Best Airlines For Traveling With Surfboards

Let’s get real: baggage fees are a pain.

It’s no secret that commuters across the country despise having to pay $25 or $50 for the right to bring their underwear on vacation with them. So much so, in fact, that the very first article I ever penned for Gadling advised travelers on how to leave the plane with more bags than you boarded with.

More than just commuters, however, you know who REALLY hate baggage fees?

Surfers.

While commuters may be able to sacrifice their favorite V-neck sweater when packing for a flight, surfers traveling without surfboards are in for a long vacation filled with swimming and skipping rocks.

Sure, there are lots of surf destinations where you can rent boards, but what if you’re going feral to a location without board rental? What if you’re a traveling pro surfer who needs his/her same quiver of boards to compete for contests?

Bottom line is you’re going to have to pack them on the plane, and depending where in the world you are, that can be a costly situation. I had a landlord once pay $650 in board fees flying Indonesia to Hawaii, and as you might expect, he was not exactly pleased.How do kite surfers get around this dilemma? Throw all the gear into a golf bag and make use of a loophole, which waives fees for golf bags. (Seriously, who needs the baggage break more, poor surfers or rich golfers?).

Loopholes aside, in the Spring 2012 installment of Board Bag Blues posted on Surfline, the surf forecasting team has compiled a helpful and thorough rundown of global airlines and what they charge for transporting surfboards.

The winners?

Air New Zealand, Qantas, British Airways, LAN, Air Tahiti Nui, Singapore, Sri Lankan Airlines, South African Airlines, Malaysian, Virgin Atlantic, Air France, Aer Lingus, Air Emirates and Interjet. All transport boards for free though conditions apply.

Losers?

Cathay Pacific ($600!), United ($100-$200), Delta ($150) and a host of others.

Costs are usually per board and though you’ll sometimes get away with cramming three boards into a windsurf board bag, don’t be surprised if they make you open it up and count the boards.

Need more inspiration? Check out Surfline’s travel section to get you planning your next surf trip. Then, of course, good luck deciding which airline is the best bet to get you there.

Creative Airline Pricing, Cost Cutting A Sign Of The Times

Recent airline pricing changes have brought some lower fares through some creative re-categorization of seats with mixed results. Before, buyers of air tickets could count on the good seats being in first or business class and the bad seats in coach. Now, airlines are breaking it down further with seating options that offer seats a bit better and worse than the standard fare.

Delta’s new sub-economy ticket most likely gets penny-pinching travelers a middle coach seat, formerly known as the worst of the worst, at a discount. The fare is non-refundable, no changes can be made and seating assignment happens at the airport.

“If you like sitting in middle seats and having your travel party split up, you’ll love Delta Air Lines‘ new Basic Economy class,” says the Orlando Sentinel’s Ed Perkins.

Going the other direction, US Airways offers ChoiceSeats, which are for sure not a middle seat and are mostly window and aisle seats towards the front of coach. Some may have more legroom via a seating configuration change or their location in exit rows. All get priority boarding, eliminating a fight for overhead storage space.

I took the bait on US Air’s ChoiceSeats from Orlando to Amsterdam last week thinking, “Hey, for $50 the extra legroom will surely be worth it.” On the first leg of that flight from Orlando to Philadelphia my hunch was right. The airline had reconfigured seating to have two rows of seats where three were previously, allowing for a good deal of extra space.But on the next long leg from Philadelphia to Amsterdam I had no such luck. All “Choice” meant was priority boarding and no extra space. Oddly, seating diagrams on both flights looked exactly the same.

Talking with a passenger who had flown using US Air’s “Choice” option before, I was told with an eye roll, “It’s kind of a crap shoot. Sometimes there’s more room, other times not, just kind of depends. Wait ’till they bring dinner.”

Sometimes it’s hard to hear correctly at 39,000 feet, but I was not real sure why this guy threw in the comment about dinner. Later, I found out.

The choice was chicken or pasta. When the flight attendant came by I asked, “What should I choose, Chicken or Pasta?” Her answer: “Your best bet is to go out for dinner.”
This was dead on accurate.

Was it a big deal? No, not really in the grand scheme of things. The flight arrived early and my luggage made it with me. That should be good enough.

