How do you pass the time in airports during delays?

by Mike Barish on

With nasty weather once again enveloping the Northeastern United States and winter showing no signs of ending anytime soon, thousands of travelers find themselves killing a lot of time at airports. Flight delays are a fact of life and there’s not a whole lot you can do about it unless you want to pay the fees necessary to change your flights. That leaves us all spending much of our holiday or business trip twiddling our thumbs in crowded, boring airport terminals.

Earlier this week, we showed you how one imaginative traveler entertained herself in Pittsburgh International Airport. However, not all of us are that creative (or bold), so we have to find other activities to keep us sane. Gadling wants to know what your favorite time-killer is during a long flight delay.

Let us know by voting in the poll below and feel free to elaborate in the comments.

%Poll-42189%

Survey shows best airports for making your (love) connection

by Alison Brick on

If you think about it, all of the stars are aligned at an airport.

Get a group of people together with a) a common interest in travel, b) extra time on their hands, and c) good ol’ human chemistry, and you’ve got a petri dish with love connections in the making.

But a new survey argues that not every airport is equal in opportunity. Oh no.

The top three airports are Newark, JFK, and Philadelphia. Foreign rendezvous aren’t excluded, mind you. The first three international listings are Paris’ Charles de Gaulle, London’s Heathrow, and Rome’s Fiumicino.

The 33 largest international airports were rated on on-time statistics, historical weather conditions, and amenities (bars, restaurants, activities) per person per airport.

For example, a connection is more likely to happen if you have a long layover at a place with great restaurant options.

Along with the report on AXE’s Facebook page are suggestions for making the most of your wait time, such as: “Spark conversation by casually pulling out your small wad of left-over foreign currency.”

The survey was created by Sperling’s BestPlaces, and commissioned by Axe (makers of grooming products for men).
%Gallery-76538%

National Geographic ranks 133 destinations

by Katie Hammel on

National Geographic Traveler has released the results of its 6th annual survey of authenticity and “destination stewardship”. The survey, ranks 133 places on earth according to how well (or how poorly) the local governments, businesses and residents are protecting the area from degradation, along with other factors like risk of natural disasters.

437 panelists scored each destination according to: environmental and ecological quality, social and cultural integrity, condition of historic buildings and archaeological sites, aesthetic appeal, quality of tourism management, and outlook for the future.

The highest-rated place: the Fjords region of Norway, followed by locations like the South Island of New Zealand, Slovenia, Ancient Kyoto in Japan, the Bavarian Alps and Vermont. Other places listed as “doing well” include Tuscany, Cappadocia, Easter Island, South Africa’s Kruger National Park, and Kentucky’s Bluegrass Country.

There are some places “in the balance” that need work in multiple areas. Destinations such as Costa Rica, the Great Barrier Reef, Prague’s Old Town, Petra and St. Lucia are included here. From there, it gets worse. Places with “troubles” include Ha Long Bay, Giza, Venice and Siem Reap.

The bottom of the barrel: Cabo San Lucas, the West Bank, and Spain’s Costa del Sol.

More interesting than the rankings are the reasons behind them. For example, Costa del Sol rates so low because it’s a “textbook example of mass tourism run amok”, overdeveloped, unattractive and straining local water resources. And what makes the Fjords so great? Few visitors, environmental quality, and a tourism industry that benefits the local people yet allows them to preserve traditional ways of life.

50% of air travelers will fly with the flu to avoid a fee

by Katie Hammel on

I’m a one of the those people who always seems to get sick after a long plane ride. A few days post-trip, I suddenly get a runny nose, sore throat and all the other telltale signs of a cold, most likely contracted from a sick passenger. Usually it’s minor, and I’m out of commission for only a few days.

I guess I’ve just been lucky that it hasn’t been the flu, because, according to a recent TripAdvisor survey, over 50% of travelers would choose flying with the flu over paying a fee to change their flight. As if we needed more reason to get a flu shot before we travel this season, now we know that someone with the flu may end up on our flight, just to avoid the fee.

Out of 2,327 people, 51% said they would fly while sick with the flu rather than pay the $150-$200 fee (plus any change in price) imposed by most airlines in order to change their flights to a later date. This is obviously, alarming news, but I can see why it is the case that people would rather cough up some germs on their fellow passengers than cough up the extra cash to change the tickets. Especially because costs for the new dates will often be higher, meaning you may end up paying more like $300-$400 per ticket for the change.

In the case of inescapable commitments, I can understand why someone would not change the ticket. But for a leisure trip, I would consider it. Of course, I don’t want to get others sick, but from a purely selfish standpoint, I don’t want to spend my time in the air shaking and shivering with the flu, or to spend my entire vacation laid up in bed. But then again…if I felt well enough to get on the plane despite having the flu, I would definitely do it rather than incur the extra charges and have to change all my travel plans.

On his blog, Christopher Elliot offers a solution – airlines need to lower or waive the change fees during flu season. We need to stop financially penalizing those who get sick and allow them to change their flights easily, or they will continue to fly and risk spreading the flu to other passengers.

New “most expensive” cities list names Tokyo in top spot

by Katie Hammel on

The results for Mercer’s 2009 Cost of Living survey are out, and while there are some changes, most of the rankings for the most expensive cities are just about what you would expect. Moscow, Geneva, Zurich and Hong Kong are expensive (duh), as are Copenhagen, New York, Beijing and Singapore, which all took spots in the top ten. Japan took top (dis)honors with Tokyo and Osaka taking the number one and two spots, respectively. London dropped a whopping 13 spots to number 16.

Some big moves were made by Caracas, which shot up to number 15 from 89 last year, and Dubai, which jumped from the number 52 to number 20 spot. Several U.S. cities became significantly more expensive – at least, according to the rankings. Los Angeles moved from 55 to 23, White Plaines jumped from 89 to 31, San Francisco went from 78 to 34, Honolulu climbed from 77 to 41, and Miami rose from 75 to 45. My home city of Chicago rounded out the top 50 list (which has more than 50 cities on it because some are tied) as it moved up from being number 84 last year.

The survey takes into account the average cost of over 200 items in each city including food, housing, clothing, transportation, and entertainment. The survey compares 143 cities and uses New York, with a base score of 100, as the measuring stick. In the top spot with 143.7 points, Tokyo is nearly 1.5 times more expensive than New York.

The cheapest city? Johannesburg, South Africa, which replaced Asuncion in Paraguay.