Fasten Your Seatbelts: Your Reward Miles Are In For A Bumpy Ride

I predict that airline reward "miles" will soon disappear, judging from a recent move by Delta.  In a stunning display of "it's a feature not a flaw," the company announced that starting in 2015 it will determine the number of reward "miles" on the basis of the ticket price, not the miles flown, and tried to tout this as an improvement for customers. As one Delta executive said in an interview with CBS news, the change was necessary because people paying top dollar for Business and First Class were having difficulty because so many seats were already taken by award travelers who had upgraded using their miles.  Imagine the gall of those riff-raft -- actually cashing in their award miles!  (Obviously my snide addition).  By changing to a revenue-based reward system, the company wished to recognize those travelers who contribute most to the bottom line.

Most industry analysts have determined that the new change effectively cuts the miles awarded for most travelers by 20-50%.  Despite what Delta says, this includes those who purchase more expensive tickets in Business Class because Delta is also dropping the bonus for this higher class of service. For instance, in a careful analysis by The Points Guy, the current award for an economy Delta ticket from Seattle to Boston is 4,992 miles versus 2,240 under the new system. For Business Class it is currently 7,448 miles (including the bonus) but will be 7,050 miles next year. The only time Business and First Class will actually benefit from the new system will be on very long haul flights, such as New York to London. Economy travelers, though will see dramatic cuts on these routes.

And there is still another shoe to drop -- Delta has held off announcing what the new requirements will be for obtaining award travel (i.e., cashing in your miles), which will likely be raised (again).  In other words, fewer miles awarded and more miles required to actually benefit from being in the Delta loyalty program. Hmmm.

Airlines have been moving in this direction for some time by issuing reward credit cards that allow people to earn miles for purchases that have nothing to do with travel.  The more you spend, the more miles you accrue, whether it is on buying milk or magazines.  Delta has now completely disconnected actual travel and reward miles -- the only thing that drives the reward process is money spent.  The more expensive the ticket the more you earn.  Period.  At this point it will be more accurate and honest to drop the "miles" and use a term like "points" or "units."  This seems to also be more in the spirit of what drives our economy -- spending, not saving.  Perhaps we should just give Delta credit for being honest:  you get what you pay for -- nothing is really free -- and the more you have the more you get.

In fact, I have to admit that if airlines had begun their rewards programs with this kind of structure I think I could have easily accepted it.  I use other programs that are based on this idea -- cash back credit cards, for example, and they seem perfectly reasonable to me.  I think what irks me here, though is the change from one kind of philosophy to another, and the motivation behind it.  It feels like a "bait-and-switch" -- I joined reward programs because I saw the value of the reward structure, but now the structure has been altered in a way that doesn't recognize my past loyalty and seems not to care much for my future loyalty, either. But then, I've never paid for a Business Class or First Class ticket and never will, and Delta is making it very clear that unless I do they aren't interested in rewarding me for using their airline.

The other irksome thing to me is that this kind of change comes when Delta is earning great profits and is hardly cutting corners in some areas.  For example, based on a $1 billion profit for 2012, Delta boosted CEO Richard Anderson's total compensation by 42%, to $12.6 million (about $ 3 million in cash, the rest in stock options and deferred retirement compensation).

I suspect he'll get a big bonus this year, too.  Perhaps we should give it to him in Reward Miles.
____________________________________
Some Relevant Resources and Related Blogs:
Delta to Frequent Flyers: Distance Mileage Is Over, Show Us the Money - Businessweek
Taking a Deeper Look at Delta’s New Mileage Earning Structure for 2015 and Beyond | The Points Guy

Delta Air Lines boosts CEO's pay package by 42%|USA Today| 

Top 10 Reasons Why I Dumped Delta | The Points Guy
Business Math + Banker's Math III:  Flying High (Snow Crash)
Flying the (Un)Friendly Skies (Snow Crash)

Bombs Away! America's Lethal Legacy in Laos

A huge 2,000 year-old stone jar was standing miraculously unbroken on the edge of a crater about 30 feet in diameter and 15-20 feet deep created by a bomb dropped by the U.S. on Laos during the Vietnam War. The jar is one of thousands clustered in several sites around the Plain of Jars in Laos, a place of archeological mystery, agricultural richness, and great strategic importance during the Vietnam War.  The jars were probably funerary urns but no one knows for sure because the people who made them left almost no other trace. 

Also unknown is how many jars were destroyed by the heavy American bombing campaign in this area, but fortunately enough survived to make a visit here very rewarding.

My wife and I had the good fortune to spend about three weeks traveling throughout Laos recently.  It is a beautiful country of only about 7 million people, many of whom live in mountainous rural farming areas. The country is rich in natural resources but sorely lacking in infrastructure, and it is clearly the least developed of its neighbors, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

It is also the most heavily bombed country in history.

