I have a trip coming up soon and I have been debating which routing I want to take to and from the destination for weeks. This always happens. I try to get the most out of the trip by choosing flights that have longer routes optimal for sleeping on the way to the destination and routes that work best for my schedule for the return. On this particular trip I could fly a new carrier, RyanAir, to Berlin’s Schonefeld airport, overnight there and fly Berlin-Tegel to Newark and then onward to Portland or I could fly to Amsterdam, overnight there and then fly to Houston on a Boeing 787-9 (a new type of plane for me) and then onward to Portland.
I ended up choosing the latter flight option because as a few people pointed out on Twitter, wouldn’t I want to avoid Newark at all costs? Well sure, but I love trying out a new carrier and I really enjoy Berlin. The Amsterdam flight will be fine and I am staying at the on-airport property Sheraton so it will be a quick 10 minute walk to get to the check-in counters in the morning, but I am still questioning my decision.
This is the one aspect of travel that I am terrible at, the actual planning. I question myself over and over and over and usually come to a conclusion only to continue questioning myself until I actually take the flight. Then who knows, I may question myself again later.
In any case, here’s to 2016 and seeing new places!
Rolling Stone did a feature on Ben Schlappig, creator of One Mile At a Time, and it’s definitely interesting. In typical Rolling Stone fashion, I am sure it was edited and in some cases sugarcoated to make the story more intriguing (I for one have never heard of “the Hobby”), but it’s a good read. There is tons of insight into the frequent flier community, including this:
Early editions of Petersen’s magazine featured stories on deals from obscure carriers; instructed fliers on how to duck airline countermeasures; and showed readers how they could win a thousand free miles by subscribing to magazines like Esquire. By 1993, Inside Flyer had 90,000 readers. Two years later, Petersen took the community online as FlyerTalk.
And this:
For some, the game has evolved from a wonkish pastime into an ends-justified obsession with beating the airlines — less Rain Man, more Ocean’s Eleven. While the game’s traditional methods remain technically legal, these Hobbyists — imagine them as the Deep Web of the Hobby — use tactics that routinely violate airline terms and conditions, techniques that can span a gradient from clever and harmless to borderline theft. (Schlappig concedes that he pushes the rules but insists he is careful not to break any laws.) Take the practice of “hidden-city ticketing” — booking your layover as your final destination, like buying a ticket from Point A to Point C, then sneaking away at B — or “fuel dumping,” a booking technique that confuses the price algorithm to deduct the cost of fuel from a ticket, often at an enormous discount.
I decided to read the Flyertalk thread that talks about the article and it was painful. A lot of personal attacks aimed at Ben and his story made it hard to read. I’ve only met Ben a few times and he’s a nice guy, I don’t agree with everything he writes or the idea of pushing credit cards on readers to receive the sign-up bonus, but I am a little jealous that he gets to fly around to really cool places and do it in premium cabins and makes a living from it. I think anyone who is a frequent flier and says they aren’t jealous of some of Ben’s travels is lying to themselves.
For me, doing a full time schedule of around the world travel, even in premium cabins, sounds good on the surface but is something I would probably really struggle with. I like having somewhere to come back to, a base of operations. But I would definitely love to fly premium cabins to exoctic locales more than I do currently.
Airlineroute.net is reporting the following schedule, which matches what ANA announced in their press release:
NH174 Tokyo-Narita to Houston departing 11:15am arriving 09:30am [Daily]
NH173 Houston to Tokyo-Narita departing 11:20am arriving 03:20pm(+1 day) [Daily]
The service will start June 12, 2015.
Based on the seat distribution that ANA points out in their press release, 8 First Class, 52 Business Class, and 190 Economy Class seats, it looks like they will send the following 777-300ER configuration to Houston. Their economy class seating does have a premium economy section, but more importantly, they have 9-across in regular economy in what most would consider an odd seating arrangement, 2-4-3. This certainly does not mean that from time to time ANA won’t send one of their more denser configurations to Houston, but their schedule has a nicely fitted aircraft planned for the service.
The flight will more than likely use Terminal D, which at this point, really needs a makeover when it comes to lounge options and amenities for passengers. The terminal does not have a ton of food options and walking to Terminal E or C, where such options are more plentiful, is not a quick trip. There is also one lounge that is shared by Star Alliance carriers in Terminal D. It is windowless and the last time I was there it was packed to the gills. I have heard it has been expanded but have yet to see the improvements.
Given United’s recent removal of their second daily flight from Houston to Tokyo-Narita, this route announcement is a little surprising. United had trouble making money on the route using a 777-200ER, which is smaller than the plane ANA plans to use, and had trouble again when the service moved to a 787-8, an even smaller aircraft. Clearly United initially saw a need or they would not have started the second flight. So what prompted this shake up?
United and ANA are put of antitrust immunity joint venture across the Pacific. This allows them to share both revenue and risk on new routes. If one carrier thinks it can market a route better or run a route better, then the airlines discuss it and come to an agreement. In this case, I think ANA sat down with United and pointed out that the latter had dropped a number of services out of Tokyo-Narita, namely Bangkok, and that they, ANA, could do a better job of handling a second frequency to Houston while expanding the coverage in Asia. On the flip side, ANA can provide a lot of connecting traffic to United’s mid-morning departures out of IAH to places like Latin America and the southeast United States.
