obscure2k

Agree that is how it should work. However, the photographs of FC air travel on the blogs do not typically show fruit and water.

FallenPlat

Someone's finally put their finger on why I've never bought in to the whole luxury frequent travel thing, in fact the whole credit card blog "aspirational travel" thing: rich food and little to no exercise are a completely corrosive combination.

And finding a pool, by the way, is often no mean feat -- even for me. Lakes and the ocean can work sometimes, too.

Flights are long; time is short.

RTW1

And people are lazy .

The time when I get the most exercise is when I'm traveling. Nearly all the hotels have a gym or other facilities and while it's easy to stuff yourself on that big breakfast everyday, it's just as easy to enjoy the healthy things they also offer.
When I know I have a big dinner, I take it easy at breakfast time... and when I know I don't I enjoy breakfast, have a few bites in the lounge and visit the gym or pool in the evening. Not that hard.

Reality is that you have to make the effort, no different than when you are at home. Probably even easier since it takes less time when on the road because everything is close and you don't have to do any shopping :-).

kokonutz

I admit that I cringe a bit at the gluttony sometimes displayed.

Getting all worked up over an AA cookie, for example. Or obsessing over included hotel buffet breakfasts.

And it's not just a VFTW thing, although he does seem to be the foodiest of the P&M bloggers.

Lol, have a fruit Sah-Laad every once in a while! (Omaat reference there)

HMPS

But how do we know " they" eat all the food in the photos ? Don't they put it there to entice others ?
Do you think all the cooks on TV shows eat the whole portions they prepare ?

jspira

I have to include reviews of food in hotel reviews, flight reviews, and of course restaurant reviews. I've learnt to taste things judiciously and I probably end up eating less overall when traveling than when I am at home. I can't say if bloggers do the same thing but for their sake, I hope so.

There are limits, however, in terms of what I include. If I'm going to sleep on a JFK-LHR flight, I'll dine in the lounge (Flagship or Clubhouse, or equivalent) prior to departure and skip the meal. (I will mention the dining experience in the review, I should add.) If I'm awake at breakfast, I'll have it and I usually end up eating at least a small bite before landing. But my view of a review is that I stick to (my own) real-life routine, not become a glutton just because there is so much food available. I typically don't photograph food I don't eat except occasionally as a point of reference to say ("and x and y were also available on the menu) but that is the exception, not the rule.

kokonutz

Fyi, while he reads this forum regularly he has not posted and I don't expect him to.

Instead I suspect we'll see a blog post at some point soon talk about his eating/health habits.

After all, if you looked at my Facebook wall you would think that all I do is go on dates with my wife and drink in Irish pubs. I rarely post about getting in 5 miles of exercise a day wile keeping my caloric intake under 2000. Cause that's kinda boring. But then my mother frets on my wall that all I seem to do is drink booze and eat at five star restaurants. Otoh, I DO have a 33 inch waistline.

In any case I too hope he's in nothing but the best of health.

oliver2002

Lets not get too personal and move on. 3 posts deleted.

Regards Oliver2002
Mod EM&PR

nsx

Today's article on regulation of FF programs is outstanding. My favorite comment:

Seriously, take the time to read the article.

84fiero

That is interesting. I assume Gary's post was in response to or inspired by this one by Chris Elliott:

http://elliott.org/the-navigator/sho...-re-regulated/

The FFPs are operating with a heavier hand nowadays thanks to better performance and decreased competition. Is regulation of the programs the answer? I don't know. I'm hesitant to push for new or expanded government regulation, generally. I'm willing to listen to the argument in favor of it in this area (not as though my opinion matters to anyone who with the power to do anything!).

One major potential downside to any extensive regulation could be that one or more airlines would simply cease having a frequent flyer program altogether in response. I suppose it depends on the extent of the regs.

kokonutz

Gary is fine with letting airlines merge into an oligopoly because free market, but is also fine with government regulating FFPs?!

Gary has strongly defended the mega mergers. Now we are reaping the inevitable result of that dramatic reduction in competition.

No government regulation is going to put that toothpaste back in the tube.

FallenPlat

I'm usually one of Gary's fans, as some of you may remember, and I frankly think much of what's posted here often, at least for me, adds little if any value.

This morning's post about the DOT decision on the United mistake fares, however, is absurd on several levels and cries out for correction, or a least a respectfully dissenting view.

Several points.

First, Gary seems not to understand his own limitations when it comes to legal issues generally or a complex regulatory interpretative issue such as this specifically. I can't write knowledgably about particle physics; some folks can't write knowledgeably about regulated industry law. Figuring out what you're good at and can write about without making a fool of yourself should be Point A on anyone's personal or professional itinerary.

Second, a regulatory "no action" letter such as this always has to be taken with more than just a grain of salt. They don't have any precedential value at all, or at least not formally. They're really more of a practical statement of an agency's enforcement priorities in a given instance.

Third, any administrative lawyer can expatiate essentially endlessly on where the dividing line lies between actual regulation and mere interpretation. This little tempest doesn't even approach the neighborhood of where that line might be.

Fourth, the DOT's reasoning is very narrowly cast. It's hard to see how much precedential value might be buried here, really. See point two above.

Fifth, misrepresentation, or "unclean hands" if you will, matters. Harumphing and simply stating that it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter is simply laughable from a legal point of view. And that's what this is, the law.

Sixth, the equities also matter. Administrative law, despite what some non-lawyer might think, is not a mere empty exercise in "Gotcha!" I've never had even one professional conversation with anyone who thinks it should be, and I wasn't exactly born yesterday.

And finally, lawyers who do this stuff full time for a living were quoted publicly in press reports to the effect that the DOT was going to go this way. Why would anyone with a grain of common sense think that their opinions are just as prone to being wrong in this particular chosen area of specialization as, say, yours or mine or Gary's own? When a real pro speaks, I always listen carefully. Always.

Maybe, in the end, it's all just hubris.

kokonutz

A story about regulatory enforcement discretion is far less click-worthy than a story about 'gutting' regs and implying collusion between regulators and industry. @:-)

nsx

I don't agree with Gary's perspective on this one, but I love that he wrote something substantive and worth reading about it. I give it a thumbs up.

FallenPlat

Sure, and if I write about particle physics -- a subject about which I know nothing -- maybe that could be "substantive" and "worth reading" to boot?

How could an analysis of a technical area by someone who knows nothing about it possibly be "worth reading" -- ever? Or in blog terms, worth clicking on? What am I missing here?