For Immediate Release | Official News Wire for the Travel Industry

Where press releases are breaking news

No-show clients at Paris restaurants now must pay cancellation cash penalties

by

Cafes and restaurants in the French capital have opted to follow the lead of hotels and guest-houses, and start charging their customers with cash penalties for late cancellation of reservations or failing to appear in time.

Hundreds of Paris eateries are currently adopting the system that is widely used in the hotel industry, the Times reports. Restaurants oblige clientele to leave details of their credit cards while making reservations, with big-name places warning customers over a potential charge in case of a no-show.

The measure is reportedly connected to losses the restaurants have to suffer, when people make several reservations for the same day and then cancel at least one of them without warning.

“Even in great restaurants customers cancel without having the slightest idea of the economic impact of their action,” the managing director of Les Grandes Tables du Monde, an association of top restaurants Nicolas Chatenier told the media.

Restaurants reportedly have to follow the trend due to French gastronomical habits, in particular fondness for lengthy meals. French cafes cannot allow two bookings for the same table, like restaurants in Britain and the US, as they cannot be sure that the first group will leave before the second one appears.

The financial losses due to no-shows are really significant, accounting for up to 30 percent of the restaurants entire revenue, according to Xavier Zeitoun, founder of a restaurant booking site Zenchef, as cited by the media. The businessman noted that 245 restaurants have adopted the new system so far.

Chatenier said that annual losses of an average Michelin-starred restaurant may total up to €150,000, stressing that one canceled table may wipe out the profits it could make in the evening.

To tackle the problem the Tour d’Argent restaurant has reportedly imposed a cancellation fee of €100 per head at lunchtime and €200 for the dinner service, while the 58 Tour Eiffel restaurant obliges clients who book a table and cancel less than ten days before the meal, to pay €86 per head.

Travel News | eTurboNews

‘Stable genius’ Trump to Boeing: Add ‘some great features’ & rebrand 737 MAX

by

President Trump offered some unsolicited advice to aviation giant Boeing on how to tackle the problems with its Boeing 737 MAX model after worldwide grounding. The presidential wisdom fit into a single tweet.

The self-declared “very stable genius” bragged on Monday that his knowledge of branding helped him become president, and revealed what he would do if he “were Boeing.”

“I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name,” Trump said. “No product has suffered like this one. But again, what the hell do I know?”

Boeing is struggling to turn the tide for the popular model which was universally grounded after two crashes left a total 346 people dead and were apparently caused by the same faulty anti-stall system. The producer is accused of cutting corners to fast-track the passenger jet to the market and failing to properly train pilots on how to deal with malfunctions.

Trump complained last month about the level of automation on modern aircraft, saying the planes require “scientists from MIT” to pilot.

Travel News | eTurboNews

Destinations need new resources to tackle the “invisible burden” of tourism

by

A report published today by the Travel Foundation, Cornell University’s Centre for Sustainable Global Enterprise and EplerWood International describes how destinations must uncover and account for tourism’s hidden costs, referred to as the “invisible burden,” to protect and manage vital destination assets worldwide. Failing to do so puts ecosystems, cultural wonders, and community life at increasing risk, and places the tourism industry on a weak foundation that could crack under its own weight.

The range of costs not currently accounted for include those needed to:

  • upgrade infrastructure beyond resident needs, to meet tourism demand;
  • manage and protect public spaces, monuments, the environment and natural habitats;
  • mitigate exposure to climate change risks; and
  • address the needs of locals affected by rising real estate prices, driven by the demand from tourism.

Either residents are left to pay these costs, or they are simply not paid, increasingly leading to environmental crises, spoiled tourism assets, and growing dissatisfaction among local residents. Destination authorities urgently need access to new resources, systems and expertise to ensure that, as tourism grows, the true costs of every new visitor are fully covered.

Amid increasing concern about “overtourism” and calls from within the travel industry for improved destination management, the report, Destinations at Risk: The Invisible Burden of Tourism, was commissioned by the Travel Foundation to better understand the challenges and constraints that national and municipal authorities face. It provides a thorough review of the risks that destinations face and the solutions urgently needed, including:

  • New local accounting systems that capture the full range of costs stemming from the growth of tourism, in place of an incomplete set of economic impact measures.
  • New skills and cross sector collaboration, underpinned by data and technology, to achieve effective spatial planning, manage demand for public utilities and services, and evaluate the availability of vital, local resources.
  • New valuation and financing mechanisms to redress debilitating underinvestment in infrastructure and local asset management and enable the transition to low-carbon destination economies.

