Travel

By Robert McGarvey

I hear the buzz – you do too – all around us now is the sound of travelers planning, packing, moving.  After 16 months of no travel (in my own case), it is plainly exciting to be again thinking about hitting the road.

But in my own case – and I am not preaching to you, just relating – I plan to travel in a much more sustainable way.  Climate change is real.  It’s nonsensical to deny it and where I live, in Phoenix, it is easy to see.  KTAR sums up the numbers: “[In 2020] Phoenix broke records for the most 95-degree days (172), 100-degree days (145), 105-degree days (102), 110-degree days (53) and 115-degree days (14) in a year with daily heat records being shattered 18 times throughout 2020 and tied another 15 times.”

Meantime, we are depleting our groundwater reservoirs and the Colorado River, which supplies much of the water that irrigates the west, just is coming up short.

In Arizona, climate change is not a parlor game word.  It’s become a matter of life or death, for many plants and animals and very possibly, in the long term, even humans.  Don’t snigger about the last. A 2019 Sierra Club Magazine headline told why: Can Phoenix Remain Habitable?  It asked.  The article is a good read and it spells out how Phoenix could dodge this bullet. But it is not optimistic that sanity will prevail because the city talks a good game…but real steps are fewer.

Which is why it comes down to me, by which I mean all of us who live in Phoenix – and since the planet is facing the same climate changes, pretty much all of us everywhere

That is why I am mulling where, how and why I travel.

Understand, I remain deeply skeptical that we will soon see a vigorous return to 2019 level business travel.  Between the frugality of CFOs and the lethal state of Covid-19 around much of the globe – to say nothing about the one in two Americans who are not yet fully vaccinated – there simply is no rational forecast that sees business travel rebounding this year and possibly not next.  Will there be more business travel in the second half of 2021 than there was in 2020? Of course there will be and that is because there were less than half as many business trips in 2020 as in 2019.  It won’t take much to log higher numbers in the second half of 2021 and that won’t prove much, either.  

Personally, my position will be that I will take business trips where and only where an in person appearance (as opposed to a virtual appearance via Zoom) is likely to produce better results.  Face it, hitherto, we took a lot of trips because, well, that’s how it always had been done. But the long travel hiatus has made it easy – necessary – to experiment with alternatives and, guess what, often they work. 

Before booking a business trip I will ask is it necessary? Is it wise?

A lot of times I probably will decide the trip simply isn’t needed. That will save money, save my time (business travel is hideously wasteful of the traveler’s time), and perhaps help save the planet.

Flying is bad for the environment. According to the BBC, “Around 2.4% of global CO2 emissions come from aviation. Together with other gases and the water vapour trails produced by aircraft, the industry is responsible for around 5% of global warming.”

That seems a small number?  Perhaps.  Indeed, buildings and cars are by far the biggest producers. 

But I already am very mindful of how much I drive (just a few thousand miles per year) and where the thermostat is set.  So I will also do my bit to cut out unnecessary business travel too.

Another target will be unnecessary leisure travel – and already there is talk of a lot more of exactly that.  I cannot tell you how many people I know who are dreaming of a trip to Antarctica and that has to count as perhaps the most unnecessary trip imaginable.  Watch the Bourdain show and if you want realer sensations, stick your head in an icebox for a few minutes and finger the ice cubes.  

In 2019-2020 about 74,000 of us traveled to Antarctica and, according to research published by Cambridge University, “The average tourist trip to Antarctica results in 5.44 t of CO2 emissions per passenger, or 0.49 t per passenger and day.”

OK, maybe some travelers in fact have good reasons for this trip. I don’t get it but that might be my failing. We each have to do our own calculations.

But the point stands: my commitment going forward is that the leisure travel I take will be done with a mindfulness of the environment and I won’t take the trip if there are other ways to gain the experience.  

That means I won’t be taking impulse weekend trips to Madrid, as I have done, or Berlin.  But travel I will…just not so much and only after I weigh the pros and cons.  

It’s the least I can do to help save the planet.

By Robert McGarvey

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis cannot have it both ways when it comes to the return of cruising.  He is trying but he won’t succeed.

And he is threatening the vacation plans of many of us who had looked forward to the resumption of safe cruising.

DeSantis – pursuing political agendas that lack commonsense but in an era of alternative facts such has become something of a norm – now has some big players in the industry close to telling him to go pound sand.

Back in early April Florida, at DeSantis’ direction, filed suit against the CDC demanding an immediate resumption of cruises.  “We don’t believe the federal government has the right to mothball a major industry for over a year based on very little evidence and very little data,” DeSantis said in a news conference at Miami’s seaport.

