Consumer affairs

The Annual Amex Plat Accounting

by Robert McGarvey

The $695 fee for the American Express Platinum Card seems hefty – it is hefty – and in my case it’s another $195 for a spouse card.  But every year when I do the math I’ve found the card pays for itself.

How about this year?

Even if you don’t carry Amex Plat, but another premium card – Chase Sapphire Reserve at $550 for instance – you need to do this math annually. What value does the card deliver to justify its hefty fee?

Should you do this exercise for *every* card – such as the under $100 Southwest card in my wallet or a similarly priced Alaska Air card that I recently acquired? Probably but I can’t say I am that much of an accountant.  I do cut cards I am not much using – in recent years that’s been cards with United and American Airlines, neither of which is in my travel plans. But airline cards at least have additional benefits – such as early boarding – that help justify them as long as they are used.

So am I ahead with Amex Plat?

For starters the spousal card is paid for with the Plat $199 CLEAR credit which has made that service free for several years. In my tests I get through security with TSA Pre reasonably fast, I don’t feel a need for CLEAR, so don’t take advantage of a discounted spousal add on. But my wife uses and likes CLEAR so that perk goes in the plus column.

What about the $695 for my card?  Amex makes it shockingly easy to see how you’re doing.  At the top of the screen for the Plat card there’s a tab headed Rewards + Benefits.  Click it and your research is done for you.

For starters I’ve used $136 of the annual $200 airline fee credit which in my case is usable on Delta. That’s reimbursement for miscellaneous niggling fees – for a better aisle seat in coach for instance.

There’s a $200 credit with Uber that’s good for both Uber and Uber Eats. 

There’s a $240 digital content credit which pays for most of my New York Times subscription.

There’s a $100 Saks credit, issued in two $50 tranches.

That puts me at $676.

I’ve also had club visits, both Delta’s and the Centurion Club. Amex charges $50 for a Centurion guest but I don’t think it’s worth that much.  Let’s put this at $25@ and arbitrarily cap it at $200.

I’m at $876 in value on a card that costs me $695 and I still may use the $200 hotel credit before year-end. I’m also not counting the $12.95 I get monthly to reimburse the fee for a Walmart+ membership which I rarely use but it costs me nothing.

I also get status at Hilton and Marriott Bon Voyage and with several rental car companies.  And Amex Plat comes with good travel insurance and protections as well as an excellent purchase protection plan

Plus, The Points Guy values Amex miles at 2 cents apiece. Spend just $1000/month on the card and that’s $240 in points in a year.

The verdict: of course I’m keeping Plat another year.

Alaska Air Visa Signature Card

I know, I’d said in a past column I wouldn’t be getting it but I got it and the allure for me of this Alaska Air card – aside from the $95 fee and the Oneworld membership – is a 60,000 miles bonus for spending $3000 in the first 90 days, plus a $99 Companion Fare.  There’s also the usual priority boarding.

Those miles are worth $840 per TPG’s calculus.

As I looked at my bucket of rewards points and miles I had noted it was down to a few drops and of course the  only smart way to increase the stash is with a welcome bonus.  Repeat that: welcome bonuses are the only way to really grow a miles balance fast and with minimal pain. Yes, the Alaska Air route map is small but I assumed the Hawaiian Air merger would go through and I also knew Iberia is in Oneworld and Spain is my favorite place to visit.  You can guess what I’m eyeing as the destination for my bonus miles.

So I signed up and already have 63477 miles in my account.  All for buying some groceries at Trader Joe’s. 

It’s the only way to easily bump up total rewards miles.  If you want more miles find a card – preferably a low cost card – and go for it.

by Robert McGarvey

There’s a mushrooming industry of travel agents, writers and publications that have focused on offering us alternatives to overtouristed places and the ante goes up as more locales – from Greece to Spain – have loud anti tourist demonstrations and, honestly, who wants to spend their money in places that neither like nor want us? Yes, there is an understandable backdrop to why we crave alternatives.

But I am here to tell you that in most cases there is no dupe. Alternatives, yes, but the search for a dupe that delivers all – at least most – of what the planet’s coveted destinations do is a fool’s errand. Such places do not exist.

Here’s a glaring case in point of a tangled dupe from the Travel Channel: Quebec City Instead of Paris. “You won’t encounter the same crowds in Quebec City as in Paris. What you will find, especially if you stay in the UNESCO-designated Old City, are cobblestone streets worthy of a French village and plenty of chances to practice your French.”