Principal report author, Megan Epler Wood, said: “The Earth’s greatest treasures are cracking under the weight of the soaring tourism economy.  New data-driven systems to identify the cost of managing tourism’s most valued assets are required to stem a growing crisis in global tourism management.  With the right leadership, finance and analysis in place, a whole new generation of tourism professionals can move forward and erase the invisible burden while benefiting millions around the globe.”

Salli Felton, CEO of the Travel Foundation, said: “The invisible burden goes a long way to explain why we are now witnessing destinations failing to cope with tourism growth, despite the economic benefits it brings. It’s not enough to call on governments and municipalities to manage tourism better, if they don’t have access to the right skills and resources to do so. Destination managers need support to develop new skills and new ways of working that will enable them to move beyond tourism marketing.”

Dr Mark Milstein, co-author of the report, said: “This is a challenge of investing for the long-term health of a critical global economic sector. Future success will require collaboration among business, government, and civil society so that destinations are managed as the valuable, yet vulnerable, assets that they are.”

The authors conclude that some destinations are more vulnerable to the invisible burden and should be prioritised. For instance:

  1. Where there is a high risk of climate change impacts (which would disproportionately affect a visitor economy) – for instance, island states.
  2. Where the rise of the global middle class is driving tourism growth at unsustainable levels – for instance, in Southern and Southeast Asia.
  3. Where there is a high percentage of economic dependence on tourism – for instance, in the Caribbean.
  4. Where the ability of local government to manage tourism growth is low, in terms of budgets and human capital – a problem that has been found in both advanced and emerging economies.

The analysis draws upon academic literature, case studies, expert interviews and media reports, and provides a wealth of examples of the invisible burden.  Cases are drawn from Thailand, Mexico, and the Maldives, as well as Europe, Africa, and Latin America. The report also gives insights into types of data-driven systems, such as GIS mapping tools and the Smart Cities concept, which can address growth issues and facilitate new forms of investment.

The free report is available at invisibleburden.org.

Travel News | eTurboNews

FlyersRights asking DOT to regulate airline change fees

by

When Congress deregulated airline prices, routes, and schedules in 1978, Congress preserved the DOT’s responsibility to ensure that international prices and fees remained “reasonable.” This little-known provision of U.S. law means that the FAA should strike down any change fees that are unreasonable and have no relation to cost. See 49 U.S.C. § 41501, DOT-OST-2015-0031 at regulations.gov.

FlyersRights.org has filed a notice of appeal against the US Department of Transportation (DOT) in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals over its refusal to regulate international change fees – Flyers Rights Education Fund v. U.S. Department of Transportation (CADC).

Passengers are helpless when it comes these exorbitant change fees that can range up to $500 or more. Domestic consolidation and international alliances in the airline industry have combined to give passengers fewer options when travelling. As airline profits soar, the airlines continue to increase change fees by hundreds of dollars while publicly declaring that these fees are a major profit generator.

In 2015, FlyersRights.org filed a rulemaking petition demanding that the DOT enforce the Reasonableness Law for change fees on international flights. On February 1, 2019, the DOT denied this petition. In refusing to regulate despite the Reasonableness Law, the DOT said it relied on “market forces” to handle all air travel pricing and policy. See DOT-OST-2015-0031-0035. FlyersRights.org is represented in the court appeal by Joseph Sandler, Esq. of Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock P.C. of Washington, D.C.

Paul Hudson, President of FlyersRights.org, reflected on the past few years, “The DOT has demonstrated a tremendous ability to allow the airlines and airplane manufacturers to dictate enforcement policies. The DOT has ignored the law by failing to guarantee that international change fees are reasonable and related to cost. At a time when flights are routinely filled to capacity, airlines extort passengers into paying hundreds of dollars to change flights so that the airline can go back and sell the same ticket, usually at a higher price. The airlines reach into passengers’ checkbooks because the DOT refuses to follow the law.”