DeSantis of course wants cruising back because Florida wants the money it produces for the state. Some $9 billion annually is brought in by cruise lines in Florida and many millions more in paychecks for cruise employees and DeSantis, presumably blinded by the glitter of so much gold, simply no longer sees the many thousands of Covid-19 deaths that hit the cruise industry in the first half of 2020 and the tens of thousands of cases.

He may think there is little evidence and less data but he simply is wrong.

But saying DeSantis is a demagogue with no respect for facts hardly is news or even interesting.  What is interesting is that when the return of cruising to his state has become imminent he has thrown a spanner into the ships’ engines mainly because he wants to be seen as a “courageous” campaigner against forced vaccinations.

Idiocy? Of course. But this is special stupidity because it might actually prompt many cruise lines to pull out of Florida and shift their home ports into friendly Caribbean nations that, you bet, will do what needs doing to build up their cruise related income.

Flashback a year ago and I thought I’d never cruise again.  The industry’s handling of the virus was inept, mendacious, and deadly.  But now the CDC has issued guidance designed to get cruises safely sailing again.  Masks are required, shore excursions are tightly controlled, and in lots of ways cruising will be different.

But a reality – understood by many cruise executives, even if politicians do not get it – is that many of us were not going to cruise again unless significant steps were taken to assure the safety and health of passengers and crew alike.

In that vein many cruise lines now promise all crew will have been vaccinated and ditto passengers. Here’s a list of lines requiring passengers to be vaccinated and, yes, this includes most of the ships an American is likely to sail on.

I applaud this decision and I realize it is driven by economics. The data just had become overwhelming that a vaccine requirement is a sine qua non for a return to cruising.

But not if DeSantis has his way.  You will remember we left the governor as he filed suit against CDC demanding a green light for cruising.

I don’t know that you can say CDC had issued a green light but it definitely turned off the red and the light now is amber.  Do as CDC asks and a line can sail. And a line can do it faster if it requires a high percentage of passengers be vaccinated. Are the requirements onerous? Yes.  But desperate and dangerous times call for dramatic measures.

And yet DeSantis now has taken steps to ban businesses in Florida from requiring vaccination passports from customers.  “It’s completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply be able to participate in normal society,” DeSantis said at a press conference.

He means for that ban to apply to cruise ships.  Some lawyers argue – and they probably are right – that what the ships do is a federal matter, outside the purview of a governor.  But already Norwegian Cruise line is threatening to pull its ships out of Florida and sail out of those Caribbean ports we mentioned earlier.  

“Cruise ships have motors, propellers and rudders, and god forbid we can’t operate in the state of Florida for whatever reason, then there are other states that we do operate from,” said Norwegian CEO Frank Del Rio. “And we can operate from the Caribbean for ships that otherwise would’ve gone to Florida.”

Meantime, Carnival, the largest cruise line, now says it wants to start sailing from Florida in July – if it can reach an accord with CDC which has said it will relax some restrictions for ships where virtually all crew and passengers are vaccinated. Carnival has plainly indicated it is prepared to deal with CDC. “We continue to have constructive discussions with the CDC but still have many questions that remain unanswered.  We are working diligently to resume sailing in the U.S. and meet the CDC guidelines,” Christine Duffy, president of Carnival Cruise Line, said in the statement.

No mention is made of DeSantis and his attempt to outlaw vaccination passports in Florida.

Let’s review. DeSantis has a fit and sues CDC to end its ban on cruising because of the adverse economic impacts on Florida, the nation’s biggest cruise port.  CDC modifies its orders, the cruise lines decide they can work within the new rules and – to solidify passenger confidence – they decide to require vaccinations of passengers and crew.  And now DeSantis says a business cannot require vaccination passports of its customers.

Which means many won’t feel comfortable cruising, especially not if the ships are welcome zones for wacky anti vaxxers.

If DeSantis gets his way, just forget about cruising from Florida.

Sigh. I said it earlier but it’s worth repeating: Go pound sand, DeSantis.

By Robert McGarvey

Looking at my May bill from Amex, I was struck by something I had never noticed before: green dollar amounts, at least in the bill I look at online.

Nope, Amex is not on a new sustainability kick.  The green is there to make me notice credits to my account.  Like what?  $18.07 in a PayPal credit (reimbursing me for a New York Times subscription paid via PayPal).  $50 for a purchase of Maryland crab cakes via Goldbelly (the initial charge was $119, but Amex kicks back $50 each on up to three purchases by June 30).  $50 for a Saks purchase (that amounted to $60 initially).

Not noted on the monthly bill, there also was a $15 Uber credit that I used for an Uber Eats lunch.

Add in another $12 for cellphone coverage, also not noted on the bill.

That’s $149.07 in credits.  In one month.  

Sure, I have not set food in a Centurion Lounge this year (in fact not in a full year).  I did not use the Amex $200 airline credit last year and may not use it this year.

