Air travelers have been taking a number of hits lately, but one of the most egregious was Spirit’s recent “web convenience fee,” whereby they charged an extra $10 for booking a roundtrip ticket online.

“Was”? Yes, “was.” They killed it. Sean O’Neill of Budget Travel pinged me to let me know that the newly updated Spirit contract of carriage no longer includes the fee. He posted about it earlier today.

And sure enough, the fee is gone. I walked through their site as if buying a ticket, and poof! It’s disappeared. Thank goodness. Let’s hope it doesn’t rise from the dead again.

Now, do those who paid the web convenience fee over the last week get their money back?… Don’t hold your breath.

Upgraded: Security on flights without air marshals
An unruly passenger who tried to open an emergency door mid-flight was tackled by members of Major League Soccer’s New England Revolution. Other passengers breathed two sighs of relief: One, that the exiting passenger wasn’t able to screw around with the door. Two, that they were flying with soccer players from Massachusetts, and not with the Uruguayan rugby team.

Downgraded: One-Two-Go takes a vacation
The Thai discount carrier says it’s canceling flight for two months, blaming fuel prices. It’s usually all or nothing, fly or shut down. That two month time-out seems like it would kill any customers’ confidence in the viability of those tickets. Are they simply putting off the inevitable, or making a brilliant move for survival?

Upgraded: Airline revenue streams
Starting this week, Delta has started slapping advertising on some self-printed boarding passes, under an agreement with the marketing company Sojern. See a sample image below. Is it annoying? Maybe. But frankly, I can’t get worked up over this. Cranky is upset about the “demographically” targeted ads that appear on the page, but I see demographically-targeted ads on dozens of websites every day, and I’ve made my peace with those, so I’m just shrugging this one off. I’d rather see ads on boarding passes than “web convenience fees” or tray-table advertisements.

…flies Spirit, that is. Chris Elliott notes the latest fee from the winner of the unofficial Upgrade: Travel Better fill-my-inbox-with-complaints award for lousy airline customer service. Their latest transgression: A $10 per roundtrip “web convenience fee” for making your air ticket purchases online.

So much for the internet reducing transactions costs and making it cheaper to deliver goods and services!

The fee is purely a way to bilk the customer. There’s no other way around it. I realize that fuel is pricey, and that $5 or $10 on every transaction can really add up fast. But this isn’t how you do it.

The phrasing of the fee:

Convenience Fee of $5.00 per traveling customer per one way travel applies to all reservations with the exception of those bookings created directly at Spirit Airlines’ airport locations. All fares are subject to change until confirmed and purchased.

So it’s cheaper to book a ticket at the airport? That makes no damn sense.

Chris is right that the Department of Transportation (and the Federal Trade Commission, I might add) should be looking into this. European airlines have been forced to reduce their false advertising of 1-cent fares with piles of add-on fees. This is a similar instance of mandatory, undisclosed fees that shouldn’t be permitted.

But why get ticked off at an airline I never fly? You won’t find me recommending Spirit to anyone, after all. Simple: These sorts of fees are actually problem for everyone, even if you never fly with them. Two reasons:

As I’ve argued before, one problem is comparison shopping: With Spirit tacking on fees like this, they might look cheaper in head-to-head comparisons with other airlines. That’s deceptive.

Second, like it or not, Spirit has been an industry leader, whom other airlines copycat. Nearly every time they add a fee, someone else follows suit within months, with a cascading effect. How soon before US Airways introduces a web fee? Then United. Then American, Continental, et al. (Southwest might not play along, as they’re still able to milk efficiencies from long-term fuel-contracts that they wisely sewed up months and years ago.) So b.s. fees like this one, even at a niche airline that most people haven’t flown, can’t be allowed to stand, or else we’ll all be paying it sooner or later.

Fight back by filing a complaint. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s complaint form is here. The Federal Trade Commission’s complaint form is here.