Well…I have been to both and readily concede Quebec City’s Old City has genuine charm…but where’s the Louvre? And you want to eat in a place where Hemingway ate sausages and sauerkraut and drank beer or maybe where Camus and Sartre argued over morning eggs and coffee? Walk where the tumbrels rolled?And as for the language, the French in Quebec City is more an 18th century argot – it’s no place to practice the French you want to use in Paris or Marseilles.

Perhaps you think African safaris are too crowded – book a safari at Yellowstone National Park instead! So advises that same Travel Channel piece which tells us “The weeklong Winter Wolves of Yellowstone is a sought-after option to spot retiring gray wolves in their native habitat. Along the way you might also see bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope and golden eagles while traveling via safari-like vehicles.” Honestly, that Yellowstone trip sounds interesting but what it isn’t is a stand in for an African safari which many Baby Boomers have dreamt about for a half century or longer. Their dream is of seeing the Big Five in the wild, not a wolf pack and maybe some eagles.

Over at MoneyLion, we’re told to vacation in “The Baltics instead of Scandinavia” but that’s a bit like saying skip Manhattan and head to Bayonne. The four Scandinavian countries all rank in the top seven happiest countries and the Baltics – which indeed have architectural and cultural charms – are nowhere on the list for good reasons. The Russian bear is sniffing at their borders and none of them is exactly a thriving economy. There are reasons perhaps to not want to go to the Scandi four – Copenhagen is verging on ranking as overtouristed and throughout the region prices are breathtaking – but if you want to see happy, well ordered, functioning societies, the Scandi four cannot be matched by the Baltics or probably by anywhere else.

At Hotels Above Par they want you to know there’s a dupe for New York City and at least some stats say Gotham may in fact have too many tourists. Personally I think only some specific areas are way too crowded, think Times Square and Soho and perhaps parts of Brooklyn. But one place that most certainly isn’t a dupe is Chicago. The site seems appropriately half-hearted about this: “Some consider Chicago to be ‘a manageable New York City.’ The energy might not be equivalent, but several other factors spawn comparison.” Look, I like Chicago, but a New York substitute it isn’t and that starts with pizza where New York style is vastly superior, but even though I grew up 20 miles from Times Square I will readily agree a Chicago style dog is tastier than a New York dirty water dog. The first time I saw the Chicago dog I gave it the fish eye of incredulity but two bites in I was a convert. Even so, a weekend in Chicago may be fun on its own terms but a Big Apple holiday it isn’t.

Yahoo Finance enters this fray with what may be the ne plus ultra of nonsensical travel dupes: Instead of Bali, Indonesia, Visit Lombok, Indonesia. Two words tell why this isn’t so: Wallace Line. On one side is Indomalaya, on the other Australasia and they have little in common in flora or fauna. And that line falls between Bali and Lombok. Also 87% of the Bali population is Hindu, in Lombok Hindus are maybe 15% (Muslims are 80%). Culturally the two islands couldn’t be more different. Lombok has its own appeal – it’s more laidback and definitely cheaper. But a Bali it never will be.

There in fact is no dupe for Bali, just as there isn’t one for Paris or Santorini or Venice or an African safari or any of the rara avis places on earth. We may choose not to go to overtouristed, anti tourist places – and that’s a good choice imo – but don’t let’s delude ourselves into believing there are dupes.

There ain’t none.

By Robert McGarvey

Last week Joe Brancatelli put this idea in motion with his piece on Election Exile: Where to Go If It Doesn’t Go Your Way but this is a topic I have thought hard about for going on eight years and I too have many friends who are mulling exactly this question. In this piece I will tell you what I am telling them.

Incidentally I have less skin in the game because I already have Irish citizenship and have had it for 35 years. That means I can move to any EU country as can my spouse.

But just having that option – while wonderful – is not the whole answer and, in fact, moving to Dublin, which would be my preference in Ireland, is off the table because it’s just too expensive and frankly Ireland nowadays is less and less welcoming to outsiders who are blamed for everything from a severe housing shortage to inflation.

That leaves the rest of Europe and indeed the world and do understand that the country with the most US expats is Mexico, with around 3X more than Canada in second place.  Mexico has around 800,000 US expats. Spain, to pick an EU country, has 57,000.  

In fact after Mexico and Canada there’s a huge drop off in expats and why should that be a surprise?  The other North American countries offer easy and inexpensive access to the US – for everything from doctor appointments to family holidays.  Who wants to spend $1000 flying from Madrid to New York for a doctor’s appointment?

The other reality: Mexico makes it easy and fairly inexpensive for a US citizen to move there.  Show savings/investments of $293,000 and you’re in. Ditto if you can show $7300 in monthly income.  Temporary residency options also are available and are much cheaper.

