For most of us, it’s not like we have a choice which airports we’ll patronize.  We find the cheapest tickets for the most reasonable trips and we go where the airlines and geography dictate.  Sometimes, though, it’s worth an extra $50 in airfare or an extra 45-minute commute to avoid our least favorite airports when we can.  I know that if I can avoid connecting at LAX (Los Angeles) or JFK (New York City), I will, and I’d rather fly out of WAS (Washington-Reagan) than IAD (Washington-Dulles) or BWI (Baltimore), and that if I’m flying out of Florida, my first choice is TPA (Tampa).  I’m also eternally grateful that my home airport, PDX (Portland), is so completely wonderful, because I don’t have a choice about that one.  According to the J.D. Power and Associates 2010 North America Airport Satisfaction Survey, most of the country agrees with me.

Among the large airports (30 million passengers per year or more — mostly large hubs), I would stop short of calling the top-ranked the “best,” and probably just think of them as the least bad.  Basically the survey boils down to how efficient an airport is — can you get in and out quickly, with minimal hassle?  In large airports, the answer is almost always going to be no.  Some are more efficient than others, certainly, and those are the ones that perform best in this survey, but if you’re checking in at a huge airport, expect longer lines just about everywhere, including on your way in and out — baggage retrieval at hub airports always takes FOREVER.

Another main factor in the survey is airport comfort — how good are the amenities inside the terminals?  Shopping, food, internet access, comfy chairs, etc.  Large airports tend to have great selections for food and shopping, but again, long lines…I find that unless I have a long layover, I almost never have enough time to grab lunch at a hub while waiting for my connection.  So in general, I’m not a fan of large airports, though some are certainly better than others.  According to the survey, America’s favorite large airports are DTW (Detroit), DEN (Denver,) MSP (Minneapolis-St.Paul), and DFW (Dallas-Fort Worth).

JFK and LAX both scored very poorly on the survey.  I especially loathe these airports because of the way their terminals are set up, each with its individual security checkpoint.  That means that often when I connect at one of these airports, I have to switch terminals and go through a whole new security line, even though I’ve already done it once that day.  I’ve missed a lot of connections because of this — waiting for trains to move you from one terminal to another is enough of a hassle, but it would be nice if these airports would at least put some trains on the cleared side of the security gates.

Medium-sized airports are the best, in my opinion.  They’re small enough to get through check-in and security without too much of a wait (I was absolutely BLOWN AWAY by how fast and efficient the TPA security line was), and large enough to offer a nice selection of retail and dining inside the terminals.  These airports are also usually served by low cost airlines like Southwest, JetBlue, and others, whereas these airlines often don’t fly to the largest airports. And most of them offer free wi-fi.  Topping the survey of mid-sized airports (10 million – 30 million passengers per year) were MCI (Kansas City), PDX (Portland! Woo!), and TPA (Tampa).

Most of us don’t choose our destinations based on the airports that serve the area, but you can choose routes that avoid certain hubs, and most large cities have at least two airport choices.  Do you have any favorites or least favorites?

The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) has recently ordered that Air Canada a nut-free buffer zone on all its flights, following complaints from two passengers with severe nut allergies.  Nut allergies tend to be more intense than other allergies, and in extreme cases, even being in the same room as a bag of peanuts can set off a bad reaction.  Now imagine that room is a small flying tube — you can’t just leave the room for fresh air.

I’ve always wondered why peanuts are the go-to snack for airlines, given that so many people have such harsh allergies.  Severe nut allergies are rare, but not pink diamond rare — so on any flight with 100 or more people, there’s a good chance that someone on board has some degree of nut allergy.  I’ve heard of flights having buffer zones, or offering alternative snacks when someone on the flight has a severe allergy, but in all my time flying, I’ve never been aware of a nut buffer in effect on one of my flights.

Even if an airline doesn’t serve nuts on a particular flight, what’s to stop the passengers from bringing on nutty snacks?  The idea of the buffer zone is that passengers in certain seats are not allowed to have nuts, so that an allergic person can safely sit in that region.  Most airlines seem to have vague nut policy guidelines, where the crew will try to accommodate a passenger with severe allergies by asking other travelers to create a voluntary buffer, but those with allergies are not satisfied with these practices.  Sophia Huyer, one of the passengers that complained about Air Canada, says she wants all nuts banned from all flights.

This sounds like an extreme demand, but given the extreme nature of the allergy, I’ll stop short of slamming her for it.  Still, there will always be issues of some kind.  There are more than just nut allergies in the world.  Maybe travelers should stop using soap or wearing deodorant to protect those passengers who are allergic to the chemicals in these artificially scented products…that would make for a fun flight, wouldn’t it?

