earlier this year by the deadly crash near Buffalo that was partly blamed on fatigue (that crash was blamed on pilot error).

The Federal Aviation Administration is rewriting its rules that govern flight time for pilots and their required rest periods in order to reduce the chances of fatigue. It will be the first update to the rules in decades and will utilize research that wasn't available before.

Does that make me feel better the next time I fly?

A little, maybe. Trouble is, it can be hard to legislate such rules. And sometimes fatigue over a series of poorly slept nights can catch up to you days later. In other words, you could have a sleep-deprived weekend, feel okay on Monday but be a zombie on Tuesday when you're expected to perform -- and the lives of countless others are in your hands.

I've written about shift workers a lot in the past. But those who have jobs that put the lives of many others at stake should be scrutinized to a much higher degree. If it's that easy to fall asleep at the controls of an airplane -- without the airplane knowing (or its numerous flight attendants!), then I say, let's invent something that can keep check on that. With all the gadgets we have at our disposal today, can't we find one that can alert the crew on a flight when its captain has nodded off?

Just a thought. Now that would make me feel safer in the skies.

Sweet Dreams,

Michael J. Breus, PhD
The Sleep Doctor™
www.thesleepdoctor.com

This article on sleep deprivation and airplane safety is also available at Dr. Breus's official blog, The Insomnia Blog.

Rule For New Planes Means More Airbags

2009-10-26T01:35:18Z

AmSafe is supplying the product to most major U.S. airlines to help comply with a new government crash standard. The rule has been phased in slowly over the past 21 years and takes full effect this week, when the seats in newly manufactured planes will have to protect passengers from a crash 16 times the force of gravity.

Biofuels For Commercial Flights By 2010

2009-10-25T11:40:28Z

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) said Friday it would approve biofuels for commercial flights by 2010 in a bid to drastically reduce the industry's carbon footprint.

As Airlines Cut Corners, Pilot Fatigue Could Run The Industry Into The Ground

2009-10-24T14:54:24Z

On Wednesday night, Northwest Airlines (DAL) Flight 188, an Airbus A-320, overshot its destination by 150 miles before the pilots re-established contact with air traffic controllers, turned the plane around, and landed in Minneapolis. While the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is still investigating the incident, questions have risen about the cause of the overflight and what it says about current airline safety regulations.

Avital Binshtock: Air Travel Made Greener: 4 Tips

2009-10-17T14:31:02Z

The airlines seem to be lagging when it comes to reducing their environmental wingspans. And plane flights are hard on the planet. Though air travel is unavoidable at times, there are a few things responsible travelers can do to make flights greener.

1. Decline the Napkin. When your flight attendant hands you a napkin with your drink, politely decline it, explaining, if you like, that you'd prefer to save the paper. Even better, write to the airlines to urge them to train flight attendants to offer napkins rather than passing them out by rote, which could save untold numbers of trees, plus some corporate cash. To find airline contact information, go to this link and click on "Airline Consumer Contacts."

2. Ensure Recycling. Before giving your cup or can to the flight attendant collecting trash, ask if the plastic or aluminum will be recycled. If the answer is no (it usually is; see some remarkable stats here), stash yours in your carry-on and dispose of it in the first recycling bin you see after you deplane. Later, call or write to the airline's customer service department to urge it to implement a recycling program.

3. Pack Light. The equation is simple: Heavier luggage burns more fuel. So if everyone leaves a little more at home, we'll vastly reduce emissions. (Incidentally, this is a good reason to lose body weight too.) And remember to get those liquids, gels, and aerosols out of your carry-on if they weigh more than 3 ounces. Otherwise, they'll end up in the landfill before their time.

4. Offset. This is the obvious tip for greening a plane flight. It's still controversial -- some view carbon offsetting as penance for an irrevocable sin. But the Sierra Club thinks it's better than nothing. If you're going to fly, what's the harm in also funding renewable-energy projects and reforestation efforts?

Tell us: How do you go green when you fly?