As for Canada, the process of gaining legal residency there is difficult.  Not impossible but you have to really, really want to relocate to Canada to make it happen. Update: reader Mark Snyder emailed me this: “it is fairly easy to get Canadian Citizenship if one of your parents was born in Canada. It may also be possible if it was one of your grandparents that were born there. I applied and it took about a year and then I received my Certificate of Citizenship in the mail.”

You were thinking EU? Sure, you could try for Irish, Italian, or Polish citizenship but you need some direct ancestral connection to the country you choose. Lack that and think Malta if you are a high roller.  Under pressures from the EU, to which it belongs, Malta tweaked its high roller citizenship program but it still exists for those with very deep pockets.  Here’s what is required: Investment of around $800,000; property purchase of around $750,000; NGO donation of $10,000; family members can  be added at around $600,000 each; one year of residency in Malta.  Yes, that’s expensive but any EU passport is about as good as any other and they are among the world’s best.  

Your budget is smaller? Portugal may be your answer. Its so called Golden Visa has been heavily revised, mainly due to citizen protests against it, but it still exists and for now it requires a $500,000 investment, typically in a private equity or venture capital fund.  Before, real estate purchase was the preferred vehicle for would be US expats but – as citizens yelled their rents were going up and so were housing prices – that option was closed.  But there are few other requirements of Golden Visa holders who can live in Portugal, or not, hold a job there, and do most of what a citizen can do.  After five years you can apply for permanent residency or citizenship.

Greece offers similar with a lower price tag – around $250,000 – and real estate investments qualify but at that price point there’s a small range of qualifying properties. Other paths, with greater range of choices, require a real estate investment of around $800,000.

Another option is investing around $400,000 in a Greek business.

Very few strings are attached to the Greek offer.

Understand that many nations in the EU despise the Greek and Portugal schemes. Will they be around forever? As for Malta, it scores high in corruption.

And the economies of Greece and Portugal are among the weakest of the historic EU nations.

Where would I move? Usually the conversation ends up there and my answer is simple: If I chose to relocate, I’d move to Madrid in Spain, probably the Lavapies or La Latina or Rastro barrios, all in the city center where the streets are narrow carriage tracks and the crowds are large. In Madrid there’s also the culture – the Prado! – the food the history. Expenses would be a mite less than where I live in Phoenix. I’ve spent considerable time in those barrios in three trips over the past five years. And I’m already a year into learning Spanish. Will I make the move? Well, we’ll have to wait until November, won’t we?

Here’s a link to a Google AI generated podcast about this article. This is part of Google’s Deep Dive and NotebookLM program.

by Robert McGarvey

The senior senator from Illinois again has airline frequent flyer programs in his sights and he doesn’t like what he sees so Dick Durbin has proposed a new bill, The Protect Your Points Act. What Durbin has in mind is a revolution in how frequent flyer programs operate.

Understand that right now most prognosticators see the Senate flipping Republican in the 2024 election but this is an extremely volatile election – vide the Black Nazi in North Carolina – and right now I am keeping my wallet closed when it comes to betting on the November outcome. But I will say that if the Democrats lose the Senate – where Durbin presently serves as majority whip – any hope this bill is enacted into law vanishes.

Which would be too bad because it’s a good bill.

Durbin explained his intent: “I understand the practicality of airline rewards programs—I’m a participant myself. But without adequate oversight, airlines are taking advantage of their customers by offering grandiose rewards, only to change the terms and conditions without consumers’ knowledge. My new legislation, the Protect Your Points Act, would require one thing from the airlines – transparency. To be clear, my bill would not eliminate your airline rewards programs or regulate the value of your points or miles. My bill only requires the airlines to play fair. If these programs are as valuable to consumers as the airlines claim they are, the airlines should have no trouble taking these simple steps to make them more transparent.”

Here’s the bill’s cornerstone: “Prohibit airlines from including provisions within their frequent flyer programs’ and airline co-branded credit cards’ terms of service that reserve their right to make changes at any time without notice to consumers, and instead require them to provide at least one year’s notice to consumers of any changes to these terms of service, or any actions that would devalue or jeopardize accrued points.”

Another key plank in the bill: “Require airlines, within 90 days of enactment, to prominently display on every page of their website a disclosure of the financial value of one point/mile, updated in real time, so that consumers may more easily compare the value of points across different airlines.”

The bill also would force airlines to let consumers pay for flights with any combination of points and cash.

Other parts of the bill would make it easier – and free – to transfer points to others and prohibit the expiration of points.