I think the answer is not a ban, and probably not even a new official, legal policy — that would only make the ticketing process more complicated.  The key is understanding, sensitivity, and flexibility on both sides of the issue.  Airlines, just like any other business, should be willing to accommodate customers with special needs, but it should be the responsibility of the one with special needs to communicate those needs in advance.  I don’t see how this needs to be any more complicated than keeping a backup stash of pretzels instead of nuts and making a couple of friendly requests over the PA at the beginning of the flight.

I’m curious if anyone here has ever experienced this peanut buffer zone.  Are there airlines that have them in effect all the time, or is it only at the request of a passenger?  I’d also like to hear from anyone with super severe nut allergies — would a buffer zone be enough, or do you need a completely nut-free flight?

Earlier this week, two Northwest Airlines pilots gave air traffic controllers — and eventually the entire American public — quite a scare when they overflew their destination by 150 miles after not answering communications from air traffic control and their own airline’s dispatchers for over 90 minutes.

At first, the FAA was concerned about a possible hijack when no one on the ground could make contact with the pilots of the Airbus A320.  About 15 minutes after the plane was scheduled to land, pilots finally contacted ground controllers, saying they’d gotten distracted.  The plane turned around and landed safely about 45 minutes late.  Then the questions began:

What happened that made the pilots miss radio communications and overshoot their destination?

Were they asleep?

Were they fighting?

Eventually, we learned that they weren’t asleep or fighting — they were on their laptops, so completely engrossed that they forgot to land their plane, carrying 150 people.  To their credit, the pilots were looking at work-related materials on their computers.  D’oh.

The FAA promptly revoked the licenses of both pilots, Captain Timothy B. Cheney and First Officer Richard I. Cole — hardly a controversial move by the FAA.  Now, of course, the easily frightened American public gets yet another thing to worry about when flying.  Because air passengers aren’t tense enough already.

So what do pilots do in the cockpit while charged with safely transporting hundreds of people at 35,000 feet?  What are they allowed to do up there anyway?

Each airline has different policies, but it’s safe to say that ignoring ground communications for 90 minutes at a time is against the rules no matter what airline you’re flying.  Ignoring them at all, in fact, is a pretty serious no-no.  However, according to other pilots, once a plane reaches cruising altitude (above 10,000 feet), there’s really not a whole lot for the pilot to do.  Planes fly on a pre-programmed flight path requiring little to no input from pilots.  They must stay alert for communications and updates from the ground — that is their job, after all — but just staring at their instruments for an entire flight is understandably dull.

It is my opinion that pilots have the right to some light on the job entertainment, as long as the aircraft’s safety is at all times their number one priority and focus.  Should they be allowed to read?  Listen to music?  Shoot the breeze with each other?  I don’t think any of these diversions is more dangerous than a pilot who gets so bored that s/he completely zones out while staring at instruments.

Do you worry about what the pilots are doing when you fly?  What would make you feel safer?

I know I appreciate a pilot who regularly communicates with the passengers.  I like to know if we’re on schedule, what the weather is like where we’ll land, what kind of turbulence to expect (if I have a limited window of opportunity to use the bathroom before they make me stay in my seat, I like to know that), and I really, really love it when the captain points out things on the ground, like when we fly over the Grand Canyon, or New York City, or any other spectacular views I might not be looking for.  When the pilot is attentive to the passengers, I feel pretty good about the flight.

What do you expect from your pilots?

Maybe people are extra jumpy because of the date.  Earlier today, a routine Coast Guard training drill somehow made it into the real news, and when FAA officials caught wind of reports that the Coast Guard had fired on a suspicious boat on the Potomac River, 17 flights were grounded in the DC area as a result of the “scare.”

What really happened is that the Coast Guard was using a training frequency, sending radio transmissions announcing that they were “firing shots” on a “suspicious boat” in the Potomac River.  According to the Coast Guard, the transmission began and ended with an announcement that it was only a drill, and no real shots were ever fired, but the very jumpy media must have missed that part, and several news outlets ran breaking news reports of a possible security threat near DC, prompting the FAA to ground 17 flights between 10:08 and 10:30 before the misunderstanding was cleared up.

Oopsie!

I remember another time the media got ahead of themselves.  That ended up with George W. Bush in the White House.   Uf.

The candy isn’t very tasty, and the dispenser doesn’t make much of a toy, but somehow, Pez dispensers have become one of the most commonly collected items there is.  Maybe it’s because I’ve only ever seen the candy sold in gas stations, or maybe it’s due to a vague recollection of an old Married…With Children episode where the Bundy family goes on a vacation and Ed eats a lot of Pez, but I’ve always associated the candy with road trips, and my limited collection of Pez dispensers is like a kind of scrap book of my own travels.

Everyone knows I love weird roadside attractions, so of course I love that the Museum of Pez Memorabilia exists — it’s in Burlingame, California, just south of San Francisco.  It started as a simple display in the computer repair shop the museum owners used to operate, but their Pez collection quickly became the main attraction, and has been open to the public as a museum for almost 15 years.

