On Business, Will Travel by Owen Wild

10:59 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work/Life: Say It Ain't So, Shoeless Joe

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson got that nickname for taking off his shoes once in the second game of a doubleheader in 1908.

One hundred and one years later, TSA is still making Shoeless Joes of us all with the apparently immutable requirement that we remove our shoes when entering the airport's walk-through metal detector.

In fact, we've been taking off our shoes since 2001, although hope springs eternal that some day technology will let business travelers race through airports wearing something other than penny loafers.

But it goes beyond just shoes. Nearly nine years after 9/11 we are still unpacking our suitcases, hauling out our laptops, and doing an ersatz striptease while juggling gray trays full of our personal possessions. If we are not yet at the point where we can detect potentially damaging materials without this slow, tedious, and annoying process, one wonders what the future holds for speeding passengers through airports.

Count me among the road warriors who strongly encourage the TSA and other regulatory agencies to aggressively move to upgrade the development and implementation of 21st century screening technology. For example, when will we have the technology to screen liquids? The policy of trashing oversize liquid containers has many travelers confused, including one on the TSA blog site who observes: "...would you remind us why TSA thinks it's safe to line up next to a trash can full of 'potential liquid explosives'?"

Without new technology we are left to deal with the old TSA restrictions about what (and how much) may be brought aboard. This leads to all sorts of inefficiencies, which manifest themselves as needlessly long lines, which, in turn, require additional staff, which, in turn, drives up costs.

It goes without saying that customer satisfaction takes a hit, too.

The TSA security process mirrors what's happening with our air traffic control system. Clearly, it is past time for the FAA to really push for a major strategic investment in airport and air traffic control technology.

Most assuredly, all of this will be expensive. On the other hand, if the federal government cannot find the funds in the most enormous spending legislation ever approved, when will it? The return on investment is obvious — an immediate and tangible improvement in airline profitability and business productivity, and possibly even an uptick in business travel.

Any boost in business travel would have a noticeable trickle-down effect on travel service providers, from hotels and car rentals to restaurants and golf courses and the entertainment industry, and on down the line.

If managed intelligently, airport technology investment will create new jobs, even new industries, boosting our economy across the board.

Here's a suggestion: Let's consider a national technology incentive — similar to what NetFlix did so successfully. Let's put a reward out there for the first company that creates the best next-generation technology for security screening, and for flight tracking and routing. Anyone who is a fan of iPhone apps can see that the requisite creativity is alive and well in America. Let's tap some of that brainpower to create technology for America's airports.

Let's also give the FAA and TSA concrete deadlines for beginning to adopt and install this new technology, starting with the most-congested airports.

The good news is that the TSA seems committed to transitioning U.S. airports from conventional metal detectors to the advanced whole body scanners. Thus far they've been deployed at 19 airports in the U.S. While these new scanners are controversial because they enable screeners to see through your clothes, everything I've read indicates that they may dramatically speed up security lines. Newer versions are in the works that would transform naked bodies into stick figures, which would eliminate even that controversy.

In fact, the EU is moving toward ending the ban on liquids in carry-on bags when this new screening technology is adopted. If and when that happens, the U.S. will have to follow suit.

While I had hoped that whole body scanners also would free us to once again walk shod through airports, Martha Lynn Craver in Kiplinger's "Shorter Airport Security Lines Ahead" says the technology for scanning shoes while they are still on people's feet has flopped. The question remains: Will we still be going shoeless through scanners 10 years from now?

Say it ain't so, Joe!



Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com

03:05 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work/Life: What Are Your Chances of Getting Bumped From Your Next Flight?

Bumping is the nemesis of the business traveler. Leisure travelers often have a certain amount of latitude as to when they need to arrive at a destination. Not so with the road warrior, who is a clockwork captive. While it is highly unlikely that any flier will be bumped from a flight for which they are holding a printed boarding pass, that pass, in reality, is no guarantee that you'll board your plane.

Amazing as it may sound, airlines have always had the ability — and not just that, but the authority — to overbook a flight. How is that possible, you ask? Simple: they know there always will be no-shows and so they factor that into their booking equation.

Because no-shows will never go away, and because every empty seat is a huge financial liability for cash-strapped carriers, the only way for the airlines to keep flights filled is to oversell. The airlines would rather not do that because it annoys fliers; but, on the other hand, the imperative to improve revenues in a down market is unforgiving.