That last bit especially interested me because recently American Airlines told me I had 11,000 miles expiring and rather than play in their sandbox I just gave the lot to a charity. I would rather have given them to a family member who is a loyal AA pax (I have no idea why) but that would have cost me $55 and it struck me as insulting that I’d be coerced into paying to shift bits and bytes and the charity donation was free.

Airlines for America, the carriers’ trade group, had this to say about the Durbin bill: “U.S. airlines have been working to Protect Our Points for years against those working to eliminate these loyalty programs. U.S. airlines are transparent about these programs, and policymakers should recognize their popularity and work to ensure that unnecessary regulation doesn’t eliminate them.”

Who can read beyond “US airlines are transparent about these programs?” There is nothing transparent about the programs of the big three domestic carriers – that’s indisputable.

Yes, I know that for the big three domestic carriers loyalty programs are among the biggest sources of profit on the bottomline – indeed actual airplane operations per se produce a slender profit if any at all – and some loyalists are suggesting the airlines would be in financial difficulty were the Durbin bill enacted. That all may be true. But that does not mean I am so masochistic that I think it acceptable that pax get continually jerked around by carriers as they twirl shiny objects before our eyes and too many of us dutifully jump with joy.

Remember, I have scored three pairs of tickets to Europe with points just in this decade. But just because I can win at the airlines’ game doesn’t mean I like it.

So I still say count me as all in for the Durbin plan.

By Robert McGarvey

Of course I adore something called The Not Hot List, which is compiled by Intrepid Travel in collaboration with Globetrender.

Here’s how Intrepid explains the list: “Our annual Not Hot List strives to bring travellers off the tourist track and inspire them to consider lesser-known destinations, while helping to spread the benefits of tourism to places where it can have an outsized positive impact on communities and local economies,” says Erica Kritikides General Manager of Global Product for Intrepid Travel. “We recognise the reality of overtourism in some destinations and continuously evolve our trips to help disperse travellers to new and exciting places and provide opportunities to travel at different times of the year.” 

So you won’t find San Francisco or London – two cities that have plummeted in favor among US travelers – on this list despite them not being very hot anymore but you will find, what, Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan in first place.

I hadn’t heard of it either and, honestly, I had written Pakistan off as a giant no go zone accorded a level 3 rating (“Reconsider travel”) by the US State Dept. with some areas of the country ranked level 4 (“Do not travel to”).  

Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan – in an area of Kashmir where India and Pakistan both have claimed ownership – is sparsely populated and K2, the plant’s second tallest mountain, is in its boundaries.  And there is a tourist website that honestly just might make you want to go, especially if high altitude, rocky landscapes are your thing.  

Number two on the list is Disko Island (Qeqertarsuaq), Greenland and, certainly, I know people who have visited Greenland but can’t say I know anybody who has set foot on Disko Island which claims Eric the Red as its first recorded visitor circa 982.  Population is around 1100 and it truly looks alluring.  

Number three is Cape York, Australia in Far North Queensland and it is the largest wilderness area in northeastern Australia.  

Number four is the Adirondacks in New York State and, hoorah, there’s finally a place I know of even if I have never been. But I have been close – Burlington VT almost kisses the northeastern border of the mountain range. A big plus: this is a four season destination. But summer can in fact bustle with tourists so if your goal is to dodge a tourist tsunami you may cross that season off for this destination.

Number five is Sainshand, Mongolia in the Gobi desert.  All I know about Mongolia is what I gleaned from a 2019 episode of The Grand Tour and, no, the show did not fill me with a hankering to explore Mongolia, not in a car nor on a horse.

Enough, you don’t need to know the remaining five?  Understood.  (It’s here if you want.)

And, no, there’s not a single destination on the list of 10 that I would seriously consider except for number 10 Oslo which has a dandy tourism website and in fact is the only Scandi capital I have never been to and I liked Stockholm, Helsinki and Copenhagen fine.  So I’d almost certainly like Oslo especially in summer. But that’s the rub with its placement. There may in fact be lots of tourists in Oslo in summer 2025 because a huge trend is the “coolcation,” that is, vacationing in a place that isn’t sweltering as much of Greece, some of Italy and some of Spain are.  If you want Europe and a place you haven’t been to that’s cool, temperature wise, Oslo just just be your place.

Probably there’s not much on the list that strikes your fancy either. But here’s the deal: for those of us who want to avoid vacationing hordes and also anti tourist hostility, a good idea is to think about places less traveled and to zero in on a few as possible great destinations.  Create your own Not Hot list. Know what matters to you – be it nature or museums or shopping or food and wine – and there are lesser traveled to places that still check all the boxes.  

Personally I have already made my summer 2025 choice and, living in Phoenix, sadly I am determined to travel in the peak heat month of July even if it is the world’s peak travel month. 