Calling it the Pez Museum didn’t fly with Pez Candy, Inc., so owners Gary and Nancy Doss named their tribute museum the Museum of Pez Memorabilia, which they say satisfied the candy company — at first.  In 2007, when Gary built a nearly 8-foot tall replica of Pez’s snowman dispenser, he got his little museum into the Guinness Book of World Records with the world’s largest Pez dispenser.  The Doss’ museum is also said to be the only place in the world where you can find all 550+ Pez dispensers ever manufactured by the Pez company.

The museum store sells nothing but Pez merchandise, and the museum and its website are a great tribute to Pez.  And now, Pez is suing the museum.  Sheesh.  The lawsuit complains that “the museum deceives the public into believing they are operating under the authority of Pez,” and asks that the museum destroy the world’s largest Pez dispenser.  The company also expects the museum to turn over any profits it’s made since opening in 1995.  Ouch.

Hopefully, the museum’s lawyers can convince the Pez company to stop being such buttheads and maybe instead of throwing lawsuits around, say thank you for all the positive publicity and free promotion they get from the museum.  The lawsuit is still pending, and for now you can still see the Museum of Pez Memorabilia and the world’s largest Pez dispenser in Burlingame, California.  Hopefully they’ll be there for years to come.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner Prototype in its hangar

Boeing first announced plans for their 787 Dreamliner plane back in early 2003, after dropping plans for their Sonic Cruiser plane.  The Dreamliner is Boeing’s first all-new airplane design since the 777 in 1990, and was scheduled for first delivery in summer of 2008.  That deadline came and went a long time ago.

Various setbacks have pushed the Dreamliner’s maiden flight back a few months here and a few months there, adding up to years of delays costing Boeing billions of dollars.  But, the company says, the 787 is finally sort of almost ready.  Boeing announced last week that the new 787 will take its maiden flight by the end of 2009, with the first delivery now scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2010.

Despite all the delays, Boeing has sold over 800 Dreamliners to various airlines, making it one of the best-selling new planes ever.  The company touts their new design as a “game-changer” for the airline industry.  That’s because the new 787 is made largely of composite materials, making the airplane several tons lighter than similar sized planes in the air today.  The lighter body and new technologies work together to make the Dreamliner Boeing’s most fuel-efficient plane to date.  It will use 20% less fuel than similarly-sized airliners and have fewer carbon emissions while offering more cargo space and a longer range and higher travel speed than other planes its size.

I can’t pretend to comprehend all the technical jargon (you can read it all on Boeing’s website), but I do understand that when the Dreamliner finally hits the skies, it will be a money-saver for the airlines that fly it.  We can hope that those savings will be passed down to customers…maybe, pretty please?

Boeing rival Airbus is also working on a new plane made mostly of composite materials.  If these new planes ever break through the delays, they really could change the way we fly.  I’m looking forward to it.

Over the weekend, a hotel booking system error offered a romantic weekend at the Crowne Plaza Quarto D’Altino near Venice, Italy for one cent.

Hundreds of bargain hunters jumped at the opportunity and booked their rooms.  Hotel staff realized the error after just a few hours, but by the time the offer was removed, 1400 room nights had already been booked.

The regular room rate at the luxury hotel is €150, or $214 per night.  It is estimated that the one cent bookings will cost the hotel approximately €90,000.  But will they honor the reservations?

Intercontinental Hotels Group, which operates the hotel, has not yet commented on the mistake.  My guess is that they could try to get out of these reservations, on the grounds that it was obviously a malfunction in the system — but chances are the folks who booked romantic getaways won’t be very happy.  It might be worth the PR for the hotel to go ahead and take the hit on the rooms, keep everyone happy, and take advantage of all the press coverage of the situation — probably well worth the 90,000 euros.

What do you think?  If you’d booked one of these one cent weekends, would you really expect the hotel to honor your reservation?  If they refused, would you be satisfied with a discount or some free gifts?  What do you think the hotel should do about these reservations?

Worst. Souvenir. Ever.

A 13-year-old Polish girl returned home from a vacation in Egypt newly pregnant.  Now her mom is suing the hotel, alleging that the girl had no male contact on vacation and that the pregnancy is a result of floating sperm in the hotel’s co-ed swimming pool.

Yeah.

Magdalena Kwiatkowska is adamant that her daughter met no boys on vacation and that she must have conceived while taking a swim in the sperm-infested hotel swimming pool.

Now I’m no scientist, but I remember an episode of Mythbusters that dealt with bizarre ways to accidentally conceive a baby sans intercourse — pretty sure they determined it can’t be done.   Even without the Mythbusters guys backing me up on this one, I’d be willing to wager pretty much anything that the pool is not the culprit here.

It’s cute, though, how delusional this devoted mother is.  What’s not so cute is the little girl who’s letting her mother make a fool of herself while she guards the secret of how she really got knocked up.

Tourist authorities in Poland confirm that they have received the complaint, and the mother is determined to follow through with this lawsuit.