Update: Customers who really, really, really want to fly on Spirit, despite having been warned time and again about their horrible business practices, might want to book their tickets on Orbitz.com instead of on the Spirit Airlines website. While Orbitz charges a booking fee, it’s less than the new Spirit web convenience fee. Also, I just tried three sample itineraries, and the fare on Orbitz was lower than the fare sold directly by Spirit. Fluke? Maybe. But worth comparison shopping before clicking “buy.”

Update 2: As of July 23, Spirit has reversed this fee.

Related:
- Spirit’s latest indignity: Middle seats for a $5 fee
- Spirit Airlines keeps it classy with their M.I.L.F. sale
- Spirit Airlines’ CEO flips his customers the bird
- Downgrades: Spirit Airlines to charge for ALL luggage, coffee, and soda
- This is not the Spirit Airlines website and I can’t cancel your club membership. So why are people asking ME for refunds?

Reader Jon writes in with some advice for those prepaying their car rentals…

While searching for a rental car for a trip to Portland recently, I noticed the link to EasyCar on the Upgrade: site. Investigating, I found a UK-based service providing pre-paid rentals worldwide, through various partners (Alamo in the US).

The price of their rental was $150 less than the best price I could find otherwise (including Hotwire and the best name-your-own that Priceline would accept). And, unheard-of in this country, it included CDW. I was skeptical, but when an e-mail to their customer service confirmed that a US citizen could book a car, I took a chance.

Two remarks: First, EasyCar is indeed a legit company. They’re an outcropping of the airline EasyJet. But while Jon’s story is about his experience with EasyCar, his lessons hold true for any prepaid car rental reservation.

Second, rates automatically bundling in Collision Damage Waiver (CDW) are indeed more commonplace for rentals booked from European sites than American sites. I’ve seen this on rentals from big name providers like Avis, as well as from wholesalers and agencies like EasyCar.

Anyway, back to Jon’s story:

It turned out that, indeed, I got my pre-paid rental for the agreed-upon price. There were only two small hitches: although the documentation from EasyCar clearly showed on the front page that the rental was for Portland, OR, somehow at least the return had gotten into Alamo’s computer as Portland, *Maine*, so [Alamo] tried to charge me for a one-way rental.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to?

Further, although the contract indicated that gas might be offered as an *option*, Alamo’s computer showed it as required. After some debate with the local manager, the one-way problem was corrected, and they agreed to charge but then credit back the tank of gas.

Anyone wishing to try EasyCar should be advised to read carefully all the paperwork and bring it with them to the rental counter. Be prepared to dispute any charges that don’t belong, and be aware that it won’t be easy to contact EasyCar if there’s a problem. (Alamo said the 888- number on my paperwork didn’t work for them, and they refused to call the overseas number. Luckily, they eventually worked it out on their own.)

Glad things worked out in the end, Jon, though I’m sorry you had such a fight on your hands.

Having to break out your inner lawyer isn’t necessarily limited to EasyCar bookings, to prepaid bookings, or … well, there’s really no limit to the kind of bookings you need to watch like a hawk. But prepaid reservations require an especially watchful eye, because there are so many things that can be included, or not. Taxes, fuel, insurance, surprise fees…

Jon did the right thing in printing out reams of documentation. Print (or keep an electronic copy on your laptop of) more than your confirmation; print the FAQ’s, print the contact info, print the terms, print anything that explains what you should be getting.

Another thing to look out for, when you’re considering using a prepaid service: Pay attention to where the transaction is actually charged to your credit card. (It’s either in the terms and conditions, or on the last page of the booking, before you confirm the purchase.) Why should you care? If you’re holding an American card and the charges are issued in another country (such as the UK for EasyCar) you will most likely incur a foreign transaction fee — even if it’s not a foreign currency that’s being charged to the account. Prepaid hotel specialist GTA Hotels comes to mind — they have some good deals, but when you’re comparison-shopping, calculate an extra percent or two to cover the foreign transaction fee, as GTA tends to issue the charge from Turkey.