Along the way I mulled Buenos Aires, Tallinn, Belfast (a longtime personal favorite but never in the summer “marching season”), Sydney Australia, and a few more. All eventually got crossed off and finally just two choices remained. The runner-up was Madrid where I spent a great month in 2024 but why not go someplace different in 2025?

I won’t tell you where I’m going, not until I am there next summer.  That’s just a small step towards keeping a less explored place less explored.

Where are you going?  Don’t tell us.

by Robert McGarvey

From Paris to Athens, the Canary Islands to Rome, locals are in an uproar about overtourism – and public officials are responding. They are talking about stiff measures that will preserve the quality of life for locals and they want us to know they mean business.

Wink, wink.

Image created by Google’s Imagen3 AI tool

Consider: Venice has imposed a 5 Euro tourist tax this year and is likely to double it next year.

Barcelona grabs 50 cents to $2.40 per day per tourist.

The Netherlands charges 3 Euros per night.

Rome wants to collect 3 to 7 Euros per night.

Lots more European cities and countries are climbing aboard this gravy train because, what the hell, it’s free money. isn’t it?

But will it do any good for the aggrieved locals? There, friends, is the rub.

Many US cities have long imposed a kind of tourist tax in the form of a special tax on hotel rooms that often is >10% in many cities including Honolulu, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Some European cities do likewise including Amsterdam and Berlin.

And a bunch of countries – Mexico, Japan, and Belgium included – collect a tourist tax that’s usually under $10 per head.

Question: does any of this curb overtourism? Of course not. That was never the goal. Cities and countries have been hoovering up these nickels and dimes for years with zero noticeable curbing of tourism. Rather, the money is a kind of freebie for pols to spend as they wish.

Governments especially like these taxes and fees because it’s not locals – i.e., voters – who pay them but visitors who have no say in how the places are run and who is elected to office.

Sure, tourism interests warn that high fees will chase away tourists – there’s not a lot of evidence to support this warning but they make it anyway.

When a tax is no higher than a cup of coffee or a glass of wine it surely deters just about no tourists.

Which brings us to Bhutan, a country with a love-hate relationship with tourists because it’s a “developing economy” mainly based on agriculture and forestry so if it wants an infusion of big and easy cash it has to swing open its gates and attract more tourists who now pay around $100 per day for the privilege to enter and the government suggests that fee may be doubling.

Bhutan also caps its tourist count at 300,000 annually.

That is being serious about curbing overtourism.

Bhutan believes tourists are “happy” to pay the fees because the money helps Bhutan stay Bhutan and also pays for free healthcare and education for the populace.

Every country, island, city with hordes of tourists should look at Bhutan and seek to emulate it and that means imposing a steep fee on tourists and capping the numbers allowed. But that is tough medicine and entrenched tourism interests will howl because they will see this as their ox that’s gored. And politicians will listen to them and that’s why so much of the anti tourism talk is just talk.

Where Bhutan is serious, Santorini – just to point to one place – is not. It’s bursting with tourists – see this 2 minute Reuters video – and yet it is not prepared to take meaningful steps to significantly limit the blight. It is talking about a 20 Euro fee per cruise ship passenger. But the bulk of that money will go to Athens, with an unspecified cut going to Santorini to augment its infrastructure.

Similar is playing out in Bali, where overtourism is ruining the erstwhile “land of the gods” and so Jakarta has come up with a tourist tax of about $10 per head and you can bet little of that cash gusher will go to make life more livable for the Balinese. Incidentally, after petroleum Bali is Indonesia’s second biggest contributor of foreign exchange, bringing in $20 billion annually. Jakarta does not want to shatter that piggybank.

Overtourism is a pestilence but waiting for politicians and entrenched economic interests to cure it is a fool’s errand. Ain’t gonna happen. My advice continues to be to go where they aren’t and that means visiting overtouristed places in very low seasons (in the first two weeks of December Rome is usually vacant for instance) and to always seek to go where they aren’t (Paris may be overtouristed for much of the year but Marseille isn’t). Crowds are easy to avoid – if you want to.

As Yogi Berra probably never said, nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.

by Robert McGarvey

The Department of Transportation threw the first punch, sending letters to the four big US carriers (United, Delta, American, Southwest) demanding info about their frequent flyer programs and strongly suggesting that there is something rotten about how the carriers fiddle awards thresholds to fill the corporate coffers.

Now the carriers are firing back.