ANA touts this in their press release citing two route increases, Bangkok and Singapore and they include the following table pointing out southern Asia points that can reach the U.S. via Tokyo-Narita using this new service.
That’s really the kicker. You can leave Singapore or Bangkok on one of the midnight flights to Tokyo and connect directly to a flight to Houston.
I have to believe that ANA feels that they can market the service better to south and southeast Asian cities better than United can, especially with United’s recent market retreat there. United simply does not have the presence it used to in Asia and if an Asian carrier can convince travelers to fly with them and share that revenue with United, I am sure United is happy to let them do it.
One tidbit not present in the press release is whether or not United will keep their Tokyo to Singapore service. The flight frequently goes out full and for flyers coming from the east coast of the U.S. it’s an easy connection. I can’t imagine United getting rid of the route, but then again, I didn’t see this ANA service to Houston as being possible, so anything could happen.
It is definitely great for Houston to have more international carriers coming into Terminal D. I want to see how it plays out as oil and gas prices continue to tumble. If the market in Houston contracts a little and consolidates, will all of these flights be sustainable? Only time will tell.
The actual first flight will be on June 19, 2015 and that flight will arrive at IAH at 5:45pm. My guess is that this flight is timed as a positioning flight to get the aircraft to Houston to operate a day later while still allowing daylight for the press and local officiants to give their speeches.
Taipei to Houston is just under 8,000 miles and will take 14 hours and 25 minutes. The reverse, Houston to Taipei, will clock in at 15 hours and 40 minutes due to winds.
It is great to have more options to Asia out of Houston and I think this flight is timed perfectly with connections in Taipei to allow you to get just about anywhere in Asia easily. This will also bring a little more competition to United (even though they are Star Alliance members) and maybe we’ll see some fare sales to Asia!
KLM apparently employs the help of a beagle to return lost items to passengers and it is awesome. I am sure there are some specifics on what items are given to the dog, what areas of the airport he’s allowed to roam, and how long an item can be lost before it can’t be returned via the beagle, but it actually seems like a great way to return lost items.
Alex Cornell and his girlfriend Nikki Desuasido shot some amazing video in Tokyo and compiled it into a 7-minute montage. While I am not a huge fan of the voiceover, the video itself is well edited and produced and creates a fun little travel diary about Japan’s largest city.
If you have not listened to the podcast that Seth, Fozz, Rolando, and myself host, I would recommend listening to episode 42. We covered the Delta business class mistake fare, our travel and points strategy for 2014, manufactured credit card spending, and lastly, United’s “Flyer Friendly” ad campaign and following through with promises.
We enjoy recording the show and we hope that shows. We also hope that it provides useful information and some entertainment for our listeners. If you haven’t listened yet, give it a shot and let us know what you think. You can listen on PointsHoarder directly, subscribe to the podcast feed, or directly in iTunes.
Yesterday I noticed a lot of tweets and blogs sending their traffic to an article on Slate titled The Recline and Fall of Western Civilization. The article asserts that we as a society are broken because we recline our seats causing those behind us to suffer. It then takes the utilitarian view that reclining seats should be completely done away with. The first thing that came to my mind was, “are we really that bothered by seats reclining that Slate needs an article about it?”. Then I started thinking about the subtle “me, me, me” that was going on here cleverly disguised as “it’s for the greater good”.
Obviously, everyone on the plane would be better off if no one reclined; the minor gain in comfort when you tilt your seat back 5 degrees is certainly offset by the discomfort when the person in front of you does the same.
This quote in particular stood out. Unless you are a very tall person the amount of discomfort one receives from that same 5 degree seat recline is minimal as well. Sure, you may not be able to use your laptop on the tray table anymore, but the idea that you will be “uncomfortable” is a stretch. I am on an airplane a good chunk of every week and there are a lot of other things that are much more annoying and inconvenient than the guy in front of me reclining his seat.
Sure, I think it is annoying when a person reclines their seat right after take-off, or even better, the guy who does it on the ground after the flight attendants walk away, but I see some value in seat recline. I have had a few instances of back pain where I needed some recline to help relieve that pain and that 5 degrees made a difference. If we’re going to ban reclining seats then should ban all items that make trash (people litter), people who sit with their legs open on the subway (takes up my space), and so on.
Maybe what the author really wants to see is a seat like what ANA has installed on their Dreamliners, essentially a seat where the seat back is a shell, the bottom cushion slides forward, and the back cushion slides down. Such a seat gives a recline, but does not infringe on the space of the person behind.
I will say this. No matter how tall you are, products that keep the person in front of you from reclining, such as the Knee Defender, are not the answer. In the end air transportation is similar to a bus. If people want the experience of how nice commercial travel was in the 1960s then we’ll need to bring back regulation, make air travel unaffordable for a section of the population, and close a few airports… No? But it means a “better” travel experience for those traveling.