FlyersRights.org most recently took the FAA to federal court over the denial of its 2015 seat size rulemaking petition. The seat litigation has increased scrutiny on the FAA’s relationship with Boeing and other airplane manufacturers, has led to Congressional mandates to establish seat size standards and to review certification procedures, and has prompted a DOT Inspector General Investigation into the FAA’s oversight of emergency evacuation testing and certification.

Paul Hudson, member of the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee since 1993, noted “The DOT and FAA keep proving, time and time again, that they will allow Boeing and the airlines to dictate policy both in the safety and consumer protection realms. From ignoring concerns over the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and 787 Dreamliner, to rubber stamping manufacturers’ emergency evacuation testing, to decreasing enforcement of consumer protections to historical lows, the DOT has surrendered its duty to ensure safe air travel and reasonable protections for passengers.”

Travel News | eTurboNews

Trump appoints former Delta Air Lines executive new FAA chief

by

Former chief of flight operations for Delta Air Lines was appointed by President Trump to run the Federal Aviation Administration, currently under scrutiny for allowing the troubled Boeing 737 MAX 8 to carry passengers.

Steve Dickson, who spent 27 years with Delta before retiring in October as senior vice president of flight ops, is joining the agency in the midst of its most turbulent period in recent history, with Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao having requested an audit of its certification of the aircraft, two of which have been involved in horrific crashes over the past five months.

While Dickson’s name had reportedly been under consideration since November, Trump allowed the FAA to go without an official head for over a year following the end of Obama-era agency chief Michael Huerta’s term. Daniel Elwell, who led the FAA under George W. Bush, has been running the agency in an interim capacity without being confirmed by the Senate.

The man from Delta will be the first FAA head in three decades to have come directly to the job from a senior airline position – something of a pattern for Trump, who has recruited a number of cabinet members from the ranks of corporate America to staff the agencies tasked with regulating their former employers. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who previously worked for Boeing, is just one such appointment.

The FAA is under fire for allowing Boeing to conduct crucial parts of its own safety testing and certification process. A group of current and former engineers from both the regulator and the aircraft manufacturer claims the FAA merely took Boeing’s word that their new plane was safe – an oversight that other countries then allegedly magnified by conducting only minimal testing of their own, assuming the US watchdog wouldn’t have certified an unsafe aircraft. Boeing is also accused of “cutting corners” to quickly certify the plane in order to compete with the new Airbus A320 Neo – between them, Airbus and Boeing comprise the lion’s share of all passenger airliners – and of failing to properly train pilots to work with the onboard systems.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed earlier this month shortly after taking off from Addis Ababa en route to Nairobi, killing all 157 people on board after diving unexpectedly into a field. It was the second Boeing 737 Max 8 to meet such a fate in under six months, and investigators have pointed to “clear similarities” between this crash and the Lion Air Flight 610 disaster in October, which killed 189 people.

Travel News | eTurboNews

Sexually assaulted by hotel staff? TripAdvisor tells woman leave a review

by

TripAdvisor is the largest travel site in the world, with 456 million people visiting the site every month to search for accommodation and other hospitality sites ranked according user reviews.

Two women alleged they were raped by staff employed by businesses currently promoted on TripAdvisor and said the company is failing its “duty to public safety” in the way it handles such complaints. They said they fear others are at risk without information about prior alleged incidents being made visible on the business page. These hotels are continuing to be promoted on TripAdvisor.

One woman said she was raped by a tour guide whose business was being promoted on the TripAdvisor. After contacting the hotel where he worked and reporting him to the police, she wanted to warn other tourists.

TripAdvisor’s response was to tell her to leave a first person review detailing her sexual assault on the website.

“I was in disbelief. Am I seriously being asked to recall the humiliating details of my own sexual assault? Was this global company pushing me to relive my trauma on their forum for everyone to see and comment, or worse of all for the perpetrator who is still out there, to respond to me, troll me?,” she said. “It left me feeling shattered, hopeless and alone.”

TripAdvisor told her that they do not remove a business from their site if a staff member was accused of sexual assault or rape, even temporarily to conduct an internal review. The company then shared 5 links with her of reviews detailing sexual assault and rape, allegedly committed by staff at different hotels, as examples of how she might write her own review.