But when I see credits actually flowing into my account that may hit $1000 for the year and almost certainly will eclipse the $550 annual fee, I am less peeved about the perks I am not using than I am satisfied with the perks I am claiming.

Am I thoroughly content? I am not.  That is because for some years I have had a lazy man’s relationship with the Platinum card.  I used it frequently to access the Centurion lounge and that alone justified the fee by my calculus.  (Amex now dings a cardholder $50 per guest and that valuation would put breakeven at 11 visits.  But factor in the annual $200 Uber credit and 7 visits is breakeven.)  Toss in the cellphone protection and I would have gotten plenty from my Plat card.  

Easy peasy.  

That was before, when I traveled and used the benefits I had acquired the card to enjoy.

Now I have to work to breakeven and, honestly, I am too lazy to enjoy it.  It takes sorting through possibilities whilst wearing a green eyeshade. Amex showed me 100 credits and perks I am eligible for – my understanding is that the lists are personalized for the cardholder.  Your 100 won’t be identical to mine.

Most of the benefits are meaningless to me.  20% off on purchases at Adidas.com. Bonus miles when shopping at Macy’s. $20 back on a purchase of $100 at Lamps Plus – you get the drift.  Lots of places where I don’t shop and don’t plan to shop.

I am open to new places – in fact I had never shopped at Goldbelly until a JoeSentMe reader praised the $50 cashback offer. When I looked I saw Chris Bianco, Russ & Daughters, Langer’s Deli and already there are more places where I want to shop than I can claim $50 refunds.

For every store that interests me there are five or ten that don’t. Blue by ADT, Terrain, Persol eyewear, and more that I ignore as I scroll through the list.

And even the offers that interest me have varying strings attached. With Saks, it’s $50 twice yearly at six months intervals. With Goldbelly it’s $50 on three purchases of $100 or more. Before clicking buy, if you are counting on an Amex refund, remember to check the fine print on the offer.

Many offers can be used only by the primary cardholder. But some are available to secondary cardholders. But you have to know which is which.

You also have to remember to enroll in programs you want to use. Enrollment is not automatic in most cases.

And now I also have to monitor several sites that report on new Plat benefits (and rumored benefits).  I found the cellphone coverage at one such site, and now see that Amex has made permanent access to Lufthansa lounges for cardholders flying that carrier.  A cool perk in Europe, one I may use before the year is out.

But I had to work to discover it. 

I want credit cards that work for me, not the other way around.

Of course there also are rumors of a Plat card revamp – with talk of a fee boost to $700 and a bunch of new perks including an annual Clear membership (worth $179), an entertainment media credit ($20 monthly for select streaming services) and the list goes on  Nothing is certain about any of this – we’ll report on it when the facts are known – but it may introduce new variables into the keep or jettison decision.

In my current frame of mind, unless travel in fact rebounds I will probably let the card go if the fee jumps to $700. It’s just too much work to make it pay off. 

But maybe I’m just a lazy guy.

by Robert McGarvey

On May 11, the TSA’s mask mandate expires and the near-term future of travel hangs on whether or not the agency determines an extension of the mandate is needed.

Updated 4-30-2021: TSA today announced an extension of the mask mandate through September 13. Bravo. Now let’s push the anti vaxxers into doing the right thing and, by late summer, just maybe we can all breathe easier and maskless.

Airlines are vocal in cheering for an extended mask mandate, as are most flight attendants and it is the in-cabin crew who are forced to deal with the angry confrontations and mask refusals as is. At least the TSA edict gives them backup and, in admittedly rare cases, mask refusers have been ejected from planes, even arrested.

Listen up, anti maskers: as the Clash once sang, Know Your Rights. Of course they did not deal with anti maskers, but were they recording today they might agree with my proposed lyric: You have a right to go maskless as long as you fly outside on the wing.

The basic argument for masks is that it lessens the chance of airborne transmission of infectious matter and that is all the more necessary as just about all airlines now are filling middle seats even though the evidence is emphatic that empty middle seats lessen disease transmission on planes. But now Delta, the last of the major carriers to block middle seats, has said they will fill them starting May 1.

We definitely need masked passengers as airlines begin to carry more passengers.

But mask resistance is growing. In Alaska, a state senator – a vocal anti masker – has now been banned by Alaska Airlines, for repeated mask defiance, and this is a bit of a bother for Sen. Lora Reinbold because she lives near Anchorage, the legislature meets in Juneau, and Alaska Air is the only commercial carrier with flights between the two. Reinbold recently made the journey via a 14 hour drive, through Canada, and also involving a water ferry. If anything, she became more vociferous in her anti mask posture. And she has grumbles about the airline: “Alaska Airlines sent information, including my name, to the media without my knowledge nor permission. I do believe constitutional rights are at risk under corporate covid policies,” she wrote on Facebook.