Prepaid car reservations can be a great (and legit) way to save money. But do your homework, and fight for your rights.

Some Upgrade: Travel Better readers might recognize their name (and quotes) in this article in the LA Times, detailing the recent trend of customers turning down car-class upgrades at the rental counter. (You may remember the post asking for stories from travelers who said “no!” to the comp car-rental upgrade. The article is the result.)

David Sikorski went to a Hertz in Austin, Texas, last month to rent a car for a business trip to Dallas. He’d booked a fuel-efficient mid-size sedan, hoping to keep expenses down on the 400-mile round trip.

What he got was a 16-mile-per-gallon Ford Explorer sport utility vehicle.

“I walked right back in and asked for something smaller,” said the Austin computer data specialist, who eventually was given a Hyundai. “They claimed it was an upgrade, but I sure don’t want an upgrade if it means driving an SUV.”

Amen, David.

But what’s the fallout for consumers?

Although rental companies say that pricing has largely stayed the same, Wall Street analysts predict a several percent across-the-board price increase in the industry to help with the changing business model. But Steven Fitzgerald, vice president for hotel and car distribution at Sabre, said that might not be enough.

“We might see . . . subcompacts renting for triple the price of SUVs,” he said.

It’s already happening. A recent survey of pricing at a Budget location at Los Angeles International Airport showed the midweek daily price for a Hyundai Accent economy car exceeded that of a Ford Explorer or a convertible Ford Mustang. Dollar and several other companies were offering SUV rentals in June for as little as $37.99 a day.

That sort of pricing is not commonplace… yet. But it’ll be interesting to see if the economics of car classes really do get turned on their head.

The problem is the fact that you aren’t guaranteed your car class when you make the reservation. You can always be given a higher class for the same price. And if the higher class is now undesirable, we either need to see a complete realignment of the car class hierarchy or a firm guarantee of in-class reservations.

(P.S. Thanks to all the readers who wrote in to volunteer for inclusion in Ken Bensinger’s article.)

Reader, frequent commenter, and man of many strongly-held opinions, From the Mind of J, has had it with the disparity between arms and armrests on commercial airlines. He’s had it with sharing armrests, if by “sharing” we mean “giving up your portion of the armrests due to an especially aggressive seatmate.”

Help may be on the way… slowly. Airlines and seat manufacturers have been floating alternative designs that offer more armrest privacy, either with alternating rear-facing seats, or with staggered rows.

But those designs are radical reconfigurations of the existing airline architecture, instead of simpler add-ons to the existing space.

So J has come up with his own design that amends what we’re already used to, by adding on a double-decker armrest. As an added “bonus,” his design comes complete with a profanity-laden description.

Here’s the basic concept:

I’m reminded of the brilliant “Open Letter to the Infrequent Traveler” and its depictions of armrest wars, from the all-too-rarely-updated consultant-centric blog, “Getting Drunk in First Class.”

The challenge to J’s solution is arm height: You don’t want your arms resting too high, or too low, or else it’s just not comfortable. But at least you’d be in your own space.

Would this work? Would this be something you’d want to see in action? Vote!

(reading this via the feed?…click here to vote on the site.)

Airlines have been on a diet, trying to shed those extra pounds, so they can fly lighter, leaner. But much like when one member of a family starts a diet, and others have to adjust their habits to the new scheme, passengers are forced to adjust when airlines diet.

The latest casualty is the audio-video equipment on US Airways. The airline, in its continuing effort to become Southwest, without the charm, is cutting the video on its domestic flights. (No big loss, frankly, since all they seem to show is Travel Channel quizzes and ads for Anthony Bourdain. Yes, I get it. He has a show.)

But what else have airlines cut to reduce weight? Jared Blank points us to an interesting synopsis of what’s been done to shrink the aeronautic waistline. Check it out.

At least other cuts, like AA’s cutting the number of olives in the first class salad, wasn’t done in the name of weight.