Bombing Sites in Laos.  Peter Larson

From 1964 through 1973 the U.S. dropped approximately 2.5 million tons of ordnance on Laos, about 1,700 pounds for each man, woman, and child. Although the primary military target was the area in eastern Laos where supplies from North Vietnam traveled south along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, nearly all parts of the country were bombed during more than 580,000 bombing missions carried out by the U.S.  According to analyses by epidemiologist Peter Larson the tonnage dropped in some regions reached 5 tons per person.

The full scale of the U.S. bombing operations was kept secret from the American people for many years, but is now well documented by recently declassified military records, U.N reports, Congressional Hearings, and evidence provided by NGO organizations working in Laos to remove unexploded bombs, such as the well-regarded international Mines Advisory Group (MAG) and the U.S. Legacies of War educational and advocacy organization.

Over 280 million bombs were dropped on Laos by the U.S. Many of these were anti-personnel and anti-tank weapons called cluster bombs which open before reaching the ground and release dozens of smaller grapefruit-sized devices informally called "bombies" by the Laotians. Unfortunately an estimated 30 percent of the bombies, or about 80 million, failed to explode upon initial impact and now pose a serious risk to those who disturb them. During the war years the bombing campaign and other military actions killed around 30,000 Laotians.  Since then another 20,000 have been killed or injured from encounters with UXO, or unexploded ordnance.  In the last decade 40% of the casualties have been children.  According to the Mines Advisory Group, approximately 25 per cent of the country's villages are contaminated with UXO, and contamination is found in all 17 of the country's provinces. Finding and removing 80 million unexploded bombs would be a challenge even for the richest and most technically sophisticated country.  Laos is certainly neither rich nor technically sophisticated and UXO continues to be a significant deterrent to its development and a serious threat to the safety and well-being of its citizens.


Many of the casualties from UXO occur when farmers attempt to cultivate land that has not been thoroughly cleared.  Despite the risk, economic desperation makes large numbers of poor rural farmers ignore the dangers. Another even more widespread problem is that villagers can earn a lot of money from UXO scrap metal, leading them to collect UXO even though it has not been properly defused.  Not all the scrap metal is sold, however. As we traveled through Laotian farming areas we saw the bomb casings that once held the bombies being used for barn supports, water troughs, flower pots, and even supports for t.v. antennae. Seeing remnants of U.S. weapons used in these ways was a poignant moment for us as Americans.

During Congressional hearings on the UXO problem held in 2010, Deputy Assistant Secretary Scot Marciel of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs offered a positive-sounding account of the U.S. role in helping Laos cope with the UXO problem:

"To address the explosive remnants of war problem in Laos, the Department of State supports a variety of humanitarian demining and unexploded ordnance clearance projects, with funding from the Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related programs (NADR) appropriation account. One of the top goals of the program is to clear all high priority areas (specifically agricultural land, health and education facilities); another is to develop indigenous mine and UXO abatement capacity. These projects are selected and managed by the Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement in the Bureau of Political Military Affairs, in close coordination with the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs and our Embassy in Vientiane. Although the bulk of U.S. NADR funds for Laos goes to UXO Lao — the Government of Laos’ quasi-independent government agency charged with conducting clearance operations — we also fund NGOs that conduct independent clearance operations and run school-based campaigns to educate children about the dangers of tampering with UXO. Our funding supports work performed by Lao national entities (primarily UXO Lao) as well as by international NGOs such as the Mine Advisory Group, Norwegian People’s AID, the Swiss Demining Foundation, and the World Education Consortium. We view our programs in Laos as very successful overall, and one in which the national authorities have established a credible and effective UXO action system."

 And the monetary support for these programs?  Read carefully:

"The U.S. is the single largest donor to the UXO sector in Laos. Other major donors include Japan, the European Commission, Ireland, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany, and Australia. From 1993 through 2009, U.S. assistance has totaled more than $25 million...In FY 2009, our total assistance for Laos UXO projects was $3.7 million. In FY 2010 we will provide $5 million on UXO funding for Laos."

Whoa! In this day of a billion here and a billion there, the U.S has provided a total of just $25 million over a 16-year period .  And though we provided the most of any other donor, this still suggests that the overall international support for mitigating the Laos UXO problem is rather small given the scope of what needs to be done.

I will avoid getting into the geopolitics of the Vietnam War and whether it was justified.  I'll also dodge the question of whether hiding the scale of military operations in Laos from the American public was justified or not.  But I suggest that no matter which side of those arguments you are on, surely we can agree that America has left a dangerous legacy in Laos that is still killing and injuring innocent people 40 years later.  If we really are the compassionate and well-meaning country we believe ourselves to be, then maybe we can do more to contribute something positive to the lives of the Laotian people. As we traveled through Laos were were treated warmly even when people discovered we were Americans. The most negative reaction was usually one of puzzlement over why the U.S. had done what it did and why it doesn't seem to recognize the extent of its legacy today.  Why, indeed?
__________________________________
Some Additional Source Material:
Scot Marciel's Congressional Testimony, 2010.
2010 Congressional Hearings on UXO in Laos
Entire Congressional Record Account of Congressional Hearings on Laos, including written follow-up material requested by Committee members.
Analyses of U.S. Bombing Missions by Peter Larson
Mines Advisory Group in Laos Website
Legacies of War Website
"Forty years on, Laos reaps bitter harvest of the secret war."  2008 article in The Guardian summarizing UXO problem
"Laos' Unexploded Bombs: Deadly Scrap Metal, Toys." Transcript of 2010 NPR segment on UXO scrap metal dangers.