In one review that TripAdvisor shared with her in an email dated November 2018, an 18-year-old woman said she had her drink spiked and was raped at a resort in Jamaica. She claimed the hotel hired lawyers to mount a case against her, even after undergoing a rape test at a local hospital.

The resort currently has a 4.5-star rating out of 5. There is no flag on the hotel’s TripAdvisor page to suggest any such attack has ever occurred. The only way to know would be to scroll through and read more than 5,000 reviews.

TripAdvisor ranks hotels based on the star rating given by users, but individual reviews are presented chronologically on listing page for the hotel. A review which detailed allegations of sexual assault could easily be overtaken by more recent reviews and be harder to find.

There are 40 examples of reviews describing sexual assault, rape, and groping committed by staff members of highly-rated hotels and other travel businesses on TripAdvisor. In only 14 of those cases, the hotel or travel business – such as tour guides – had replied to the review, with just one review indicating whether disciplinary action had been taken against the staff member in question.

TripAdvisor left this woman’s review as pending, because she did not write it as a first person account and it remains unpublished. She told the company she did not want to publish “first hand experiences” in fear of being contacted and identified by people whose attention she did not want to attract, including the alleged perpetrator. TripAdvisor suggested she created a burner account under an anonymous name to leave the review.

TripAdvisor has previously attempted to grapple with complaints of sexual assault. In November 2017, it said it would add a warning tags to hotels where “health, discrimination, and safety” issues have been reported – but would not explicitly say what the business has been flagged for. The decision came after the company deleted a review detailing a rape case in a hotel in Mexico because the language used breached its guidelines.

The amount of time a badge remains on a business listing is determined on a case-by-case basis, but the company uses a period of 3 months as a guideline for re-evaluation. TripAdvisor said there are currently 4 flags up on business listing pages. None of the flagged hotels or travel businesses have any warning on the business page of prior allegations made about staff.

Complainants believe a red flag on a business for 3 months to evaluate the ongoing safety of the listing is not enough, especially when little to no action is taken against the alleged attackers still employed at hotels and businesses.

Another woman, Christine, 44, from Toronto, Canada, alleged she was raped in a hotel in the Caribbean while on holiday with her family. She said the process of leaving the complaint of sexual assault as a review was futile as reviews were routinely “buried” by other reviews, making it difficult for users to find.

She added that the reviews detailing sexual assault attacks should not be lumped alongside other 1-star reviews complaining about “bed sheets.”

“They definitely should have a different kind of review system, for these types of incidences so they’re not buried in with everyone’s reviews about you know, the quality of the towels or the sheets. Especially if it’s a safety issue, particularly for women.”

Christine decided to go public with her story because, she says, “TripAdvisor has a major platform and really they have a duty for public safety, because it is a big problem. I’m not overstating it when I say it’s widespread.

“Many women contacted me and said this has happened to them, too, by a different staff member at another hotel. And we need to be aware of it.”

TripAdvisor said while the company was unsure if the reviews complaining of rape would have an impact on a business, it believed reviews were “very helpful” to travelers to inform them about where to stay or visit.

TripAdvisor added it had a team of hundreds of people working on content moderation focused on “maintaining the integrity” of the site, and that thousands of reviews on the website described health and safety issues, including sexual assault and other crimes.

The company said it took into account a number of issues before giving a business a flag, including whether a staff member of a business listed was implicated in the review complaint. The company adds a flag to listings where there are media reports of the issue or when a first-hand review is not “readily accessible.”

It said its notifications are not confirmation of the events but were there to “encourage consumers to do additional research outside of TripAdvisor” of the safety of the businesses. However, the company claimed most businesses that had received a flag had taken steps to address the issue that caused the media coverage.

In a statement to the Guardian, TripAdvisor said: “It is terrible that some travelers endure serious issues such as assault or rape, and we hope our platform can be used by them to help warn and protect others. It is important that reviewers follow our publishing guidelines to ensure the accuracy of our reviews, and when these reviews are not readily available and news reports exist that detail recent and pervasive health and safety matters, TripAdvisor’s notification process helps alert travelers about potential issues at a location.”

Travel News | eTurboNews