British hoteliers are coming under fire for their aggressive interpretation of customer service: Beyond simply tracking the in-hotel preferences of their guests, hotels are getting into their customers’ private lives:

Information stored includes marital status, number of children, age, nationality, home town, pastimes and occupation. Some hotels store names of guests’ overnight companions and dining companions, whether they are heavy drinkers, have been rude or polite, whether they have paid for “adult films”, and whether they have used drugs or taken part in “immoral activities” such as using prostitutes.

Less sensitive records are kept of interests such as favourite sports, films, plays, books and newspapers. Hotels use internet searches and information gleaned by staff to form files that are distributed to doormen, receptionists, waiters and chambermaids - usually with downloaded pictures.

It gets better. Jumeirah Hotels has the honor of creeping me out the most:

“Doormen don’t just know guests’ names, they have their resumes. We Google it. We build a profile on all guests: their job, family, how many days they usually stay.” [Derek Picot, Jumeirah Hotels’ regional general manager for Europe] said that “if a customer has misbehaved or done something that’s immoral or illegal, like drugs, we’d store that”.

Part of that is fine with me, frankly. How many days you’ve stayed… causing a ruckus on previous stays… that’s all fine. But why why why would a hotel need to collect data on the movies you watched? The guests you had with you in the room? Your resume?? How do those affect the hotel’s ability to serve you? What is check-in like? “Mr. Johnson, welcome back to the hotel! Congratulations on your recent transition to a new job! I’m also glad to see your female companion today is more attractive than your last en-suite partner! You may be pleased to know that we have some new big-bottom adult-film selections, which you enjoyed at such length on your last visit! Enjoy your stay!”

This takes excessive data collection and creepy intrusion into private life to a new level. And here I was, disturbed by some hotels’ tracking of where you moved your alarm clock a year ago. Silly me!

Cue 1980s Rockwell video that celebrates paranoia!:

The e-mail blitz was on this afternoon. Several airlines sent out their bulk-mails, announcing their opposition to “speculators” in the oil market. In an orchestrated letter signed by 12 airline CEOs, the airlines blamed the oil market for their companies’ woes. It’s a maddening piece of propaganda.

The airlines’ efforts to blame the oil market’s participants for causing the price of oil to go up is a red herring. Speculators exist, sure, but unlike the housing market’s speculators, in which investors actually bought physical properties to affect market pricing, oil futures market participants aren’t actually taking delivery of oil. They’re effectively wagering on the direction of prices, but that doesn’t directly affect oil supply or real consumptive demand.

The letter is chock full of misinformation and dumb logic. For example:

A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick up the final tab.

The price goes up every time? If so, why would anyone sell? No one has ever lost money on a trade? What market is this, and how can I participate?!!

Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices…

It’s a smidge more complicated than that, guys. War in Iraq and Afghanistan, mortgage meltdown and uptick in foreclosures, trade deficits, currency devaluation, bloated consumer debt, runaway derivatives markets… But anyway…

…speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery…

Umm, that’s an argument against futures markets in and of themselves, and not against speculators per se.

The Economist has a good breakdown of the “blame the speculators” logic this week. Forgive me for quoting them at length:

[Blaming the speculators] holds obvious appeal for those looking for a scapegoat. But there is little evidence to support it. For one thing, the surge in investment in oil futures is not that large relative to the global trade in oil. Barclays Capital, an investment bank, calculates that “index funds”, which have especially exercised the politicians because they always bet on rising prices, account for only 12% of the outstanding contracts on NYMEX and have a value equivalent to just 2% of the world’s yearly oil consumption.

More importantly, neither index funds nor other speculators ever buy any physical oil. Instead, they buy futures and options which they settle with a cash payment when they fall due. In essence, these are bets on which way the oil price will move. Since the real currency of such contracts is cash, rather than barrels of crude, there is no limit to the number of bets that can be made. And since no oil is ever held back from the market, these bets do not affect the price of oil any more than bets on a football match affect the result.