Incidentally, many commented that Canada should have prevented her entry into the state. I would not be surprised if Canada in fact does exactly that when she attempts another drive to Juneau.

Count me as feeling more affection for Alaska Airlines. They are doing the right thing, putting the protection of all passengers above catering to the anti science fantasies of a self important state pol.

But we can top Lora Reinbold. Meet Jessica Alexander, a City councilmember in Temecula CA. Her beef with masks was not about flying as such – it revolved around wearing a mask to council meetings – and Alexander invoked the memory of Rosa Parks, the trigger for the 1955 Montgomery AL bus boycott which was a major event in post war civil rights in the US.

I won’t paraphrase Alexander. Here is how the Press Enterprise recounts her statement: “‘Look at Rosa Parks … She finally took a stand and moved to the front, because she knew that that wasn’t lawful. It wasn’t true,”’ Alexander said, according to a videotape of the meeting. ‘So she took a stand. At what point in time do we? … I’m getting pushed to the back of the bus. This is what I’m telling you I feel like.”

Alexander added that she “cannot” and “will not” wear a mask.

There is no arguing with a person like Ms. Alexander because, well, because it would be a waste of breath.

And the problem is that rising numbers of anti maskers seem to have swallowed alternative reality pills where all manner of anti scientific lunacy is “fact” and their “rights” are getting trampled.

The Voice of America has an intriguing post on what would the founding fathers say to the anti maskers when they insist a mandate requiring mask wearing violates their rights.

Per VOA, “‘These are lawfully created ordinances and mandates and requirements to protect one another. So, that sort of thing would not be seen by the founders as a loss of liberty,’” says Andrew Wehrman, a professor of history at Central Michigan University. “’It’s a mistake to think of liberty as absolute self-indulgence without restraint. We don’t have the liberty to set our own house on fire, because it might affect other houses.’” 

To repeat: there is no right not to wear a mask.

Definitely no rights to go maskless on an airplane. But only until May 11. Fingers crossed that TSA does the right, safe, smart thing and extends the mask mandate at least until autumn. Year end would be better.

We need the official mandate. Without it, flying will be a crazytime of delusional anti scientific beliefs.

With the mandate we have a good chance of safe flying.

I am masked up. You?

By Robert McGarvey

First I clap with joy.

Then I curse in anger.

This is as I ponder a planned trip to Spain in the early fall of this year and, what had seemed a fantasy idea just four months ago, now seems increasingly realistic. Mainly because the US government has done a remarkable job putting vaccinations into arms.  

About 26% of us are fully vaccinated and half of us have received at least one shot. We need to reach 75%, perhaps as high as 85%, to achieve so called herd immunity but those numbers are within reach.  Theoretically. More on that disclaimer in a bit and understand it extends not just to our immunity levels but also our ability to travel.

First the celebration.  Most of us already are planning summer vacations – which is underwritten in poll after poll.  

In Europe, Greece now has opened to fully vaccinated US citizens and also those who produce a negative Covid test.

In France, Prime Minister Macron has said the country is working towards admitting fully vaccinated US citizens.  That’s not a done deal but indications are that France will move in that direction before June.

Watch other EU nations loosen their restrictions, mainly because tourism is a huge part of the economies of so many of those nations and 2020 was a wipe out and nobody wants a repeat.

Tourism is 10% of the EU’s GDP and in some nations – Greece for instance – it is vastly more important.  Granted, much of that tourism is intra-EU but the US remains vital to many of the Continent’s tourist economies (France, Italy, and Spain to name three) and so a lot of European eyes are anxiously waiting for a relaxing of restrictions that effectively bar most Americans from most of the EU.

But note: although the EU has recommended a travel ban, it has not issued one.  It’s up to member nations to chart their own courses and already Greece has broken ranks, Croatia had beaten Greece in opening the gates to US citizens, and you know at least two or four more EU members are counting the days until Americans return.

That is why I am optimistic that Spain will open its doors to fully vaccinated US citizens, probably by early summer.

Assuming the anti-vaxxers don’t screw this up for the rest of us. Here’s the why for the early disclaimer.

Already we are seeing a flood of counterfeit vaccination cards and anti-vaxxers, faced with vaccination requirements at everything from sporting events to cruise lines, are publicly stating they intend to buy them.

Yes, everybody from the FBI down to local authorities are saying that using a bogus card is a crime but that does not seem to much worry the anti vaxxers who are digging in with their unscientific, indefensible anti vax belief system.

Ordinarily I don’t give much of a hoot about what the anti vax crowd thinks or does but this instance is different.  As word spreads that a lot of purported vaccination cards are in fact fakes confidence in the cards will diminish.  