Michael Moore: Pilots on Food Stamps

2009-10-13T22:02:38Z

We're on the descent from 20,000 feet in the air when the flight attendant leans over the elderly woman next to me and taps me on the shoulder.

"I'm listening to Lady Gaga," I say as I remove just one of the ear buds. I know not this Lady Gaga, but her performance last week on SNL was fascinating.

"The pilots would like to see you in the cockpit when we land," she says with a southern drawl.

"Did I do something wrong?"

"No. They have something to show you." (The last time an employee of an airline wanted to show me something it was her written reprimand for eating an in-flight meal without paying for it. "Yes," she said, "we have to pay for our own meals on board now.")

The plane landed and I stepped into the cockpit. "Read this," the first officer said. He handed me a letter from the airline to him. It was headlined "LETTER OF CONCERN." It seems this poor fellow had taken three sick days in the past year. The letter was a warning not to take another one -- or else.

"Great," I said. "Just what I want -- you coming to work sick, flying me up in the air and asking to borrow the barf bag from my seatback pocket."

He then showed me his pay stub. He took home $405 this week. My life was completely and totally in his hands for the past hour and he's paid less than the kid who delivers my pizza.

I told the guys that I have a whole section in my new movie about how pilots are treated (using pilots as only one example of how people's wages have been slashed and the middle class decimated). In the movie I interview a pilot for a major airline who made $17,000 last year. For four months he was eligible -- and received -- food stamps. Another pilot in the film has a second job as a dog walker.

"I have a second job!" the two pilots said in unison. One is a substitute teacher. The other works in a coffee shop. You know, maybe it's just me, but the two occupations whose workers shouldn't be humpin' a second job are brain surgeons and airline pilots. Call me crazy.

I told them about how Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger (the pilot who safely landed the jet in the Hudson River) had testified in Congress that no pilot he knows wants any of their children to become a pilot. Pilots, he said, are completely demoralized. He spoke of how his pay has been cut 40% and his own pension eliminated. Most of the TV news didn't cover his remarks and the congressmen quickly forgot them. They just wanted him to play the role of "HERO," but he was on a more important mission. He's in my movie.

"I hadn't heard anywhere that this stuff about the airlines is in this new movie," the pilot said.

"No, you wouldn't," I replied. "The press likes to talk about me, not the movie."

And it's true. I've been surprised (and slightly annoyed) that, with all that's been written and talked about Capitalism: A Love Story, very little attention has been paid the mind-blowing stuff in the film: pilots on food stamps, companies secretly taking out life insurance policies on employees and hoping they die young so the company can collect, judges getting kickbacks from the private prison industry for sending innocent people (kids) to be locked up. The profit motive -- it's a killer.

Especially when your pilot started his day at 6am working at the local Starbucks.

The Most AGONIZING Airline Delays: HuffPost Readers' Stories (PHOTOS)

2009-09-30T12:40:58Z

Last week, Congress heard from passengers' rights groups about the urgent need to pass new airline regulations. Advocates say the proposed measures, which include a provision requiring airlines to allow their passengers to deplane after three hours on the tarmac, would protect fliers from miserable treatment during overlong delays.

In light of this discussion, we took a look at some of the most horrific tarmac delays in recent memory (check out the Five Worst Tarmac Delays here). We asked readers to send us their own stories, the best of which we've collected in the slideshow below. Vote for the most disturbing entry or, if you haven't yet shared your tale, Click "Participate" below, and tell us your worst, most agonizing airline delay story in under 200 words, upload a picture of the offending airline and we'll add your contribution to the list. Don't spare any details!

Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter!

Airlines Holiday Fee: $10 Surcharges Coming This Year

2009-09-29T11:08:59Z

The airlines have some mighty long sleeves. How else can you explain all the dirty tricks they're able to pull out of them? The newest one: Almost all of the legacy carriers in the United States have, within hours of each other, decided to charge you another $10 if you fly on the year's busiest travel days.

