Gulliver

AIRPORT traffic in Europe grew 7.3% in 2011, according to new figures from the Airports Council International (ACI). Having said that, it makes more sense to compare 2011’s traffic with a 2010 figure that does not include the traffic-reducing effect of the volcanic ash cloud. In this scenario the increase in traffic in 2011 is only 5.2%.

Traffic grew more strongly in airports outside the European Union than those inside (12.2% v 6.3%). The slowdown in the euro zone was partly to blame for this discrepancy. For example, Athens saw the greatest drop in passenger numbers (-6.3%) out of the continent's 50 biggest airports, and—more alarmingly—its traffic dropped 10% year-on-year in December 2011.

Problems in the euro zone explain why Olivier Jankovec, the director general of ACI Europe, expects the region's traffic to be less impressive in 2012 than in 2011.

The odds are that 2012 will be a different story. Economies have come to a stand-still in many parts of Europe with the sovereign debt crisis, which is also having a ripple effect on growth prospects elsewhere. This will affect demand for air transport. At the same time, fuel costs and national aviation taxes are going to limit airlines ’ willingness to add capacity – a serious concern, especially for regional airports.

Heathrow remains the biggest airport in Europe, with over 69m passengers passing through in 2011. Amsterdam Schiphol, currently the continent's fourth-biggest airport, will overtake Heathrow in 2019 if both facilities continue to grow at the same rate as at present. (Given that Schiphol has five runways and Heathrow two, this particular changing of the order has an air of inevitability.)

At the other end of the scale, spare a thought for the least busy of ACI Europe's 168 member airports. Arad in Romania saw 1,124 passengers in 2011—an average of 22 a week. I guess its 300 parking spaces don't see too much use...

TRIPADVISOR has been taken to task by Britain's advertising watchdog for using "misleading" wording on its website. In an adjudication released today, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) decreed that phrases such as "Reviews you can trust", "read reviews from real travellers", "TripAdvisor offers trusted advice from real travellers" and "More than 50 million honest travel reviews and opinions from real travellers around the world" breached two codes of the Committee of Advertising Practice.

The ASA says TripAdvisor's wording misleadingly implied that all its reviews were genuine. Reviewers are required to confirm that they are giving their own opinions, but since TripAdvisor does not verify the reviews, such declarations are open to abuse. 

TripAdvisor admits that the site is not perfect. I spoke to Steve Kaufer, the CEO, a while ago about the scope for abuse and his rather phlegmatic response was: “One or two phoney reviews: who gives a shit?”. TripAdvisor has ways to weed out false reviews, and it gives wronged hotels a right of reply, but it still relies heavily on its users to think hard before accepting all content at face value.

The ASA does not think this works well enough:

We noted that TripAdvisor allowed hoteliers a ‘right of reply’ to critical or negative reviews posted on the site and that they believed that users of the site had a healthy scepticism as a result of their experience of review sites more generally. However, we did not consider that consumers would necessarily be able to detect and separate non-genuine reviews from genuine content, particularly where a hotel or other establishment had not received many reviews, and nor did we consider that a hotelier’s response in itself would go far enough to alert consumers to, and moderate, non-genuine content.

TripAdvisor actually changed some of the wording on its site some months ago. “Reviews you can trust” became “Reviews from our community” in September. But it has not removed its reviewers' ugliest excesses: the Telegraph notes the prevalence of descriptions of hotel staff as "homophobic" or "racist", suggesting that TripAdvisor is not pursuing its no-toleration policy against hate speech as assiduously as it should.

The ASA was acting on a complaint filed by KwikChex, which helps companies manage their online reputations, and two hotels. KwikChex wondered today why TripAdvisor can't do more to verify reviews, given that one of its subsidiaries' websites, Holiday Lettings, only takes opinions from people whose stays at the property in question have been authenticated.

TripAdvisor's response was: "we believe all travellers, not just the one individual who made the reservation or has the receipt, are entitled to share their honest feedback about where they have stayed. Requiring a proof of stay would dramatically reduce the number of reviews on the site, and we know from user feedback that our visitors value both the quantity and quality of the reviews available." That's fair enough, but if this really is TripAdvisor's approach, why does it require authentication for reviews on Holiday Lettings?

In response to the ASA's ruling, TripAdvisor pleaded a certain amount of helplessness. "The ASA upheld the complaints on the basis that we could not provide 100% certainty that that every single review on the site was written by a real traveller and could be trusted," the company wrote in a statement. "No system, verified or not, could provide this."