My advice to you is to plug your ears with wax, as Ulysses had his men do as their ship approached the island of the Sirens. I will do as Ulysses did, keeping my ears unplugged and my eyes open so as to understand the threat – but Ulysses of course was firmly lashed to the mast so he couldn’t be seduced by the Sirens’ song. Me, I’m tied to my desk so I couldn’t be bribed by any carrier with a freebie flight.

But I am listening to them and reading what they say.

Scott Kirby, the United CEO, for instance. The DOT demand has Mr. Kirby’s dander up. Speaking at a US Chamber of Commerce confab in Washington DC Kirby seemingly has taken the “how dare they” posture vis a vis DOT’s demands to learn some specifics about how carriers run their loyalty programs. Said Kirby: “Customers love these programs.” He specifically commented that this summer 3 million pax flew United paying with miles.

He did not say the airline has over 110 million members which means <3% of members got rewards flights this summer.

Kirby could just as well have said 107 million members of United’s loyalty program did not use miles for trips this summer.

He also didn’t mention that in Q2 United banked $892 million in “other revenues,” including sale of miles and credit card agreements. Much of that money drops to the bottomline and is a huge chunk of UAL’s profits.

Kirby is not alone.

“It is stunning that the federal government would waste precious time micromanaging airline rewards programs beloved by 80% of travelers at the same time they are failing the American air traveler to the tune of 3,000 air traffic controllers,” U.S. Travel Association CEO Geoff Freeman said about DOT’s inquiry.

He offered no proof that the programs are “beloved” by 80% of travelers, nor did he acknowledge that many travelers applaud DOT’s efforts to push carriers into speedier, kinder handling of refunds for cancelled flights

Incidentally, a YouGov poll founds that less than half of us have a positive view of any carrier, save Delta which notched a 55% approval vote. Mr. Kirby’s carrier managed only a 48% approval. “Beloved” and “airline” don’t belong in the same sentence.

Meantime, the Airlines for America trade group said: “Because there is fierce competition among airlines for customers, loyalty programs are a way carriers can say thank you to travelers. Millions of people enjoy being a part of various loyalty programs, which allow them to accumulate rewards to apply toward travel or other benefits. U.S. carriers are transparent about these programs, and policymakers should ensure that consumers can continue to be offered these important benefits.”

The programs are transparent? Back when the carriers issued static rewards charts, there was at least a degree of transparency but in today’s era of dynamic pricing there is no transparency in the programs that I’m aware of. Right now I’m thinking about putting together enough miles to “buy” two free tix to Europe next summer, but, honestly, I have no idea if the cost will be 150k miles or 400k miles and that uncertainty complicates putting together an attack strategy.

And if the programs are so “beloved” why are an estimated 90+% of miles never redeemed?

Look, I still don’t think the DOT inquiry will force the carriers to play nicer with their rewards programs. Just maybe DOT will throw enough shame on the carriers that they toss us a few trinkets to make us forget how badly the loyalty programs treat us. A free glass of warm jug white wine anyone?

I just don’t see the loyalty programs getting better. Why should the carriers do anything?

Bill McGee, senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Economic Liberties Project, summed up the miles mess nicely in a quote for Travel Weekly: “People enter programs with the best of faith. They spend decades playing by the rules. Then the goal posts keep getting pushed further and further back. … Everything they do is opaque, it’s unfair and deceptive.”

Amen.

By Robert McGarvey

Last Thursday the US Department of Transportation dropped a bomb.  The headline on the news release read: “USDOT Seeks to Protect Consumers’ Airline Rewards in Probe of Four Largest U.S. Airlines’ Rewards Practices.”

The release stated: “As part of the probe, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg sent letters to American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines ordering them to provide records and submit reports with detailed information about their rewards programs, practices, and policies. DOT’s probe is focused on the ways consumers participating in airline rewards programs are impacted by the devaluation of earned rewards, hidden or dynamic pricing, extra fees, and reduced competition and choice.”

Pardon me as I yawn.

OF COURSE we are impacted by continuing devaluation of the points and miles we have accumulated.  But this has been an ongoing drip – drip – drip, probably dating back to 1981 when American Air debuted its AAdvantage program.

For more years than I can remember Joe Brancatelli has been kvetching about the shrinking value in frequent flyer programs and urging readers to spend the miles you have because, like the Weimar Papiermark, a rewards mile loses value seemingly day by day.  

Brancatelli has also urged – and I’ve joined his chorus – that the only way to win in this game is to pursue credit cards with lavish welcome bonuses.

Even then, winning isn’t assured – but at least you have a chance to not be a loser.

The reality is that winning the frequent flyer game is about as likely as winning at 3 card monte in 1970s Times Square.  