The market for nickel provides a good illustration of this. Speculative investment in the metal has been growing steadily over the past year, yet its price has fallen by half. By the same token, the prices of several commodities that are not traded on any exchanges, such as iron ore and rice, have been rising almost as fast as that of oil.

Bottom line: The airlines are whining. Suck it up. It’s your business. Manage it.

One surprise: Southwest signed the letter. By the logic of the letter, Southwest is one of the “speculators,” and in fact it’s a major reason Southwest has been eating everyone else’s lunch. Yet they signed the letter decrying their own business practices. Huh.

Less surprising: The signature of United. Despite having a CEO who previously worked at Texaco, these guys couldn’t figure out how to manage fuel prices. When they emerged from bankruptcy, they based their business plan on an unrealistic $50/barrel oil. It was trading around $65/bbl at the time, and it hasn’t gotten any cheaper. ($142/bbl today.)

The airlines who today whine about the oil market moving higher are complaining about their poor past decisions. They’re hatin’ the player and the game.

That said, if you want to check out the airlines’ “campaign” to stop investment, or “speculation,” they’ve got a website which I am loath to link to, but offer up for the sake of fairness and equal time. It’s StopOilSpeculationNow.com. Full text of the airline CEOs’ open letter is here.

(image)

ExpressJet, the airline best known for flying Embraer regional jets under the Continental and Delta brand names, is shutting down its own self-branded operations, effective September 2.

This on the heels of the cancellation of their contract with Delta. What’s left? Contract flying for Continental. Put this one on full-on deathwatch.

It’s a pleasant turn of events, though, insofar there wasn’t a sudden “sorry, we’re out of business, sorry” sign on their website, as in recent shutdowns of Skybus, Maxjet, Eos, etc. ExpressJet had the dignity of announcing the date of their wind-down in advance. (Seriously, that’s nice!) They’re still selling tickets.

This wasn’t what management was planning, I’m sure:

ExpressJet rejected an unsolicited $3.50-a-share bid from SkyWest Inc in April, saying the fair value of its stock was substantially higher than that.

The current stock quote, as of writing: $0.38. Ouch. How’s that $3.50 offer looking now?

So, has anyone out there flown ExpressJet? They weren’t flying where I ever needed to go, so I can’t speak to their product. (Here’s their route map.) For those who’ve flown them, will you miss ‘em?

(Thanks to Antonio, Katie, and Steve for sending this one in.)

(image)

Which airline has the most valuable frequent flyer miles? As we’ve discussed before, a mile is not a mile is not a mile. It really depends on the program the mile is in. But is one program inherently “better”?

I’ve argued in the past that such a value calculus depends on how your own travel needs fit into a matrix of redemption rates, accrual ease, route networks, and redemption options/availability. But why rely on individuals’ use-value perception when a market price exists?

What market? The black market!

Maybe “black market” is too harsh. “Gray market,” perhaps.

There are a small handful of shops — I won’t call them travel agencies — who broker frequent flyer tickets between buyers (with cash) and sellers (with miles). This technically violates the terms of the frequent flyer programs, though it’s not illegal. Buyers risk having their tickets invalidated if they aren’t able to name whose miles paid for the ticket. Seller risk having their accounts frozen or zeroed out. I’m not recommending this as a strategy; it’s risky.

But what the black market mile traders provide is a ranking of whose miles are worth more and whose are worth less — at least for the US-based airlines — by assigning different prices for different airlines’ miles. See the chart below, taken from one of the brokers’ sites:

Yes, yes, it’s outdated. (America West!?) A revision may be overdue, with recent fee additions from Delta and US Airways. But the gist is there: Some airlines miles are simply worth more than others. Yes, the value of frequent flyer miles is flexible and personal, depending on what you can cash them in for. But if these preferences are aggregated, we get a market price.

What say you? Whose miles are worth the most?