The Five Worst Tarmac Delays: Tell Us Your Story! (PHOTOS)

2009-09-28T11:05:16Z

Congress heard a litany of horror stories last week from passengers' rights groups, who were in Washington to push for new requirements for airlines. California Senator Barbara Boxer said that there is support among lawmakers for legislation that would require airlines to allow passengers to disembark after three hours on the tarmac. The proposed measure would also oblige airlines to keep food and water on hand for excessively long delays.

Some airline executives warned that the three-hour limit could result in a barrage of canceled flights, but the consumer protections appear likely to become law. "We're on the 1-yard line today," Senator Boxer said. "The leadership knows it is popular so they want to keep it in."

Reflecting on this debate, we've collected five of the most nightmarish examples of tarmac delays to date. Check out our photos below for tales of hours spent cramped in airplane seats, in some cases without food or water or, for the least fortunate, a properly functioning toilet.

If you've been unlucky enough to experience such a delay yourself, send us your story. Click "Participate" below, tell us your worst, most-agonizing airline delay story in under 200 words, upload a picture of the offending airline and we'll add your contribution to the list. Don't spare any details!

Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter!

Mikko Alanne: Meat the Truth

2009-09-24T18:20:39Z

This is not another doom and gloom piece about how eating meat is destroying the planet, I promise.

But Ecorazzi senior editor Michael Parrish DuDell's recent blog about environmentalists partying with beef tartar got me thinking: If people know about the massive global damage caused by meat production, why is making a change so difficult? Is it because people don't care? Is it because it's too difficult to give up meat? I'd argue it's neither. It's simply because we all think: it's just me and my burger, what's the difference?

Well, instead of more stark statistics and guilt, I thought I'd try something different: inspirational facts on the difference you could be making. The source for the following list is Marianne Thieme's amazing documentary, Meat the Truth, a quirky, unauthorized sequel of sorts to the more famed An Inconvenient Truth. You can watch an abbreviated version of the film here.

Here's what Marianne's research team found it would mean if all Americans left meat off their plates for just one day. Or two. And so on. I suggest you print out this list and put in on your fridge door, you might just get inspired:

If all Americans did not eat meat for one day a week, they would save 99.6 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the equivalent of removing 46 million round trip flights between Los Angeles and New York, or taking 19.2 million cars off the road for a full year.

If everyone in the US did not eat meat for two days a week, they would save 199 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would have the same effect as replacing ALL household appliances in the US with energy efficient ones.

If all Americans did not eat meat for three days a week, they would save almost 300 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would have a greater impact on the climate than replacing all US cars with Toyota Priuses.

If everyone in the US did not eat meat for four days a week, they would save 398 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the carbon savings equivalent of cutting the use of all electricity, gas, oil, petroleum, and kerosene in the United States in half.

If all Americans abstained from eating meat for five days a week, they would save 498 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would result in the carbon savings equivalent of planting 13 billion trees and letting them grow for ten years.

If all Americans did not eat meat for six days a week, they would save nearly 600 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the equivalent of eliminating the total electricity use of all households in the United States.

And finally: If everyone in the United States ate a vegetarian diet for seven days, they would save around 700 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. That would be the same as removing all the cars off the roads in the US.

Need another reason? I thought not.

And if you're one of those people who still feels I'm just trying come between you and your burger, I say: not at all. Just eat a veggie burger. At least once a week.

American Airlines Expands Chicago, New York, LA Flights With New Financing

2009-09-17T11:47:01Z

ATLANTA — American Airlines' parent company said Thursday it is taking on significant new debt at a time when revenues are being hammered, but the $2.9 billion in cash and fresh financing it raised should quiet concerns – for now – that it is in danger of a cash crunch and a bankruptcy filing.

Passengers will see big changes from the nation's second-largest airline, including increased flying in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Dallas-Fort Worth and Miami, but fewer flights in Raleigh/Durham, N.C. and St. Louis, where American is giving up major ground to Southwest Airlines.