Yes, I have gotten a pair of tickets for European travel in three of the last four years but I had long untapped reservoirs of points and miles and in buying the tix last year I transformed into a mendicant.  Maybe I have enough for a free round trip from PHX to LAX but not much more than that.

And I applaud my points poverty. It means I am doing something right. 

Fast fact: Most airline miles are never redeemed. According to CBS News, “The airlines like to boast to Wall Street the real value of their reward programs. And they often celebrate the financial success of these programs by how low the redemption rate is for miles — in some cases 8%.”

Another fast fact: Per McKinsey, 58% of all rewards miles are earned via ground purchases. Not by people flying. 

Quick question: what are the odds of winning at a Las Vegas Strip slot machine? The question has no answer. That’s because every machine can have a different payout rate and, in fact, often in the same casino identical machines will have varying payout rates.  The house gets to decide what payout rate it wants.  

The airline programs are no different.

And they have the protection of the US Supreme Court and lower courts:  “In April 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempted a frequent flyer program member’s common law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because the claim constituted a state-imposed obligation outside the agreed-upon terms of the program.

“Since the high court’s decision, several federal courts have ruled favorably for the airlines on contractual and extra-contractual claims arising from interpretation of similar rewards programs. These rulings are a positive development for air carriers that rely on the terms and conditions set forth in the program agreement, particularly those provisions giving the airlines the sole discretion to act or interpret the agreement.”

DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg will get some headlines out of this gambit, maybe an airline or two will throw us a small bone but we aren’t going back to static rewards charts or anything like fixed values for points and miles.  The carriers changed all the rules, most of us went along with it, and here we are.

Look, I am not saying frequent flyer programs are fair or kind or even reasonable.  They are vastly beneficial to the carriers and the passengers get a few crumbs.  But as long as you understand the rules – and accept that the carriers make them – playing the miles and rewards game can be fun. I have the flights to Europe to prove it.

Just don’t ever think you are winning.

by Robert McGarvey

“Traveling is the vice of the many and the virtue of the few. ‘Travel in the younger sort is a part of education; in the elder, a part of experience,’ said Bacon; but Bacon lived fortunately early and so escaped the modern cult. He never saw what we have seen: the devastation of fair countries, the desolation of old cities, the desecration of sacred shrines, by the intrusive presence of people who do not belong.“

It’s Francis Bacon, by the way, and as for the author of the above screed it’s not me, indeed it was written before I was born and before my father was born. It appeared in the June 1911 issue of The Atlantic with the headline “The Immorality of Travel” and there isn’t a byline.

I wish there were so that I could toast him or her for this scorching piece. This is simply dazzlingly insightful copy that could have – should have – been written this year as locales from Barcelona to Venice and Bali grapple with the ugly consequences of too much tourism. We deface Roman walls, we defile the sacred in Bali, we fall to our death snapping a selfie at a Bavarian castle.

Overtourism is destroying what we say we cherish and we are the ones doing the destruction.

Like this anonymous writer I have seen the desecration of cities, tourists wielding selfie sticks that become unintended weapons, and – perhaps most disturbingly – thick crowds of tourists pushing for space in front of Guernica at Reina Sofia or Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights at the Prado and they push not to get a better look at the art but for position for a selfie (and, thankfully, the Prado bans selfies so the Bosch largely escapes that indignity).

2024 becomes 1911.

The piece goes on:

“Travel is the great epidemic of the modern world, common to most races, wasteful of time and money, disastrous to the places visited, most unbeautiful in all its effects.”

Why do they bother to travel at all? I have no idea, other than that they seem to want to put a notch in their metaphoric pistol, been there, done that and their friends, they hope, will be envious and believe them cool. The friends probably won’t think them cool (cool? them?) but probably will want to take the same trip themselves or one up it. Travel metastasizes.

“One of the saddest features of the whole matter is the havoc wrought upon innocent regions by the pestilence breathing hordes of travelers,” howled the 1911 scribe.

The poster child for a destination that is imbued with innocence that now is being defiled by over 170,000 tourists annually is Antarctica, a place with no compelling reason to visit except to be able to make the claim that you’ve been. Psst. If you care an iota about the planet, just lie and say you’ve been. As a 2023 Atlantic story proclaims, “[It’s] The Last Place on Earth Any Tourist Should Go.”

Antarctica is just the iceberg’s tip.

The numbers pertaining to tourism make one shiver. In 1975 7.2 million Americans traveled internationally. In 2023, 48.96 million Americans traveled internationally. That’s 6x more but the planet has not gotten any bigger and the spots that draw us have not gotten bigger either.

Add in millions of Chinese tourists and fast growing number of Indians and what we get is a planet with too many visiting too few places.