These strike me as reasonable defences. People enjoy using TripAdvisor because all the world is allowed to comment. Consequently, popular hotels have hundreds of reviews, and users can either wander around the sprawling site and read everything, or they can look at properties' average ratings for an overview. Yes TripAdvisor needs to be careful about excessive claims to genuineness; and it needs to be vigorous in responding to complaints from hotels. But if users of the site keep their brains fully engaged, they should have little bother benefiting from the wisdom of the travelling crowd.

DRINKERS of the world, today I'm pointing you to this blog post from the Atlantic's James Fallows, who offers what is probably my favourite travel tip of all time. It meets all the criteria for a great tip: it's not totally obvious, you don't see people doing it all the time, it saves you money, it can make travel a little more fun, and it offers some of the satisfaction most of us get from flouting authority just a wee bit. You can thank me (and Mr Fallows) later. Here you go:

As someone that enjoys a drink as much or more than the next guy (and is also frugalish), the fluids rules for flying were a huge bummer for me because it was my practice for morning flights to build myself a nice big bloody mary in a disposable bottle for consumption as I passed my way through the security apparatus and inevitable downtime before the flight. Rather a good deal compared to the pathetic offerings for top dollar otherwise available to travelers.

Which brings me to my travel tip: Minis (the tiny little liquor bottles) happen to fit into your TSA quart sized baggie and are perfectly legal to take through security. A bottle of OJ on the far side of the line and you're in screwdriver heaven. Although, please be discrete as the US still has insane open container laws.

Which brings me to my story: Not long after I figured out this loophole, I tossed my baggie full of minis in the x-ray bin and the TSA screener looked at them and gave me a broad grin and said, "Now there's a man 'at knows how to fly." To which I could only grin and nod in agreement.

Let's say it again: there's a man who knows how to fly. Dean Martin and Dylan Thomas would be proud.

Now, since America's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) hates fun and merriment and America's airlines probably don't want you bringing your own drinks on board when you could be buying from them, it's important to be discreet about this travel tip. Don't bring 20 minis on the plane, get drunk, try to open the door mid-flight, and ruin it for everyone else. As they say in the adverts, please drink responsibly.

But if you follow the rules, this tip should allow you to mix your aeroplane drinks just how you like them (even in coach!) and save a few dollars, too. Until 2005, bizarre laws made South Carolina the world capital of miniature liquor bottles. In 2012, thanks to Mr Fallows's tip and the TSA's three-ounce rule, aircraft might take the title. Prost!

AN ARTICLE in this week's Economist looks at Boeing and its struggles to fill its orders.

At Boeing’s Renton factory near Seattle the existing version of the 737 is now being turned out at a record rate of 35 a month, after a recent speeding-up of the two assembly lines. At the front of assembly line number one, a plane destined for flydubai, an airline that can’t afford capital letters, is ready to roll. Behind it is the latest addition to Ryanair’s huge fleet of 737s, which has just had its engines fitted. Next, a Korean Air plane which is about to receive rows of seats; then an Azerbaijan Airlines jet, its toilet cubicles lined up alongside ready for installation. The plan is to increase the production rate further, to 42 a month by 2014. Fortunately, there is space to squeeze a third assembly line into the giant hangar.

Read the whole piece.

• SWISS International Airlines is—by some distance—the best of the European short-haul carriers according to a new survey. Its “customer score”, in a poll of more than 6,000 people by Which?, a consumer watchdog, was 76%. Aer Lingus came second with 67%. Swiss was the only airline to receive a five-star rating for its check-in procedure, and the only one to earn four-star ratings for its cabin environment and value for money. The table was propped up by Thomas Cook Airlines in 19th place on 37%, just behind Ryanair on 38%. Which? notes that Ryanair gets four stars for its costs, but only two stars for "value for money". "Passengers have perhaps realised the hard way", went the write-up, "that cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better."

• A report by Amadeus (pdf), a company that provides technology to the travel industry, looks at the way technology is changing the face of travel. There's talk of translation tools, augmented-reality tools, intelligent-recommendation tools and luggage that can let you know where it is. One of the outcomes of these developments is that business travellers will morph into "business tourists", thanks to all the useful new services that hotels will provide. We can but hope.

• This is not very recent, but Brendan Nelson's take on the military strategies needed to get a seat on London's public transport during rush hour is beautifully put together.

SIX hotel chains have combined forces to create a new search engine for guests seeking rooms. Choice, Hilton, Hyatt, InterContinental, Marriott and Wyndham are the joint owners of Roomkey.com, which removes online travel agents from the booking process and sends guests to the chains' own websites for payments.

Much is made of the absence of an intermediary, such as Expedia or Kayak. "Accurate hotel information straight from the source," trumpets the press release on InterContinental's website. It might have added that bringing information "straight from the source" means the hotels do not have to pay a third party for the introduction or the transaction.

