Massive New Ski Resort Gets Approval In British Columbia

Government officials in British Columbia recently approved a plan to build a massive new ski resort in the province’s Purcell Mountains. When complete, the Jumbo Glacier Alpine Resort will be one of the largest ski areas in all of North America and will become the first on the continent to operate year-round.

It is estimated that it will take approximately two years and $900 million to complete the project, which is expected to open for Christmas 2014. When it does open, Jumbo will stretch across nearly 15,000 acres and will feature 23 lifts. Eventually it will also have as many 5500 rooms for on-site guest accommodations. Its unique location on the Jumbo Glacier will be one of its defining characteristics of course, as that will provide for four-season skiing and snowboarding.

The new project has been in the planning stages for more than 20 years and has been met with resistance from those living close to the new development. Some fear that it will alter the natural landscape and have an adverse effect on the wildlife in the Jumbo Valley where it will be built. As a result, a special grizzly bear protection and management program had to be created before the resort was given the green light and developers had to meet 195 environmental commitments before receiving the seal of approval. When it is completed, Jumbo is expected to draw thousands of visitors to the region on a yearly basis, creating jobs and additional revenue in the process.

I personally know a number of skiers who would love to have the ability to hit the slopes in the dead of summer and in a few years they’ll have that option.

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]

Allegiant Air To Start Charging For Carry-Ons

Las Vegas-based, low cost carrier Allegiant Air will begin charging for carry-on bags as of Wednesday, April 4.

“Allegiant will begin charging for carry-ons for travelers booking new reservations beginning Wednesday (it will go live on our website late Tuesday night PDT),” said Jessica Wheeler, public relations manager for Allegiant, as confirmed by AirlineReporter.com.

This is policy the company has been considering since spring of last year.

A fee schedule has not yet been released, but an internal memo to employees says that paying for carry-ons at the airport will be about $35 and that advance payment online will be between $15 and $29, about on par with the airline’s checked bag rates.

This can’t be a popular move, even for an ultra low cost airline. Sound off in the comments below.

[flickr image via o5com]

Paradise Flooded: Fiji Closes To Tourists

Tropical storms have battered Fiji in recent days, causing flash floods that have stranded tourists, forced mass evacuations and caused upwards of three deaths. Now, the Pacific island nation braces itself as a tropical cyclone approaches the main island of Viti Levu with forecasted gusts of 68 miles per hour and the certainty of even more damage. Already, the government has declared a state of emergency. Sometimes, you just can’t catch a break.

Apart from causing widespread destruction, floods in the main tourist towns of Suva and Nadi have also wreaked havoc on Fiji’s tourism industry. Thousands of visitors were forced to remain in their hotels with limited resources until the waters receded and the air embargo was lifted on Monday. They now face chaos at the Nadi International Airport trying to secure flights back home. Australian and New Zealand news sources describe frantic scenes straight from a natural disaster flick.

The photo gallery below offers a glimpse at the current scene on the ground.

%Gallery-152027%

Whole Foods To Ban Sale Of Unsustainable Seafood: The Global Impact

In a landmark move, Whole Foods has just announced that starting on April 22 — Earth Day — it will no longer sell seafood from depleted or otherwise unsustainable fisheries, or species harvested with ecologically damaging methods such as trawling. The industry ratings for these species are determined by the Blue Ocean Institute and California’s Monterey Bay Aquarium, which produces a popular “Seafood Watch Recommendations” pocket guide and phone app for shoppers. Say bye-bye to Atlantic halibut, skate, octopus and sole.

It’s a bold move for the world’s largest, most powerful green grocery chain to defer customer demand for better buying practices, but according to Whole Foods’ seafood quality standards coordinator Carrie Brownstein via an AP article, “In the long term, what we’re really looking to do is help reverse trends of overfishing and by-catch, so that really we can move the industry as a whole toward greater sustainability.”

So how does what you eat here at home have a global impact? Depletion of any fishery always has a negative effect on the food chain because of a ripple effect. Foreign fisheries may also employ unsound fishing methods that increase by-catch (think dolphins and other aquatic species, albatross, etc.). You may love Chilean sea bass (it’s actually Patagonian toothfish) but it has long been a fishery on the verge of collapse and by purchasing it at the store or ordering it at a restaurant, you create demand for that product. Once a species is extinct, it can seriously throw a marine ecosystem out of whack. Plus, you know, extinction kind of sucks.

It’s harder for world travelers to be on top of what’s sustainable and what’s not, especially if, like me, you love street food. In developing nations, especially countries with a coastline, fishing is usually a key part of the local economy. But saving our rapidly depleting oceans trumps putting a few pennies in local pockets: they’re not looking at the big picture, which is the more seafood we consume, the less there is to sell.

Order something besides seafood unless you’re positive it’s caught in a non-environmentally degrading way, from a healthy fishery. Go to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Recommendations site for a global guide to what’s sustainable and what’s not. It offers alternatives, so odds are, you can travel and have your lobster dinner, too.

[Photo credit: Flickr user Eneas]