I have never been able to redeem miles for Airlink...even when calling into UA, they say Airlink is not a partner, only SAA...even though we all know that's their regional arm. It has kept me from visiting Madagascar and Swaziland (do they fly to Lesotho, too?). Prices always seem high when I go so always hope to redeem miles.

Mongolia is a fantastic place to visit. I went there easily on Air China with UA miles, and like you would like to go back and see more of the country.

BA is supposedly starting service to St. Helena (From CPT/JNB) once the airport opens

Unsure if it has been mentioned, but possibly bocas del torro

Not sure if the Vatican City joke has already been made but I'll stick it in for giggles...

Yes, already mentioned upthread, originating as a San Marino silliness.

But as I said before, it brings up the non-silly issue of what does "unreachable" mean? Just how far from an airport does a country have to be do be "unreachable"? Vatican City is reachable by miles because FCO is just a stone's throw away. It has nothing to do with whether Vatican City has its own airport or not.

You could have searched the thread for "Vatican City" and figured out for yourself that it was already mentioned before! :rolleyes:

Well, I enjoy laughing at my own jokes so was worth repeating.

I think you're distorting the meaning of when a country is unreachable on miles. Vatican City is unreachable on miles because you cannot get there using only miles (unless there is some offer for a bus using miles, that I'm not aware of). It doesn't matter how close FCO is - you can either get to VC using miles or you can't. Pretty straightforward, really.

Papua New Guinea?
 

A somewhat larger place than most on the list. None of the alliance Asian carriers flies to POM.

According to Wikipedia, QantasLink operated by Sunstate Airlines serves it; is that bookable with QF miles or with oneworld miles? It also says that Virgin Australia serves it; not sure if any partner in one of the three alliances is available for redemptions.

(The page also says that TN serves it, but I think that that's out-of-date.)

While it would take a while (Google estimates 6 hours 45 minutes), it's actually close enough to walk. You don't need miles or cash to walk.

But your point seems silly to me. Unless your goal is only to land in the country and take back off (or only stay in an airport hotel), getting to anywhere else in the country besides airport hotels is not going to be doable with miles either.

So by your definition, if Vatican City is unreachable by miles, then Rome city center is also unreachable by miles (it's actually a bit further to walk, btw). So are many famous cities (whose airports are outside the city jurisdicition).

By your definition:

• Oslo is unreachable by miles
• Brussels is unreachable by miles
• Baltimore is unreachable by miles
• Seattle is not reachable by miles
• Detroit is not reachable by miles

since none of those cities can be reached using miles alone.

If those all sound like silly statements, just because I used cities, then why is it not equally silly to say that Vatican City (which is both a city and country) is unreachable by miles if Rome is considered reachable by miles??? :confused:

Why does have to be in alliance to be reachable? Virgin Australia in general is bookable with Delta miles (though outside of any alliance), though whether to that specific destination, I don't know for sure.

Because the thread asks about countries unreachable by miles... If you want to talk about cities unreachable by miles, you're asking a different question. And if you want to use an absurd interpretation by saying you don't need miles to walk, then you can walk almost anywhere, even if it "might take a while". So your interpretation is silly because "by your argument" everywhere is reachable on foot or by swimming (without miles), rendering the whole discussion pointless.

Yes, you can use AA or BA miles, but you have to call to redeem.

IMHO, the whole discussion is pointless if "unreachable by miles" means you have to go "the last mile" using miles (pardon the pun). People often don't fly to the country they're going to visit if it's cheaper (or better miles availability) to fly to an adjacent country and then take some form of ground transportation the rest of the way. For most people traveling internationally, the important thing is to the "big" part of the journey on miles, not every single part of the journey on miles.

So that's why I think your focus on "you can't get the bus from FCO to Vatican City with miles" is ridiculous. Because it implies that I can't visit Vatican City with miles the same way I can visit Italy (beyond the aiprort hotels) with miles, and that's ridiculous.

A couple years ago, I flew into Switzerland to visit Austria, because ZRH had better miles availability. And on that same trip I visited Liechtenstein, which has no airport of its own. As far as I'm concerned, I flew that whole trip on miles, as so I visited Liechtenstein with miles, even though I didn't fly into Liechtenstein and couldn't have. The trip across the pond was on miles, and that's all that mattered.

It would a horrible value to redeem miles for a local bus, if you could. It's typically a horrible value to redeem miles for a rental car, but you may be able to, by why would you just to say you were able to get "the whole trip" with miles? It's silly. You use miles to save money where the money would be costly; you don't use (many) miles to save (a little) money, that's a total waste of miles.

This thread exists because there are countries that are unreachable on miles even if you want to drive a few hours or take a train without using miles. They're not so much countries without airports as countries with airports only served by small local airlines which do not participate in any mileage program. It's not a thread about "countries without commercial airports within their borders", that would be a different thread.

So now you're into what's a good use of miles and what isn't. Which kind of shows the whole flaw in your approach: subjectivity and imprecision. "Countries unreachable on miles" is an objective measure because a country is either reachable on miles or it's not. It's a yes or no based on facts.

Your approach is to say:

So you need to provide a much more precise definition of what is a "practical way", of what is "reasonable ground transportation" (and what is wrong with non-ground transportation, e.g. a ferry service?), and exactly how many hours becomes too many to be regarded as "reasonable". And presumably you will need a different number of hours for cars, buses, trains, boats, bicycles, motorbikes, rollerblades, skateboards, prams / pushchairs, wheelchairs, segways and pogo sticks because some travel much faster (and further) than others. It's also going to take longer to drive over mountain passes in Bhutan than to drive on motorways in Germany.

In short, one has no idea from your approach what is likely to count and what's not. I'm not "implying" that you can't visit the Vatican City with miles in the same way that you can visit Italy beyond the airport with miles. I'm claiming it. For the very simple reason that the airport is in Italy, not the Vatican City. Without precision the discussion just becomes one long back and forward between people with disagreeing views on what is "reasonable", "a practical way", "a few hours", "a long distance", "a major country" etc etc etc.

You came to this thread without reading it (by your own admission, you didn't know whether Vatican City had mentioned or not), and now you're ready to tell everyone what should and shouldn't be in this thread? :confused:

Post 1 by the OP already mentioned "microcountries" as a category, and with examples. There was no need for you to add one more silly example (that had already been mentioned before). The only purpose that serves is to start a discussion of what "reachable by miles" really means.

And "microcountries" was basically a footnote. If you read post 1, which is the post where the title of thread originated, you can see that the main focus of this thread was that there are plenty of countries with air service but with no way to redeem miles (because the airlines don't belong or partner with miles programs, because of flying restrictions, etc).

And Vatican City was already discussed to death in the first posts after that (on page 1 of this thread). You obviously couldn't be bothered to read that, yet you claim to know what belongs in this thread and doesn't?