Roomkey is a handsome enough site, with a clean design that is less utilitarian and more inviting than those of the online travel agents and aggregators. For the user, the design is one of the two perks of Roomkey, since its capabilities are not markedly different from its competitors'. Users put in the city or zip code of their destination, plus travel dates, and then receive an array of hotel options presented as a list or on a map, with an "estimated total" per night that includes taxes and fees. You can filter the results by price and star range, and when you've made your choice, a click takes you through to the relevant hotel website, where the price should be the same. That's the second perk, because this is not always the case on other sites. In one test I did, for example, Kayak listed a hotel room rate that was $30 less than the price I was actually required to pay to complete the booking on the hotel's website. For the same transaction, Roomkey gave an accurate price, as you would expect. If it remains reliable in its pricing, it should win business despite covering a smaller market than the aggregators and travel agents.

At present Roomkey focuses on American destinations, but will expand to other English-speaking regions from March. The site has pricing for 23,000 properties, and the plan is to expand that to 80,000 properties worldwide by the middle of 2012. Other features such as independent hotel reviews and a facility for sharing travel plans have also been touted.

ON THURSDAY, the White House announced that President Barack Obama had signed a new executive order aimed at promoting travel to America by easing the visa process and reducing paperwork. This is good news. Gulliver has written before about the need for visa reform, which is a really simple, largely non-controversial way that America could boost its economy. Unfortunately, Congress, sclerotic and divided as usual, was unable to act—and Mr Obama had to do what he could on his own. 

Mr Obama's executive order will reduce visa waiting times for Chinese and Brazilian travellers, move towards eliminating visas entirely for visitors from Taiwan, and take the Global Entry programme, which speeds pre-screened travellers through customs, out of the trial phase and make it permanent. Easing visa requirements for travellers from Brazil and China was one of the major planks of the US Travel Association's "Ready for Takeoff" visa reform campaign, so this should be counted as a victory for the trade group, which represents a wide swathe of businesses that benefit from tourism. The group posted a swoony press release on its website praising the White House move. "The steps the president took today are significant and will boost travel to and within the United States," said Roger Dow, the group's president. "His timing could not be better."

But there's still a lot more that could be done on visa reform, and some of it can only be done by Congress. The big thing, of course, is hiring more people to process visas. The administration has called for a 40% increase in capacity on that front, but realistically, that will either require more funding or shifting money from some other priority. It seems unlikely that Congress will act to spend even the smallest amount of new money on something like this during an election year. Mr Obama also wants 80% of non-immigrant visa applicants interviewed "within three weeks of application". That's a great goal, but don't be surprised if the State Department and Department of Homeland Security fall short. The president is a powerful man, but even he cannot fix America's slow, clunky visa system with a wave of his hand. That will take money—and more money for visa processing and visitor screening just isn't on the cards right now.

A COLLEAGUE has written on our Which MBA? blog about the plans for a second high-speed rail track in Britain. One management teacher theorises about why the country would be better off spending £34 billion ($53 billion) on putting a woman on the moon instead.

YOU'RE in luck if you need extra room on a Canadian airline because you're obese. Federal regulations require airlines to treat such passengers as disabled and provide a second seat at no additional charge. But you're out of luck if you're too tall, as Malcolm Johnson from Edmonton has discovered. The Canadian Transportation Agency recently dismissed Mr Johnson's complaint that Air Canada was discriminating against him in forcing him to pay extra for a seat that could accommodate his 201cm (6'7) frame. The reason: Mr Johnson did not prove that his height was a disability. Though his doctor wrote a note supporting his case, pointing out that Mr Johnson was at risk of developing deep vein thrombosis if forced to sit in an economy-class seat, the agency decided that “a risk of developing a medical condition does not equate with having a condition.”

Fees for preferred seating vary by airline, length of flight, type of fare purchased and frequent-flyer status. Mr Johnson says they add up to an extra $200 when he travels from Edmonton to Paris twice a year. An Air Canada spokesperson pointed out that the fees start at $16 per one-way trip, though this is of dubious relevance because that price applies to flights under 350 miles within Canada and the US.

Mr Johnson's troubles are akin to those experienced by Brooks Anderson on a Spirit Airlines flight from Chicago to Fort Myers, Florida, in 2010. In that case, Mr Anderson, also 201cm tall, spent most of the flight standing up, “dodging people going to and from the bathroom.”

One fellow tall person said in support of Mr Johnson: “Perhaps us tall guys should all stand and be counted.” Just don't do it on take-off.

THERE was terror for passengers and embarrassment for British Airways after an accidental announcement during a flight from Miami to London on January 14th. Some three hours into the journey, as the plane soared over the Atlantic, a message was broadcast over the intercom: "This is an emergency, we will shortly be making an emergency landing on water."