Terry Gardner: Social Media Can Lead to Travel Deals and Discounts

2009-09-16T12:00:16Z

I don't really care what Ashton Kutcher had for lunch, but when it comes to bargains, hold me back. Despite my misgivings that I'd be mired in the minutiae of other people's lives, I've turned to social media -- Facebook and Twitter -- to help me find great deals ahead of the pack.

"If we offer a 24-hour sale, these individuals get the first announcement," says Chris Vary, an American Airlines spokesman.

And, in what may be a boon to the customer experience, airlines are using social media to address customer concerns and answer questions.

"Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter allow travel companies to talk directly to customers, and for us to talk back." says Christopher Elliott, ombudsman for National Geographic Traveler magazine.

For the full article: http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-trw-money13-2009sep13

Other Social Media

Beyond Twitter and Facebook, airlines are connecting and entertaining passengers on Flickr and YouTube.

While Flickr primarily lets aviation buffs and airlines swap photos, YouTube videos run the gamut from flight announcements to commercials and complaints.

A passenger on Southwest Airlines posted video of David Holmes rapping the flight safety information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivjybzdXVmI (over 2,237,000 views).

Passengers are also using YouTube to improve customer service. The Sons of Maxwell's song about United breaking Dave Carroll's Taylor guitar on a flight to Nebraska got United's attention and raised the band's profile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo&feature=fvw

Another User posted a flight announcement video onboard the fictional Cheapo airlines (satirizing the never ending fees passengers seem to face on many flights these days: : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-nX6g148mA

Roger Poulton, Air New Zealand's Vice President said the airline posted its "Bare Essentials" flight safety announcement (shown only on domestic flights) on YouTube to increase awareness of Air New Zealand. With almost 4.7 million views, awareness seems to be raised. In "Bare Essentials," naked actors wearing only body paint deliver the safety announcement. You can see it -- safely --- at www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Mq9HAE62Y. I've watched it several times and the paint looks like clothing. If there's a Janet Jackson peekaboo moment, I can't detect it. (For outtakes, head to Air New Zealand's website: http://www.nothingtohide.co.nz/)

In May, the carrier launched its own social networking site to promote its Oct. 13 Matchmaking Flight from Los Angeles to Auckland (www.thematchmakingflight.com).

Lloyd Garver: They'd Rather Text Than Eat

2009-09-15T12:41:40Z

We all know people who act like they would rather text or check the internet than eat. The airlines have noticed this, too. A new survey suggests that more business travelers would choose an airline with WiFi service over flights with meals, free movies, or even convenient arrival times. I understand that when it comes to airplane food, nobody ever asked for "seconds." But to choose the internet over a snack? The survey didn't ask them if they'd rather have WiFi or a promise that their luggage wouldn't get lost, but I have a feeling that they would have gone with the Web. If their luggage gets lost, they'll probably just shrug and buy new stuff on the internet.

76% of the people interviewed would choose an airline based on the availability of in-flight internet service. I tend to choose an airline based on which is the cheapest and then which is the most convenient.

Among others, Southwest Airlines, Delta, and American either already have WiFi on their flights or they will soon. So those people who can't go for more than a few minutes without using their computers or "smart" phones, will be able to fly and check on the weather in Trinidad-Tobago, find out which football players got arrested today, and learn who Jennifer Aniston went out with last night.

I'm not a computer addict, but some people are. It's no joke. In fact, the first American live-in treatment center for internet addiction opened recently. There are many such centers in China, South Korea, and Taiwan where Web addiction is taken more seriously. These are people who spend almost every waking hour playing video games, watching porn, or talking to their virtual friends rather than eating, sleeping, working, or spending time with their families. These folks have fallen on hard times, so it's appropriate that the treatment center is in Fall City, Washington.

Let's move away from the serious to the merely annoying. Like most people, I've had to put up with someone next to me who types away on his computer the whole flight. Intellectually, I understand that a flight is a good opportunity to get some work done, but I usually find it irritating. I almost always think that these people are showing off how important and busy they are. Of course, the corollary to this is the thought, "If you're so important, why are you with me in coach?"