So, as any business traveler can testify, planes have been fuller than ever before. This will likely continue to be a problem as the airlines continue to struggle to match the size of aircraft with typical demand on a given route. It doesn't leave much room for natural fluctuations.

That explains why the bumping rate is the highest it's been in 14 years — even though, according to The Wall Street Journal, the Department of Transportation last year doubled the penalties for denying seats to passengers with tickets.

No-shows aren't the only reason airlines chronically oversell. As Associated Press writer David Koenig points out, some passengers purchase a refundable ticket (an expensive practice) on more than one flight, but only use one. Or maybe the airline had to do a last-minute substitution of a smaller plane, i.e., one with fewer seats. It's just one more reason why more fliers are getting bumped.

There are, however, specific rights and responsibilities toward compensation that the airlines must follow. That's why the first step gate agents take on an oversold flight is to seek out volunteers who'll accept a later flight; naturally, this involves offering incentives, which only grow more lucrative as flight time nears and there are no takers. Forced bumping calls for paying passengers. But compensation for being bumped is often highly restrictive and fraught with difficulty.

Although those rules don't require an airline to pay for meals and a hotel for seriously bumped passengers, you can certainly try.

Also, while there's no rule requiring the airline to give you a refund for a long delay that results in you missing your meeting or event, again, you can certainly try. In fact, in the absence of a passenger's bill of rights, you have nothing to lose by asking, cajoling, and bargaining.

Still, any road warrior who has spent enough time at the gates of overbooked flights knows that there's no excuse to be bumped if you know what you're doing. First of all, each of the major carriers provides a means for online check-in, which gives you a leg up on leisure fliers.

So, if you are not using online travel sites to check-in for your flight, shame on you! Early check-in is your best line of defense against bumping. Some carriers are also testing out mobile check-in options — a high-tech alternative that will appeal to business travelers, not only because they're techies, but because anything that accelerates the check-in process gives them better odds against being bumped.



Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com

03:29 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work/Life: What Are the Chances for a Passenger Bill of Rights?

When the founding fathers endowed us with certain inalienable rights I would have hoped they had the foresight to assume these truths would have been self-evident even when sitting on an airplane.

Unfortunately, it seems like the folks who decide how long is too long to sit cooped up inside a plane on the tarmac never read the Bill of Rights. Following the high-profile flier imprisonment incidents of the past few years, it's clear that the policy which spells out travelers' rights once they cross the threshold of the jet way need to be formalized.

The Wall Street Journal's Scott McCartney ("The Middle Seat Terminal") notes that the airlines have had a long time to solve the problem of long delays, yet no solution has been forthcoming. He also points out that the FAA comes in for its share of the blame. "All need to change their ways to avoid keeping passengers stuck for hours on end," McCartney says. He shares a bullet list of creative ideas that would go a long ways toward fixing things.

In fact, Scott just revisited the tarmac issue in his "The Middle Seat" column, in which he points out that many of the legacy carriers' peers don't think the problem is really that tough to solve. So said one of the members of a government task force formed last year to study the delays. To prove the point, McCartney pointed out that elsewhere in the world airlines commonly use remote parking and special buses to offload passengers who don't want to remain indefinitely on tarmac-stranded flights.

Since other airlines in other countries have already enjoyed success in addressing the tarmac imprisonment problem, common sense says American carriers should be able to do the same. Common sense, rational thought, and a slice of empathy should each play a part in formulating new ground rules for how airlines treat their passengers.

Certain carriers have already taken steps to deal with passengers stuck on planes. But each airline is doing it differently, and the inconsistency in policies is at the least confusing but more likely highly frustrating for fliers caught in the middle. There has been no industry-wide effort to standardize the rules. Last year's government task force didn't help things by recommending that each airline do its own thing.

Meantime, as Bill McGee reports in USA Today, Congress is moving on a separate track to try to solve the problem legislatively — which some in the airline industry fear will only cause more problems via the law of unintended consequences. The debate in Congress, however, assumes that a passenger bill of rights is inevitable and thus they are focusing on whether the deplaning cutoff period ought to be three hours or four.

I vote for three. I also vote that any bill of rights needs to include compensation for flight delays and cancellations. It also needs to establish sensible parameters for re-accommodation even during extraordinary events. Clearly, the time for waiting on the airlines has passed. Hopefully, by the end of this year we'll begin to see the end of passengers trapped in smelly and miserable tarmac-anchored planes.


Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com

02:51 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work/Life: The Bus Also Rises

Anne Marie Chaker of The Wall Street Journal wrote an excellent review recently of the new bus services that have come onto the scene to cater to business travelers. Her story includes a charming video of her trip to Baltimore on Greyhound.

She calls her article "Planes, Trains ... and Buses?" I think it is beside the point to note that in the movie John Candy indeed boards a bus to get home — along with taxi, plane, train, rental car, delivery truck, semi, and subway.

I have to admit that I've not got an extended recent history riding buses. Buses have not had a reputation among business travelers as a reliable and reasonable option until recently. As Chaker notes, the introduction of amenities like Internet access and more comfortable seats, as well as an overall cleanliness, changes that picture. Some bus lines even include power plug access! Clearly, this is not your father's Greyhound.

These business-friendly amenities and luxurious feel are comparable to what is available on Amtrak. They place airline service in the shade.

Just as on a train you'll probably be able to use your cellphone, but where the bus has Amtrak beat is with wi-fi service. For that matter, these new bus runs also beat Amtrak when it comes to on-time service. Amtrak's Acela is pretty reliable, but the on-time service records of Amtrak's disparate regional lines range from inconsistent to undependable.

Bus service is an excellent option for short-haul cities like Washington, D.C., to New York City or Miami to Orlando — typical three-hour runs.

Not only is there a shorter check-in time than with the airlines, there's no security line to slow you down. You still have to visit inner city bus depots just as you do when taking the train. But when you are looking to travel downtown to downtown, bus service is highly convenient. Bus service is also a good option for travel to cities where you don't need to rent a car.

Traffic is the wildcard with bus service. Well-run as a bus line may be, traffic jams can put them behind schedule. Still, if you were driving instead of taking a bus on one of those three-hour runs, you'd face the same traffic — but you'd also be unable to work and be productive during your travel time; and you'd arrive frazzled besides. That's the great attraction for the road warrior when weighing the bus against the car or the plane.

Count me among those who looks forward to giving the bus a go next time I am traveling on business on one of those three-hour runs.



Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com

04:40 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work/Life: Is the Cutback on Business Travel Cutting Into Business?

Business travel is the oil that lubricates the wheels of business. I've always felt that companies that cut back on travel for business are cutting back on their business's prospects. Now several surveys say that while technology can help, nothing really can take the place of face-to-face meetings.

The first survey was recently issued by HSMAI in advance of its Affordable Meetings National and Event Technology Expo. One of the main findings of the survey is that technology cannot replace a host of critical roles, including: 1) socializing and networking spontaneously, 2) helping attendees best put names with faces, 3) allowing more free and open dialogue between attendees and vendors/presenters, 4)  training effectively via live and personal interaction, 5) paying greater attention to others when face-to-face, and 6) engaging in real-time conversation that is not interrupted by technical glitches.

A just-released Forbes Insight study reinforced those findings with its own finding that business executives prefer face-to-face meetings, mainly because personal meetings enable people to build stronger relationships. Not only that, but face-to-face sessions allow people to "read" the other person.

Despite the value of getting together in person, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, and Web conferencing are increasingly taking the place of meeting face to face. That's more than unfortunate. Why? It suggests that businesses are losing money long term to save money in the short term.

People are social creatures, and the bottom line is that face-to-face meetings are where people make personal connections that are necessary for business to flourish. No video, Web, or audio conference can take the place of pressing the flesh. People need to get up close and personal for those indefinable interactions to occurs. These are the interactions which are the nexus where new business happens.

There was a lot of chatter at the recent NBTA convention in San Diego at our "The CFO Agenda & Travel" session hosted by my colleague Vic Pynn about the unavoidable cost-savings imperative and how it has reshaped travel management programs. That reflects the fact that finance departments still view travel as a highly discretionary expense —indeed, one that can (or should) be cut.

The NBTA session reinforced the finding that there are few quality measurements which provide a clean and clear ROI for business travel. Perhaps it is for that very reason so many companies have significantly cut back on travel. Not surprisingly, each company has adjusted its business travel policy according to widely divergent criteria. Among these are shortened sales cycles, higher quality sales, more frequent engagements. Many companies have made pre-trip approval mandatory, or require executive approval.

What companies are beginning to recognize is that they have to find a better way to measure the impact that face-to-face visits have on their business. If some objective methodology could be developed to measure the ROI delivered by business travel, the conventional wisdom that business travel is a discretionary budget item would change. Until then, business travel probably won't pick up until business picks up — which is a chicken-and-egg situation if there ever was one.

Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com

02:20 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Work/Life: Take My Breathe Away

I'm sure it comes as no news that spending time in a sealed, pressurized aluminum tube at high altitude is probably not the most healthful thing you can do to your body. For that reason, one would think that fliers might have something to say about the quality of the air up there.

Actually, they don't. That fact was highlighted in a study by a panel of experts from across the aviation industry, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article by Scott McCartney. He noted that the report came out a year ago. In that intervening year, neither regulators nor the airlines have acted on the report's recommendations.

McCartney also noted that more than 10 years ago the aviation industry asked a panel of industry engineers to check into the issue of bad air on planes. The panel found that the quality of cabin air wasn't as poor as a lot of people thought. That is, so long as the plane's air circulation system is on. Frequent fliers can attest to the reality that air quality is often worse when an airliner just sits on the tarmac. It is surprising how quickly air quality can deteriorate once the cabin air circulator is shut down.

What's left unsaid by that report McCartney cites is who gets to determine what is the minimum level of air quality. If I had a vote, I'd set the minimum well above the borderline of the unacceptable zone. I understand that it is easy to say that passengers have a right to decent air quality in the cabin. It is another thing altogether for the airlines to acknowledge that. The reason is simple — cost. It costs money to turn on the air circulation system when the plane is on the ground. Six years ago the FAA told the airlines that they ought to disembark passengers if a plane sits on the ground for more than 30 minutes after the air circulation equipment is shut off. Unfortunately, that's an FAA advisory, not a rule.

Good air quality isn't a service, it's a right. Airlines ought not to be seeking to cut costs by pushing the envelope with passengers' health. The problem from the airlines' vantage point is that their business model is not a very elastic one, so they need to seek out every possible way to slash expenses. They will also resist changes that add to their costs.

As with other standards that passengers don't consider optional or subject to a service fee, passengers need to keep the airlines honest about basic cabin air quality levels. You and I have to be vocal about what service cuts we find acceptable. The FAA may have weighed in and a respected industry panel may have had its say, but since neither of those have established a rule for the airlines to follow, it's up to us to be speak out.

If air quality on your flight gets to the point where it's downright uncomfortable, you need to tell the cabin crew. You need to say something when you get off the plane and you need to write something when you get back to your computer. Several hundred unhappy, Twittering passengers will be more influential than any lobbying group, and certainly their impact will be felt a lot more forcefully  than the advisories of the regulators whose job it is to stand up for the interests of fliers.



Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com

01:31 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work/Life: I'll Never Find Another You...BlackBerry-Wise

As I head out to NBTA (i.e., the 2009 National Business Travel Association International Convention & Exposition) in San Diego...

... I have to admit I can't make it to California without my BlackBerry.

I'm embarrassed to confess to it, but number me among the countless CrackBerry addicts dotting the landscape of business travel.

BlackBerry to me means synchronizing with the world through pithy emails. It does not mean spending time on the World Wide Web.

Why? The BlackBerry is profoundly useful for one thing only (apart from making phone calls), and that is tapping out messages which enable me to stay ahead of the curve. That's because being out of touch is not so much a matter of feeling you are missing something. It's actually very much a matter of not letting the work stack up in your virtual Inbox.

Let me explain. Since most work is collaborative, once I lose the thread of my team's online conversation, I have a real challenge catching up to what was said by whom. I can't just read my most recent email upon arriving at my hotel room and expect to pick up where I left off. That's because email assumes you have absorbed the previous chain of messages and have ascended the email ladder to the current plateau, arm in arm with the rest of the people on the chain. Miss one email, however, and you can miss a very important step in that progression.

What BlackBerry doesn't do so well is give you a handy way to browse the Internet. First of all, BlackBerry isn't optimized for it - sites have to be coded to run well on the BlackBerry platform. This is a major difference from the less-business-friendly iPhone, which has a wonderful browser that gives you essentially the page views you see on your laptop.

Second, BlackBerry loads Web pages agonizingly slowly.

Third, BlackBerry browsing is tough on the eyes (i.e., difficult to read). Pages that are built for mobile browsing are somewhat better, but still no walk in the park. Frankly, using my BlackBerry to access the Internet is a court of last resort. If I really need to spend time browsing the Web, I prefer to haul out my laptop and hook up my air card or find a hotspot.

I guess it's no surprise that a new study of the mobile Web found that the browsing experience echoed how primitive things were on your PC about 15 years ago. In a word, it's miserable. The worst thing about it is how difficult simple tasks are.