Cue panic. Two passengers told the Telegraph, "We looked at each other and figured we were both about to die. Families with children were distraught and people were in tears. It was very distressing." And it was not until 30 seconds later that flight attendants told passengers that the warning was a mistake.

This wasn't a mechanical malfunction: British Airways says the recorded message was "played in error". I'd say that's a serious mistake. The "you're all going to die" message (because with a landing on water, Miracle on the Hudson notwithstanding, that's what we're talking about) should not somehow be playable in error. BA's technicians, cockpit designers, etc, need to ensure this can't happen again.

IF you're a business-jet broker, how do you tempt buyers to your office? Steve Varsano, an industry veteran, has put a lot of money into the answer. He has located his new company, the Jet Business, on a highly visible site in one of London’s more moneyed areas, and built a full-size mock-up of the interior of an Airbus A319 in one of the reception rooms.

The Jet Business is an interesting enterprise. Styling itself "the world's first corporate aviation showroom for business jet aircraft", it's a brokerage that links purchasers to planes (mainly second-hand). But it throws a lot more technology at the process than has traditionally been the case. Sitting in front of a 26-ft (8-metre) display screen, Mr Varsano uses a database of the world’s business jets to help clients decide on the craft they need and to work out their availability. The giant screen allows the oligarchs and the potentates to compare, in life size, the cabin dimensions of different planes, look at the seating, and drool over the detailing of the walnut veneers. That’s something you can’t do with PDFs sent by the manufacturer.

The investment in this office is an indication of Mr Varsano's faith in the health of the top end of the business-jet market as the world economy negotiates choppy waters. He admits that the financial crisis has had an effect lower down the market, where people are looking to spend $1m on a jet. But for Mr Varsano there is no recession. He focuses his attention on three types of jet—the super-mid size, the large-cabin and the ultra-long-range—and would-be purchasers of $30m planes are not becoming rarer. “There’s always somebody making money,” says Mr Varsano. “I follow the money.”

Changes to the world economy have had an obvious effect on the nationalities of private-jet buyers. A market that as recently as 15 years ago was dominated by American clients now reflects the rise of the BRICs. Last year 35% of sales of ultra-long-range business jets went to buyers from mainland China.

But wherever the jet-buyers are from, they all eventually come to London. Mr Varsano says the city was an obvious place for him to set up his business because so many rich people pass through. “They have to come through Knightsbridge and they look through the window [of the showroom],” he says. What else is there to do when you're sitting in a chauffeur-driven Bentley waiting for the lights to change on Hyde Park Corner?

BOTH Delta Air Lines and US Airways have expressed interest in possibly acquiring the bankrupt American Airlines, according to multiple reports this week. Hunter Keay, an analyst with Wolfe Trahan & Co, told Bloomberg he expects the odds of American being an independent company post-bankruptcy are "20 percent, at most." So if a merger looks inevitable, which suitor would best for business travellers?

First, a few things to keep in mind. As my colleague noted in November, American has some debt problems—before it entered Chapter 11 in November, it had $30 billion worth of obligations against around $4 billion in cash. And the airline industry isn't exactly a great business. Note one of my favourite statistics ever, via Slate business correspondent Matt Yglesias: "Cumulative earnings across the history of American passenger aviation are negative $33 billion." That doesn't mean that individual airlines haven't made money, or that the industry couldn't be profitable in the future—indeed, the progress of industry consolidation and deregulation offers some hopeful signs for both travellers and the industry itself. But it's hard to know which way that's going.

Mr Yglesias argues for a "patriotic merger" between American and US Airways in order to give America three very large global airlines (Delta, United and the new US Air/American entity), with one big airline in each of the three major airline alliances. (Mr Yglesias wants the merged airline to join the American-led oneworld alliance, which sounds like a good idea but is far from a forgone conclusion. An American-less oneworld would be under enormous pressure from Star Alliance and SkyTeam, and could conceivably lose more members or fold altogether—something that should probably be avoided.)

Since I'm generally bullish on the airline alliances (and competition between them), I'd tend to think the US Airways/oneworld route would be better for competition, and thus better for travellers. But the real question is what American government regulators and anti-trust authorities think about the whole idea. A Delta-American merger would produce a company that would control a huge chunk of domestic market—29.6%, double the share of its next biggest competitor, Southwest Airlines.

Another issue is whether Delta's supposed interest in acquiring American is serious or simply an effort to cause problems for US Airways and oneworld. It's hard to imagine that Delta's executives aren't aware of the regulatory problems a merger with American might face. Whatever happens, this struggle will be interesting to watch.