Which may threaten my ability to go to Spain.

Just as it will threaten the ability of millions of us to cruise, to attend Yankees games, even attend college.

Look, I am not saying everybody has to get vaccinated. Some have legitimate medical issues.  Others just may not want to. Fine.  I am fully vaccinated but I nonetheless practice social distancing and mask wearing, mainly because in Arizona where I live there remain a significant number of anti vaxxers and I have no interest in investing energy in attempting to persuade them. I think their position is idiotic and socially irresponsible but I will not spend breath arguing with them. You can’t win an argument with brick, can you? I will maintain my distance and that will probably be enough to keep me safe.

But if people are showing fake vaccination cards and that may have repercussions that impact my travel plans, this has my attention.

Some 45 state attorneys general have demanded that Twitter, eBay, etc. stop running ads and notifications about the availability of fake paper.  

If the AGs quickly hold a few well publicized trials, this threat likely will vanish.

And I can keep packing for Spain.

by Robert McGarvey

Another day, another poll. Another day, another prediction.

Here’s the deal: there are ever more surveys of business travelers that invariably augur a brisk return of business travel, usually before the end of this year.  For instance: A survey by GoldSpring Consulting, reported on in Business Travel News, found that “63 percent of business traveler respondents said they anticipate taking their next business trip within the next six months.”

Another study for promotional products company PromoLeaf found that 64% of us agree with this statement: “My job doesn’t give me as much enjoyment now that I can’t travel for business or business travel is limited.”

Ponder this: if we wanted to survey consumers on their attitudes about hamburgers, wouldn’t you expect that if we chose to survey inside Burger Kings we would get remarkably different results than if we surveyed inside Copper Branch restaurants, it being the self proclaimed biggest chain of vegan eateries?

Ask self identified business travelers if they expect business travel to pick up this year and of course they say yes.

That is more a statement of desire than a fact based prediction.

Business travelers, most of them, miss business travel. Sure, business travelers grumble about life on the road – complaining is part of the job description – but for most, there’s a lot of pleasure in racking up elite status at this airline or that hotel chain.

Hell, I miss the Centurion Club – I have yet to set foot in the one in Phoenix where I live; I miss business trips to San Francisco, Chicago, New York; I miss finding good uses for the airline credit cards in my pocket. There’s a lot I miss.

But fondly hoping for a return to 2019 level business travel isn’t the same as that actually happening.

Not when there are facts that say we don’t need to travel that much.

Even the PromoLeaf research – based on a survey of 1003 US based business travelers – reported this: “When asked, ‘Has your business been positively or negatively affected by not being able to travel for business?’ 32% of our respondents said lack of business travel had a negative effect. However, 37% said the impact had been positive, and 25% said it had neither a positive or negative effect.”

A YouGov poll found similar: “Restrictions on air travel had no effect on job productivity for 55% of respondents – who were based in Britain, Denmark, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany – and worsened it for 26% and improved productivity for 19%.”

Chew on that.  More are saying not traveling had either no or a positive impact on their business.

Not traveling has produced savings that have put smiles on the faces of CFOs. All kinds of CFOs, even unexpected ones.  Matthew Frajack, CFO at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, said his school has saved $5 million a month due to reduced business travel.

And Amazon said it saved about $1 billion in 2020 due to reduced business travel.

Admittedly, the brisk rollout of a vaccination program in the US has made more organizations take a friendlier look at resumption of business travel, but CFOs still are drawing the purse strings tight and there is no reason to expect a nearterm resumption of business travel for the purpose of inhouse meetings.  For sales calls, yes, very probably we will see that rebounding, perhaps as soon as late Q2 this year.  But a lot of business travel is going to remain shelved, mainly because the c-suite has realized profits can be maintained, maybe increased, even when a lot of travel is eliminated.

A new survey of CFOs found 41% say they plan to cut travel budgets – permanently.

That is the probable nearterm reality.

Then there is new research from IBM – based on a survey of 15,000 adults that found age has everything to do with our attitudes towards business travel.  “Only 8% of respondents who are older than 55 said they would go on a business trip without a vaccine, and only 25% of that age group said they would travel for business even after they have been vaccinated.”

The IBM research explains why I am hearing negativity about business travel from my peers – leading edge Baby Boomers – but then there is bubbling enthusiasm among Millennials that I’d missed.

Put another way, what we are seeing is a generational shift, where the travel bag is getting passed from Baby Boomers (the youngest of whom are 57) to Millennials (the oldest of whom are 40).

But it is a cadre of Boomer CFOs who just may keep the budgets small for travel for some years to come. If profits stay high, with business travel kept low, that is what will happen.

by Robert McGarvey

Coca-Cola, Delta Air, Major League Baseball, Atlanta, the list of boycott targets keeps growing as sides are taken and lines are drawn in the debates over voting legislation in Georgia but not only because there is similar legislation in Arizona and more states.