I'll be the first to admit that surfing the Net is a far more pleasant experience on an iPhone than on a BlackBerry. But the iPhone is not the business enterprise choice. Not yet at least. BlackBerry is still out in front.

Still, many businesses are giving the iPhone a second look - primarily because Web access is so important. Sure, browsing on the iPhone isn't as easy as browsing on a PC. But in an iPhone vs. BlackBerry match-up, it's no contest. If you don't also travel with a laptop, your browsing eyes will gaze longingly at those in the coffee shop who have an iPhone.

I've always thought I'd never find another smartphone when it came to connecting for business. But if you're a seeker when it comes to mobile tech, you've got to be platform-agnostic. The iPhone is generating a lot of buzz among road warriors. Who knows? Mobile tech addicts might have a new true love sooner than a lot of industry watchers think.

I'll discover at NBTA what's the hottest mobile platform - the rejuvenated BlackBerry or the newest iPhone variant. So long till then!

Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com

07:01 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work/Life: Let's Make Fixing the Air Traffic Control System a Priority

It gets pretty cloudy in Juneau, Alaska. Constant overcast, plus the fact that the airport there is surrounded by mountains, has caused many flight delays and cancellations. Fifteen years ago Alaska Airlines (AA) came up with a better idea. The airline worked with the FAA and Boeing to design flight paths into the airport that curved instead of running in a straight line. What made this possible was the concept of "Required Navigation Performance," or RNP, which lets jets fly closer to the mountains, even when the clouds obscured them.

The RNP guidance system, which has been around for a dozen years, is only now being introduced in the contiguous U.S. Alaska already has it, of course, as do parts of Australia, Canada, and China. What the FAA wants to do now is push RNP into America's most flight-congested cities first, beginning with New York City and Chicago.

RNP is good news for the airlines. Not only will it cut minutes off flight times, it will cut noise pollution, and, most important, it will let airplanes land at almost the same rate in lousy weather as in nice weather. This is huge.

What most fliers don't recognize is that airline economics are based on terribly inelastic business models. Inflexibility is the bane of any business. For airlines, it translates into having few controllable costs. Plane leases, labor costs, and jet fuel costs are fairly inflexible; and in many cases those costs are beyond the control of the airlines. So something like RNP is a tonic; it could not come at a better time. In fact, as new jets equipped with RNP avionics come on-stream and older planes are retired at an accelerated rate due to the recession, it becomes easier for airlines to integrate RNP into their fleets. RNP also helps airports that are under pressure to build more runways, because the way in which RNP precisely spaces aircraft for takeoffs and landings maximizes the use of current runway capacity.

RNP is actually more precise than satellite-based navigation routes, which are called RNAV. RNAV is already in use at a number of airports nationwide.

But for these navigational innovations to really benefit travelers, a couple of things have to happen. The FAA needs to fast-track the upgrade of its air traffic control systems at the big airports. And airlines need to continue to equip their older planes with the new systems, and train pilots to use them.

I continue to be amazed that the federal government hasn't devoted greater resources to adopting these systems sooner. These are proven technologies to get planes from point A to point B faster, safer, with fewer delays, and with less noise and expense. Air travel is one of the key drivers of our economy. I can think of few things in the federal budget that are more critical than shortening lines, lowering costs, and cutting pollution. Imagine the impact on the business traveler just of, say, better on-time performance. For years we've been discussing the need for the FAA to overhaul the air traffic control system. It's high time it became a priority.

Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com

07:46 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work/Life: Carriers Need Wings. And Credibility, Too.

Enough is enough.

On July 17, I blogged about Ryanair's announcement that it was mulling the idea of requiring passengers to pay to for potty privileges.

Ryanair has now topped itself. It now is floating the trial balloon that it can lower prices further by squishing more passengers into cabins made roomier by ripping out two of the three toilets. Frankly, I cannot imagine the condition of that single restroom. Nor can I imagine the waiting list for that restroom. They'll have to hand out deli numbers.

The icing on the cake is that Ryanair thinks they have an even better idea: rip out any number of seats so that the cabin begins to resemble a flying subway car. Yes, passengers get to stand for the whole flight.

Actually, I'm not being fair. Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary suggests that fliers can plop themselves atop "bar stools" secured by seatbelts. Sounds promising.