Airlines are cutting back on non-essential services and making moves like offering different categories of seating in an attempt to provide rock-bottom low fares. If they can do that while maintaining and improving on-time service and luggage handling, this should be good enough.

“Airlines are finally catching up with what their promise is, which is getting you there on time 80 percent of the time with your bags,” said Dean Headley, a business professor at Wichita State University in an ABC News article. “They realize that people are paying a lot more money, and the system is more complex than it was, and they have to do a better job,” he said. “To their credit, I think they are doing a better job.”


Flickr photo by redlegsfan21

Nebraska Senator Proposes Air Passenger Fairness Act of 2012

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) today introduced the “Air Passenger Fairness Act of 2012,” an act he proposes will “promote fairness for all air travel passengers by barring airlines and airport operators from using express security lines that allow for certain groups of air passengers to cut to the front of the TSA security screening line at the airport.”

In short, The Nelson bill would prohibit elite flier lines that expedite some passengers’ TSA screenings. Nelson feels that this practice is unethical because all passengers pay the same TSA screening cost, regardless of the overall cost of their ticket.

“This bill is about fairness. Regardless of whether you have a first-class ticket or have reached a certain frequent flier status, the purpose of the airport security screening line is to ensure traveler safety. Allowing a select few to cut in front of those who are waiting patiently, just in order to provide a perk, has nothing to do with safety,” said Senator Nelson.

Who Is Not Covered
The act would not affect the current Transportation Security Administration-administered program that travelers can use to apply for pre-screening clearance that may expedite their security screenings at designated locations in select airports. It also would not stop an airline or airport operator from setting up express lines for disabled passengers.

An Act Not Based In Opinion
While we fully support the idea that everyone needs a full security screen and deserves to be treated, as the bill’s title states, with “fairness,” we can’t help but think this is a waste of congressional effort.While the security fee may be the same – covering the cost of effective screening for all – many frequent travelers did pay higher ticket rates, for example for business, first or select seating. Of those passengers, many would argue that priority line access (of all types) is a de facto benefit.

Travelers expedited through a security line are generally frequent travelers experienced in security proceedings and move through the line at an exponentially faster pace than those who travel on a less frequent basis. Since travelers are taken on a “one here, one there” basis, if the two lines are equally as long, travelers will wait for the same amount of time. This is often the case on heavy business travel mornings where many travelers are “elite”.

Discrimination or a Pet Peeve?
While one would not wish to stereotype, those who fly less frequently take longer to remove their shoes, empty their pockets and unpack their laptop than frequent or elite-level travelers (who earned the “elite” status through frequent flying or by paying for the perk). By offering two lines, frequent (and faster) travelers can speed the process for all.

What caused Nelson to draft this bill? Has Nelson, in fact, stood in a security line and noted these expedited travelers getting preferential screening? Less chance of a random bag check? Certainly no studies have been conducted to suggest this is the case.

Offering a “priority” line for frequent travelers is not case of segregation or discrimination, as Nelson is trying to allege, but merely a case of expediting an already cumbersome process.

With this new proposed act, Senator Nelson has effectively attempted to create controversy in a process that effectively had no controversy at all.

Please, Senator, focus your efforts somewhere where they’re needed – there are certainly areas in the airline industry where your concern would be enormously helpful.

[Flickr via steuben]

Frontier Drops Signature Chocolate Chip Cookie

Frontier Airlines will stop serving complimentary chocolate chip cookies as of May 1. While this news may be good for our waistline, we’re sad to see the small perk go.

The cookie was a symbol of the “best care in the air” service of the former Midwest Airlines, the Milwaukee BizTimes reported. The airline was acquired by Indianapolis-based Republic Airways Holdings Inc. and merged into Denver-based Frontier Airlines in 2009.

The airline has suffered mightily of late, cutting jobs and eliminating several routes.

“The company determined that offering a free perishable snack did not align with our low-cost business model,” said Frontier spokeswoman Lindsey Carpenter.

Beginning May 1, Frontier will offer complimentary Pepperidge Farms Goldfish crackers and Barnum’s Animal Crackers for Ascent, Summit, Classic and Classic Plus customers, as well as unaccompanied minors.

“The new animal snack options are non-perishable, run less risk of waste, are a better value and align better with the Frontier brand,” Carpenter said.

Yes, but they’re not nearly as tasty.

[Flickr via Scorpions and Centaurs]