In Texas, for instance, both American Airlines and Dell have spoken out against proposed legislation that many believe will suppress voting in that state. Both companies are likely to figure in boycott lists too and, yes, I am pleased that I recently bought a Dell computer, the first I have ever bought from that company.

Now travel in particular has become politicized.

Understand this: I am strongly opposed to attempts to limit voting and yet I am okay with consumer boycotts. I still remember going years without a leaf of iceberg lettuce entering my mouth, or a grape, in response to Cesar Chavez’ Salad Bowl boycott, which lasted from 1970 to roughly 1978.

Personally I am on record stating I would decline to stay in or even attend an event at a Trump managed property. That’s a kind of boycott and I am not alone. Most experts believe Trump’s hotels are in woeful shape financially

Our system is one where boycotts, often based on political differences, have a long history. Do they work? That’s a surprisingly difficult question to answer. The Freakonomics folks explored it in a long podcast (here’s the transcript). Some experts flatly proclaim boycotts don’t work, witness UCLA prof Ivo Welch in the Freakonomics podcast: “Boycotts almost surely will never work.”

A case in point is the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and the refusal of France to support that effort. Across the US anti-French activities and boycotts flourished. French fries even were (briefly) renamed freedom fries and many swore to boycott French wine. Did the boycott work? According to Freakonomics, “According to three economists who later analyzed the data: ‘we show that there actually was no boycott effect.’ So why is there often no boycott effect? One reason may be that boycotts get a lot of attention — they’re a good, easy, spicy story for journalists to cover — which gives the impression that the outrage is larger than it really is.”

Another reason is that many proclaimed boycotters are all mouth no follow through. They insist – loudly – that they won’t swill French hooch but many never drank wine anyway and others who do like a tipple apparently continued to drink French wine, just on the QT and in the privacy of their homes. And maybe they even drove to the next town to stock up on Burgundy so they wouldn’t bump into a neighbor while navigating the aisles at Total Wine with a cart stuffed with French imports.

Even with the Salad Bowl strike it is hard to declare Chavez and the United Farm Workers the clearcut winner. That was a long, brutal labor action with much pain on all sides and, you know what, I grew not to miss iceberg lettuce, which I still rarely eat, and I never had much interest in table grapes anyway. I hope what I did benefitted the farm workers but I am not sure it did.

Even so, stiffen your backbones, you Delta bashers and MLB boycotters. Much as I think your crusade is doomed (and thankfully so), part of me wants you to stick with it because it will make my travel so much easier.

It certainly is the right of Trumpers to decline to fly Delta and I hope they stick with that resolve so I will know which carrier I will prefer. Note: it’s that ying and yang that unravels the impact of many boycotts. For each who swears never to fly Delta or drink a Coke, there I am swearing to fly Delta and at least thinking about buying a few liters of Diet Coke, which has long been my drink of choice in the sky. It’s more so now.

Maybe I’ll fly to Atlanta to catch a baseball game. Last time I was in that town overnight it was to catch a Queen concert. But now I am thinking Atlanta seems a mighty fine destination.

Buckle up, the ride is just now entering turbulence.

by Robert McGarvey

The headline in Travel Weekly jumped out at me: “Several cruise lines require vaccines, but not everybody is on board.”

Back up a step. Let us review facts.  At least 83 are known to have died a Covid-19 related death on a cruise ship.   There were thousands of cases among passengers.  Tens of thousands of passengers were grievously inconconvenienced, in some cases doing a Flying Dutchman journey in search of a safe harbor, sometimes for weeks.

Literally tens of thousands of crew were horribly inconvenienced – denied exiting the ship in many cases, sometimes for months on end.

No travel vendor had a blacker eye than cruise ships in the Covid era. No vendor of any kind – not grocers or restaurants, nothing – had a worse reputation.

That’s part of the reason the CDC continues to deny cruise lines the right to sail from US ports.

I have cruised perhaps 10 times – more? – and I like it, especially for certain destinations (the Greek isles are a favorite, as is Alaska).  But I still have no interest in cruising and the Travel Weekly headline is why.

The cruise industry knows it has to restore passenger confidence.  Many cruise lines already are doing the right, smart thing and requiring crew – who typically live in cramped quarters with scant personal space – to be vaccinated.  What about crew who feel that’s a violation of their rights?

There are other jobs on this planet.  They should look for them.  They will. Crew aren’t the problem.

Some passengers apparently are.

A growing number of cruise lines now require vaccinations for passengers, usually 18 and over.