What it also sounds like is that Ryanair has confused publicity with responsibility. Rest assured it's tougher to formulate realistic air travel product enhancements than it is to brainstorm silly product reductions. But there's only so much that the traveling public will put up with; and Ryanair's banter about cuts to the service basics actually may backfire.

Think about it. Let's say Ryanair comes up with a good idea that seems a bit out there at first blush, but which upon mature consideration makes sense. The problem is that Ryanair is eroding the flying public's patience and receptivity to new service ideas by creating the perception that any new Ryanair concept is just another bad joke. The public's kneejerk response will be to dismiss it out of hand.

Ryanair's bar stool concept is clearly laughable from the get-go. First, it hardly complies with even the most basic safety standard, namely passengers should not be set free to bounce around the cabin like pin balls. Second, the FAA is publishing new guidelines on airline seats and seatbelts aimed at reducing injuries from air turbulence, as well as casualties from other types of accidents. It is hardly conceivable that the FAA would take Ryanair seriously. Credibility is a valuable commodity at any company. To see Ryanair fritter away something that takes such a long time to build up, and to do it in exchange for such a short-term publicity boost, is nothing short of stupefying.

Ryanair's blue sky strategizing about cutting corners to cut costs rests on the unstable foundation that cost is the main driver in people's decision to fly. It is not. Convenience, comfort, scheduling, and service may all be more critical than cost to many passengers. If cost were the only thing that counted, Ryanair probably could figure a way to save a buck by doing away with landings and pushing passengers out of planes with a complimentary parachute made from cocktail napkins.

Ryanair already is very well branded as the rock bottom price air carrier. If they're not careful, however, that image won't be the only thing that's on the rocks.

Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com

10:22 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Work/Life: Back Up There

Okay, I have a confession. For the past several months I have been a "virtual" road warrior. Like many of you I, too, have been affected by corporate travel restrictions. As a result, today I crossed the jetway threshold for the first time in a long time. Even with the intentional emphasis on hyperbole here — it was a very interesting experience.

First, I didn't realize you could lose 'packing mojo' after a layoff. In the past, a typical one-night business trip had been a packing no-brainer. I have my standard carry- on bag and my go-to mix of slacks, shirts, and blazers that gives me at least three possible outfit combinations.

But last night, being out of practice, I must admit to staring at my Tumi for a while, a bit unsure of what to throw in.

Second, when I arrived at Fort Lauderdale International Airport it was quiet, TSA security was efficient, but I also have to admit to needing a refresher on the new laptop rules, i.e., which laptop carrying bags are okay, and which are not. (Watch this space for updates on that topic.)

My 7 AM flight on a major U.S. carrier was booked solid — a result of recent flight reductions out of FLL. The flight crew was as expected — they just seemed shocked that all 140 of us would disturb their morning by boarding their plane. Their evident discomfiture at our arrival continued throughout the flight as they seemed equally appalled that they would have to provide each passenger with a small beverage ... apparently the reversal in this airline's free drink policy was not sitting well with our two flight crew professionals.

Beyond that, I'm not sure if it is because the technology hasn't caught up yet, but I find it surprising that the airlines continue to struggle in giving passengers who are travelling together seats that are next to each other. I will use row 7 as a small and unscientific example.    

There were six seats. Two individual travelers (including me), and two groups of two -— a mother and daughter, and a husband and wife.   Neither group was in adjacent seats. Due to preferences, neither of the two couples was able to be accommodated in seats that they wanted. (This of course will bring up another future blog topic regarding the circumstances under which you may change your seat to accommodate another passenger.) In this case, it would have likely required an puzzle master — or perhaps a simple computer program — to design a seating configuration that would have worked.

But their seating was not really my worry — or so I thought.

My seatmate in 7E — now separated from her daughter — felt that I would now become her new best friend for the three-hour flight. Indeed, she was undeterred by the noise-cancelling headphones around my ears. On several occasions she felt compelled to ask me my views on world politics, airline procedures, and even wanted to know "Isn't it true the French hate Americans?" I have to confess that this was not exactly my kind of early morning conversation. The separated couple, now in the adjacent aisle and window seat in my row, decided that this flight would be an ideal time to share the Sudoko puzzle inside the inflight magazine, which required passing the book back and forth, and back and forth, etc., some half a dozen times.

We landed in D.C. early, thank goodness!, and I made it to my meetings with time to grab a conference call and a cup of coffee.

Ah, it was good to be back in the air, back up there.

Sort of.




Road Warrior • Miami • www.us.amadeus.com