But once in-flight WiFi becomes commonplace, we will have to put up with all kinds of new things. Do you really want to sit next to a teenager who is "Facebooking" for 2000 miles? Can you imagine how important those missives will be? "OMG, we just passed another cloud."

And what will the airlines' policy be on porn? Is there even a way they could ban it? I don't see how. So forget worrying about what movies the airline will show in front of your kids. Now you'll have to worry about what the guy next to them is viewing on his computer screen. I don't think an airplane is an appropriate place to watch something like, "Julie and Julia...and Jack."

Then there are those who need to check their stocks every few minutes. That's not a good idea for an in-flight activity, either. If the stock shoots way up and your neighbor shouts in celebration, aren't you going to feel a bit jealous that you didn't have that stock? On the other hand, if someone's stock tanks during the flight and they yell in despair, he or she might become a danger to other passengers.

Admit it. If someone next to you is using their computer for the entire flight, it's probably impossible not to glance over there every once in a while to see what's on their screen. In the past, it's been nothing special. Usually, it's business stuff like charts or graphs. Now things may be quite different.

For all I know, the person next to me might be having "internet sex." I'm only human so I'm likely to try to casually look over at my neighbor's screen as he or she is smirking and typing and then smirking lasciviously again. Then I'll be shocked as I read something like: "There is a really annoying guy who keeps peeking at what I'm typing."

Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Home Improvement" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover. He can be reached at lloydgarver@gmail.com. Check out his website at lloydgarver.com and his podcasts on iTunes.

Southwest Adds Charge To Board Sooner

2009-09-02T09:05:43Z

DALLAS — Your bags still fly for free on Southwest Airlines, but if you want a better chance at a window or aisle seat it's going to cost $10 each way.

Southwest announced Wednesday that customers can pay extra to reserve a spot in the boarding line right behind elite fliers and ahead of families and other travelers. Unlike other airlines, Southwest doesn't offer assigned seats.

Nearly Nine Percent Of Southwest Fleet Uses Unapproved Parts; FAA Investigating

2009-08-27T07:52:50Z

DALLAS — Federal officials say a maintenance company hired by Southwest Airlines used unapproved parts for repairs on some jets.

The parts will have to be replaced, but as they are not considered an immediate safety threat regulators will let Southwest keep flying the planes for 10 days – until next Tuesday – while it decides how to fix the problem.

Michelle Renee: United Airlines Ripping Consumers Off?

2009-08-19T14:31:30Z

I had been planning my trip to Australia for over two months. It was on my daughter's top three places she has always wanted to go so for her 16th birthday, since a car was pointless after her "challenges" passing the written driving test, I decided to book our first backpacking trip to Australia as a surprise.

The flight I paid for was from LAX to Sydney and then connecting to a flight going to Melbourne. The flight plan was exactly the same on the way home. We spent 12 amazing days in 3backpackers hostels, 3 hotels, one friends house, 5 days in a stick shift car on the other side of the road and other side of the car with windshield wipers going on every time I needed to make a turn due to everything being opposite in the car.

Between the Great Barrier Reef snorkeling, driving Capt. Cook Hwy to the rain forest for some jungle surfing, petting the kangaroos and gazing in awe at the famous Opera House, I lost track of the days and forgot about the deadlines waiting for me back home. After thousands of miles across eastern Australia ending the trip to get back home was going to be a wonderful departure... Or at least that is what I had envisioned until I arrived at the United Airlines counter in Sydney.

We planned to leave Cairns to get to our flight out of Melbourne that had one stop on the way: Sydney. Instead of going all the way to Melbourne and turning around to go straight back to Sydney within a matter of an hour or two adding an additional 4 hours of flying time to our already 17 hours in the air, I decided to stay in Sydney and wait for our already scheduled and paid for flight from Sydney to LAX. Getting all this?