But that has triggered a potential passenger grumble.  Reported Travel Weekly, “Although the majority of potential cruisers are on board with the idea of vaccine mandates, some travel advisors say many of their clients are not and are disappointed with cruise line vaccine requirements for sailing.

DeeAna Archer, owner of Texas-based Archer Luxury Travel, said that about 80% of her clients have told her they would refuse to get a vaccine this year.”

I have three words for those refusers: Go pound sand.

Of course it is their choice not to cruise and, given their refusal to get vaccinated, they also have decided they do not plan to cruise.  Simple as that and I for one will hold the cruise lines to a vaccine mandate because only a village idiot would cruise this year without a mandatory vaccine policy in place.

Are the travelers who say they won’t get vaccinated village idiots?  That’s a topic for them to discuss with cognitive experts.

I just won’t plan to cruise or in any way travel with them this year, or next, and, yes, I am dually vaccinated, meaning the full protection of the Pfizer vaccine has kicked in for me and still I have no interest in lowering my protections to accommodate people who doubtless also believe in hordes of Satan worshippers inside the Beltway.

Count me as also wanting airlines to require vaccinations for passengers and crew – and there’s growing support for that idea at least as regards international travel.  

Yes, I know that having the vaccine does not prove a person is Covid free.  Latest test results show about a 90% effectiveness for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.  The J & J vaccine’s effectiveness is nearer 70%.  

And yet I am dramatically more comfortable with the concept of cruising or flying with others who have proof of vaccination than I am of flying with an uncertified rabble.

There really is no way a person who wants travel to resume fastest could possibly be against vaccine requirements because there is nothing that will accelerate travel recovery with the alacrity and numbers that widespread vaccinations will bring.

About 25% of us – one in four – now say they will not get vaccinated. There are no good arguments against getting vaccinated and, yes, initially I expressed personal hesitancy, mainly due to an abiding distrust of anything touched by Trump and his acolytes.  But now with 50 million of us fully vaccinated, and 90 million more partially vaccinated, and comparatively few side effects of significance, there is no good arguments against it.

Opposing vaccinations and vaccination requirements is another way of supporting a sputtering failing economy and a dead travel business.  

I know which side I am on.

By Robert McGarvey

Word of warning: be sure to check and keep checking your many airline miles, at every carrier, because they just may be in the hands of cyber crooks.

Another big travel related data beach is why.

The victim is a company called SITA and if you haven’t heard of it, join the club.  But SITA is a big data processor for many carriers and in a March 4th release it said: “SITA confirms that it was the victim of a cyber-attack, leading to a data security incident involving certain passenger data that was stored on SITA Passenger Service System (US) Inc. servers. Passenger Service System (US) Inc. (‘SITA PSS’) operates passenger processing systems for airlines.”

My favorite sentence in this otherwise uninformative statement is this: “This was a highly sophisticated attack.”

Trust me: you will never see a breach announcement that says, “The attack was the kind dreamed up by especially dumb 8th graders.”  Nope.  The attackers always are arch criminals and card carrying Mensa members.

Right.

But this SITA attack, the little we know about it even a month later, is ugly business especially for those of us who covet and collect airline miles.

On which carriers? Damn near all. Some 90% of the planet’s air carriers are said to use SITA.  The company handles many reservations and ticketing. 

Other than saying there was a serious “data security incident” on February 24 the company tells us bupkis. Company spokesperson Edna Ayme-Yahil told TechCrunch zip, for instance.

Travel Weekly got a little bit more info: “In a statement, SITA spokeswoman Edna Ayme-Yahil declined to say how many airlines have been impacted by the breach. The company also didn’t provide many details on the type of data compromised, but it did note that the data includes some personal data of airline customers, including frequent flyer account data.”

Ayme-Yahil also told Travel Weekly: “Each affected airline has been provided with the details of the exact type of data that has been compromised, including details of the number of data records within each of the relevant data categories.”

That mum’s the word posture is the norm in breaches but it is maddeningly unhelpful to possible victims who have no idea what was stolen, if the theft in fact impacts their data and what, if anything, they should do about it.

But various SITA customers – among them: United and American airlines – have been sounding alarms with a particular focus on loyalty programs.

United specifically said some customer Star Alliance data was affected, but it stressed that MileagePlus data were not touched.

American said it did not use SITA but some frequent flier data passed through the system so that loyalty points accrued on other carriers could be accounted.

Lufthansa, meantime, said 1.35 million Miles and More members were impacted.

Singapore Air has said the breach may have affected as many as 580,000 people in its loyalty programs.

Even FinnAir says 200,000 of its loyalty members were impacted.

Skift summed up the carnage: “More than two million travelers enrolled in the frequent flier programs of at least ten airlines had some of their data hacked, according to messages they received recently from the carriers.”

That’s a punch in the face.