The 1911 Atlantic writer is correct, by the way, in pointing out that travel is a comparatively recent phenomenon. In olden days people traveled on business or by necessity. When my Irish grandparents came to the US two things were true: they did not believe a good life was to be had for them in Ireland and once in the US they had no intention of returning to Ireland, not even for a visit, and they didn’t.

When tens of thousands of Africans pile into flimsy boats to get to the Canary Islands they do it because they have come to see their African homelands as unlivable. They are not on a holiday vacay.

You may ask: What am I doing to combat overtourism? I won’t travel to any of the many places that already are howling about too many tourists (and I hear their pain because they are right) and when I do travel overseas I will travel to places less trafficked by Americans, that plainly want tourists, and where I can stay a longer time.

What about you?

by Robert McGarvey

One early morning in July I was drinking coffee in the kitchen of a rental apartment in Lavapies, Madrid when an email came in from a friend who dates back to high school. “Why aren’t you in Barcelona,” he wanted to know.

I did not hesitate with my answer. I happen to like Madrid very much but just as important is that Barcelona in summer is stuffed with tourists, locals howl about overtourism, and the place just didn’t seem welcoming.

The next morning another email from my friend arrived saying, in effect, you’re right.

That’s because the day before an anti tourist protest had erupted in Barcelona where protesters fired water pistols at tourists.

There was none of that in Madrid although there were July protests against tourism in the Canary Islands and Valencia as well as Barcelona.

Spain is not unique. There have been loud grumbles about overtourism in Amsterdam, Greece (Athens and Santorini), Amsterdam, Bali and even places like Dubrovnik and Bruges.

I cannot say I have never been to an overtouristed destination. I was in Santorini in 1999 and swore I’d never return because the streets were thick with too many cruise passengers. Matters have only worsened but I’ve never returned so don’t blame it on me.

I went to Dublin for the first time in mid June 1989 and talked with more Americans than Irish. In this case I resolved never to return in the peak summer months and have often been to the 32 counties in late fall and early winter when few Americans – few tourists of any kind – are about. I have been the only guest in a hotel on the Antrim coast and one of a handful in hotels in Letterkenny and Donegal. Nobody complained about overtourism to me on those trips.

Of course I have been to Rome but my time to go is the first week or two of December when there are no tourists – and no wait times at museums or in Vatican City.

I have been to Berlin in that same early December slot and the Christmas markets are open but just about everybody you’ll talk with is a local (although in Berlin that often means a foreigner).

Note: A massive benefit of traveling in non peak times is that everything is cheaper – airfare, hotels, and and sometimes even restaurants.

But the other plus is that you won’t hear kvetching about tourists and you won’t be fired at with water pistols. Locals are happy you’re there because you are ringing the cash register.

Isn’t July a peak month for Spain’s tourism? It is but I did not see floods of tourists in Madrid except on the Gran Via, at the Prado and Reina Sofia museums and in the glitzy Salamanca neighborhood. And many of the tourists I encountered in Madrid were from other parts of Spain. Of course I spent many hours in the museum district but most of my time was spent in Lavapies, La Latina, El Rastro and Embajadores, a few miles removed from the Gran Via and – at least in the case of Lavapies – the population is a multicultural stew and who could tell if I’m a tourist or a local?

Lavapies has its issues around its future. There were bed sheets hanging from a building a block from where I stayed that protested the eviction of a family from an apartment up the street – Lavapies is well into a gentrification that is transforming a neighborhood that had once been impoverished – but the evictions seem to more blamed on the gentrification than on tourism per se and that’s the proper call.

The solution isn’t to ban Airbnb et. al. and grumble about tourists but to enact tenant protections and barriers to evictions.

Personally, while in Lavapies I ate in many local restaurants, drank in local bars, shopped in local markets and did not sense significant hostility.

Sure, some local bars are unwelcoming but I encountered more overt hostility in bars in South Boston a half century ago where in many cases the bartender simply would not serve an outsider. Nobody refused to serve me in Lavapies.

Bottomline: Overtourism is a real issue. Don’t contribute to it by going to destinations and places where there are overflows of tourists. Go if you want to but go in non peak times and to neighborhoods that aren’t bursting with tourists. And wherever you go, stay curious and respectful.

Oh: it helps to spend a long while in one place. I spent a month in Lavapies and, about halfway in, folks began recognizing me, some even started saying “hola.”

But a point I mull: erase tourism from the Canary Islands or Santorini for that matter or many of the places that complain the loudest and then what? 35% of the Canary Islands GDP derives from tourism. Overtourism can be ugly but so can poverty.