When we went to check in for our already scheduled and paid for flight from Sydney to LAX the man at the counter refused to issue us boarding passes claiming we made a "change" to our flight and we needed to pay $500 US dollars in change fees to get home. When I explained to him this was the exact flight that I already booked and paid for; was not making any change and the ridiculousness of flying from Sydney to Melbourne and right back, he said "You need to find a way to pay the fee, get a credit card or something, or I guess you will not be traveling today."

After a half hour of refraining from raising my voice or calling him any of the very accurate yet unflattering names exploding in my head and pleading my case trying to talk any common sense into this man, I handed over my credit card to pay the fees just so we could get home. But my blood was at boiling point at the social injustice of what had just happened. I couldn't sleep the whole flight home. It was like legalized theft... I felt like I had just been cornered and robbed in an alley by a bully that looked a lot like the United counter guy.

Aboard the flight the woman next to me told me she was on the Melbourne to Sydney flight they said I needed to be on. I video recorded her saying the flight was not even half full. She said they could literally dance in the isle and she slept across three seats all to herself. It wasn't like I caused them to not have a seat for someone. I asked a crew member if this was normal and he literally told me that they offer good deals and then "beat up the customer" and then apologized for my getting "beat up" by United on my way home.

Since coming home I have called with little luck getting anyone on the phone and when I finally did they said call back in a few days when they can access the record of charges to file a claim to investigate whether I should get a refund or not.

The simple truth is... United is emerging from a Bankruptcy filing and flying in the wrong direction when it comes to customer satisfaction. Beating up customers and robbing them blind every chance they get because the economy is so bad it is the only way they believe they can get into the consumers' pockets is simply bad business.

Weigh in: Do you agree with the $250 change fee per person for the exact flight I already paid for?

JetBlue Offers $599 All-You-Can-Fly Pass For One Month

2009-08-13T14:44:07Z

JetBlue Airways will offer an "all-you-can-jet" pass for $599 in which passengers can book an unlimited number of flights between September 8 and October 8, the airline said Wednesday.

Airlines To Begin Asking Passengers For More Information

2009-08-13T08:14:55Z

U.S. airlines on Saturday will begin asking travelers to provide their birth date and sex for the first time under a new aviation security requirement, federal officials said Wednesday.

The change comes as the Department of Homeland Security takes over responsibility for checking airline passenger names against government watch lists. The additional personal information, which airlines will forward to the Transportation Security Administration, is expected to cut down on cases of mistaken identity, in which people with names similar to those on terrorist watch lists are erroneously barred or delayed from flights.

Ali Delforoush: Iran's "Flying Coffins"

2009-08-05T15:24:09Z

Last year in August I had the distinct "pleasure" of flying to Tehran on board of an Iran Air Boeing 747. In light of the fact that Iran's air industry has had two plane crashes and two more in-flight emergencies in just the past 3 weeks, it is important for Americans to understand that US sanctions are partly the cause of these disasters--and that they can be prevented.

I arranged my trip last year so I could attend my cousin's wedding. As a dual Iranian-Canadian citizen, I am able to travel to Iran with relative ease, and despite common stereotypes, travel to Iran is perfectly safe--that is, except if you are traveling with Iranian airlines.

Needless to say after the trip I swore never to fly with Iran Air again.

This is not because of stale peanuts or bad airplane food. On the contrary, the "chelo kabab" was the only aspect of the flight that I actually enjoyed. Rather, it was because of the horrifying conditions of the three decade old planes that are standard for Iran's air travel industry.

My aircraft was one of the first generation Boeing 747 series that the Shah purchased from the United States before the 1979 revolution. Upon sitting, the first thing I noticed was the ashtrays that were still functional in the armrests of the chairs, even though smoking is not allowed on board. Evidently, these aircrafts have not been upgraded for quite some time.

My seat was positioned just behind the wing, and as a beautiful London sunset was bouncing off the engines I noticed the rust around the rivets holding the wings on to the aircraft. "Great," I thought; "that's what I wanted to see right before takeoff."