Even worse is that we don’t really know what data was lifted.

The still worse news is that it is on you to protect yourself and we simply must proceed as though the hackers got away with our account numbers and log in info – precisely what they would need to steal the miles and sell them on the dark web or convert them into easily sold goods (iPhones are extraordinarily popular).  

The worst news is that, sigh, there is nothing different now: our loyalty programs are and have been easy pickings for criminals.  I wrote about an American breach in 2015, ditto a United breach.  I could have written the same story many more times but why bother when there is nothing new to say?

I wrote about the Sita breach- after waiting almost a month in the vain hope for more info – simply because of its breadth (just about every carrier you and I use is involved) which is inversely proportional to how much we know about it, which is a teaspoonful of worrisome uncertainties.

Protect yourself, don’t trust the carriers.  That is the bottomline.

By Robert McGarvey

Maybe it is because I now have gotten my second jab but suddenly I am again thinking about travel related issues and in my face is a new Travelers United lawsuit against MGM that flatly claims: MGM is lying about the costs of an overnight stay in their hotels.

Ouch.

The suit claims that MGM practices deceptive pricing because it “hides” the resort fee it slaps on its room nights. This adds up to big bucks – “hundreds of millions of dollars” in the past decade, per Travelers United, a traveler advocacy group based in Washington DC.

Reported Travel Weekly: “The organization claims that MGM Resorts currently charges a resort fee at all of its U.S. properties, which include the Maryland-based MGM National Harbor, located just outside of Washington, as well as the MGM Grand, Bellagio, Aria, Mandalay Bay, New York-New York and Luxor properties in Las Vegas, among others.”

Resort fees add up.  Travelers United pointed to a room night at the Luxor that cost $29 in July 2020.  The resort fee was $35 per night.

Travelers United further claims that in the pandemic resort fees have not been reduced, although some of the services and amenities the fees supposedly cover have been reduced or outright eliminated.

Of course there is nothing new about this story.  As far back as 2013 I wrote about “resort fee scams” for TheStreet.  It’s a topic I have returned to many times – 2014, 2016, 2019 and many more.

The only things that have changed is that more hotels and resorts charge them and the amounts have steadily increased.  The $19 fee of 2013 now is twice as much and, bar the door, as many hoteliers drift nearer insolvency in the Covid era expect that there will be still more and higher hidden resort fees, urban amenity fees, and who knows what else they will be called.

The other reason hoteliers do this – and I have asked many – is their assertion that the competition does it.  That is, the competitor down the road deceptively advertises a room price (by failing to disclose the resort fee) and therefore the competitor says he is obliged to do likewise or risk losing the business because consumers will take the lower price.

There is not an abundance of evidence that says this is true, especially not at higher price points.  Many guests might opt for a $99 per night room over one priced at $104 – but it just is not proven that guests would opt for a $370 hotel room over a $400 room on the basis of price alone.  So a core defense of hidden resort fees is unproven.

Also true is that hotels could clearly disclose that there is an additional fee for a bundle of services for those who opt in. Just as there are extra fees for those who use the resort or hotel WiFi in many cases (although in some cases that is bundled into a resort fee, even when the guest has no intention of using the pool, the gym, etc).

Clearly the system is based on deception and is just wrong.

But still the fees persist.

How do they get away with this?  We don’t complain and, at least for the past four years, there was no appetite in Washington, DC for taking away hotelier revenue streams.  The latter may change with a new administration but what probably won’t change is our passive acceptance of deceptive advertising.

This shoe is on our feet.  It’s up to us to demand changes.

We can also try to duck the fees. The Points Guy notes that many Las Vegas stays that are paid for with points are exempt from resort fees. That includes IHG, Hyatt and Hilton.

Another way – used by me on multiple occasions – is to book into an organization’s block of rooms for a meeting and, often, the meeting planner has negotiated a zero resort fee for attendees. That will continue if only because meetings are likely to return to Las Vegas in slow motion and resorts will be fighting for them.

But you are on your own when it comes to ducking resort fees in locations that are primarily leisure focused (as more will be in 2021 and well into 2022).  There won’t be a large corporate meeting planner that has your back.

Your other option: badger your Senators and members of the House to take action.  In 2016, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill introduced a bill that would have blocked hidden resort fees.  It went nowhere and McCaskill lost her seat in 2018 – her stand on resort fees had no impact on that outcome.

But it could come up for a vote in the next two years, very possibly with different results in both the Senate and the House.

Remember, nobody is saying hoteliers can’t charge resort fees.  Just that they have to disclose the charge before it lands on our bill. It is just about impossible not to support that.  So write your legislators  They just may act.

What about the Travelers United suit? I applaud the effort – and maybe it will prevail. But why wait when we can take our own action?

Get busy writing your reps!