As the passengers were boarding the plane a family of three took their seats about five rows from where I was sitting. From what I could see, the son of this family was suffering from Down's syndrome and was in a wheelchair. Unfortunately, this particular Boeing 747 was not wheelchair accessible.

Here the "helpful" flight attendants suggested to the parents that they either take the next flight or "sit at the very front of the aisle and hold on to the wheelchair to keep it from rolling." The parents were irate, and demanded to speak to the pilot, who also told them to take the other flight and kindly leave his aircraft.

After the family exited, the flight finally took off. Only then did the pilot announce over the intercom that, due to the plane's instability, we would be unable to fly at the normal cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Instead, we would be flying lower and slower, prolonging my mid-air nightmare by another two hours. One of the passengers sitting near me asked the flight attendant the reason for the additional delay. Her answer was less than reassuring: "The airframe and the wings of the aircraft can no longer sustain themselves in high altitudes so we have to fly lower."

My return trip wasn't any better. On the way back to Canada, my flight was delayed for three hours because the aftermarket hydraulic pipe (probably purchased secondhand from the Chinese) of our Iran Air 747 was leaking fluid and had to be repaired.

So can we chalk this up to an inferior "third world" aviation industry that can't afford basic maintenance? Or is it possible that our efforts to squeeze the Iranian government have had the unintended effect of choking off vital parts and services necessary for keeping passenger planes from falling out of the sky?

As an indirect consequence of the US embargo on trade with Iran, Iranian Airlines have been prohibited from updating their 30 year-old American aircrafts. Additionally, U.S. sanctions even make it difficult for Iranian airliners to get European spare parts for their fleet of Airbus planes, hence the sanctions prevent upkeep of these aircrafts as well. This has forced the Iranian civilian aircraft industry to rely on poor Russian substitutes, many of which are from the Soviet era and for which it is difficult to find spare parts.

Two particular aircraft commonly in use in Iran are the Tupolev Tu-154 also known among Iranians as "flying coffins" and the Ilyushins 76, the Soviet-era workhorses for Russian civil air fleets. The Tu-154 was produced by the Soviet Union in the early 1960s until their production was halted due to their poor flight history. After the Soviet collapse, government funding sharply declined for manufacturers of aircraft and spare parts, hence other countries such as Iran who are using their planes have had a harder time obtaining parts and have had to resort to cannibalizing planes from their own fleet.

The difficulty in obtaining spare parts and service has taken its toll on the safety of Iran's civilian fleet. The wear and tear from operating the same planes for decades began to show in 2002 when two Tu-154 planes crashed, killing 128. In 2003, a Russian-made Ilyushins 76 that was carrying elite members of the revolutionary guard crashed and left 302 dead. In 2005 a US-made C-130 which was purchased before the 1979 revolution crashed and caused the deaths of 115 passengers. And finally, in the past three weeks alone, two Tu-154s crashed, a Boeing 707 had two engines catch fire mid-flight, and another passenger plane's landing gear malfunctioned after takeoff. In all, at least 185 passengers have died in the past three weeks alone.

A spokesperson for Boeing indicated to me that the poor safety record of Iranian aircraft is a serious concern for them. "This is really a safety of flight issue," the spokeswoman said. "We care about the safe operation of our fleet of aircrafts worldwide, regardless of the country."

Current law prohibits the export to Iran of aircraft parts without a specific license from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), though obtaining a license is a daunting task. According to Boeing's spokesperson, the application process often takes place with a "presumption of denial."

There is a popular joke in Iran that says Iranian pilots always say their prayers on the intercom before taking off. For years now, the safety of Iran's civilian planes and the lives of hundreds of their passengers have rested on a wing and a prayer. How many more people will have to die before lawmakers realize that our broad sanctions on Iran -- which have little or no impact on the government's behavior -- are unnecessarily killing innocent people? Can't we figure out a way to put pressure on the government but spare the men, women, and children of Iran just trying to travel from one place to another? I would like to think that we can, but until politicians in Washington take a closer look at the unintended consequences of our Iran policy, it is the people of Iran who will suffer the most.