Geezer Olympics: Competitive Complaining

[Note: Yes, this is yet another blog in my Geezerhood series. I usually advise younger readers to go amuse themselves in some other way, but in this case they might find the topic pertinent.]

My blog on "Geezerhood Can Suck" got a lot of responses, including one from a long-time friend who expressed sympathy but then said he was refraining from commenting further in order to avoid "competitive complaining."  Thanks, D.P. for stimulating this little essay.

Well, my warped sense of humor was immediately tickled by the phrase "competitive complaining."  I then did what any red-blooded fading intellectual would do.  I Googled it.

Yup, there at the top of the results were links to two pages with that exact phrase.  Both of them were blogs by university students -- one at Tufts and the other at Carnegie Mellon.  The one by the Tufts blogger illustrated the phenomenon particularly well with a made-up conversation between several students approaching exam week (Student D obviously wins):

Student A: “This weekend is going to be absolute hell. I have an econ problem set and two papers to write.”
Student B: "Ugh, I know. I have three research papers and it’s gonna take hours to finish all the programming I have to do.”
Student C: “Whatever, at least your thesis isn’t due in like, three days.”
Student D: ”Oh yeah? Well four of my professors decided to schedule their finals five days in advance. Plus I have eight theses underway, I have to translate three Chinese novels into Swahili, and I’m performing in the Mongolian Culture Show for peace in the Middle East...."

This is clearly a negative version of conversational one-upsmanship where each participant tries to outdo the others in a strategy of "bet-you-can't-top-this!"  It's also an illustration of the social psychological phenomenon of Impression Management in which we attempt to control the attributions others make of us.  Note that in the example above, the students have prepared others (and maybe themselves) to attribute their potentially poor academic performance to external circumstances rather than to low ability, bad time management, or perhaps to a lack of willpower when it comes to beer and partying. Of course this only works if the obstacles listed are plausible and not under control of the student giving them.  Student D's litany of difficulties walks a fine line between the two but does so magnificently.  Note that D has covered his/her bases very well -- a bad performance can be explained away as not the student's fault, and a good performance will suggest superior capabilities because it was achieved in the face of tremendous challenges.

As I read these two blogs by the university students I began to realize that competitive complaining is hardly the sole provenance of young people --  it also characterizes a lot of the conversations I have with other Geezers.  In fact, I'd say Geezers can complain rings around these young whippersnappers and would easily win in any competitive complaining contest. The young'ns are mere novices in this sport and getting to our Olympic level of performance will require lots more training -- years' worth, I'd say.  We Geezers have also perfected a number of specialized forms of competitive complaining, like "Prescription-Pill-Problem Parrying," "Frugality Fencing," "Travel-Woe Takedown," and the ever-popular "Politician Pummeling."

There are at least three reasons for our superior complaining ability.  First we have been doing it for a long, long time. And as they say, "practice makes perfect."  Second, we have way more serious things to complain about, like diseases, surgeries, and how inconsiderate our adult children are.

Third, we have personal historical perspectives on a very broad range of topics that give us a rich repertoire of complaints.  For example, a twenty-something complaining to a Geezer about the current state of the economy or the level of violent conflict in the world today will be buried by the Geezer's recollection of past personal experiences of depressions, recessions, and wars -- no contest at all.  And of course the coup de gras is the Geezer's comparison of each contestant's future time-line, a technique guaranteed to elicit sympathy and a concession of defeat:  "Ah, well you're young and have plenty of time to see things turn around and get your life in order.  Me?  Well..., you know how it is.  I doubt I'll live long enough to see things get much better...."  Top that, whippersnapper!

I've also been in conversations where competitive complaining has made attributions for a Geezer's positive performance even more positive, though these are less common.  Imagine the following exchange among Geezers at the gym:

A:  "Hey Guys, how's it going?  Haven't seen you for a long time. I pulled a leg muscle and haven't been working out much lately."
Geezer B:  "Oh, well I've been forcing myself to come even though I'm recuperating from my knee replacements.  Gotta do all that painful physical therapy, you know?"
Geezer C:  "Oh, boy do I.  I had both knees done, three toes amputated, a pin put in my ankle, and a hip replaced last summer.  Really slowed me down in the Fall when the wife and I scaled Kilimanjaro, hiked the Inca Trail, and trekked to Everest base camp." 

Geezers A and B have not only lost the competitive complaining contest, they are probably thinking Geezer C is some kind of Superman, which of course is C's ego-boosting payoff.  (Indeed, if he really did those things, I'd say he is.)

Don't get me wrong.  I acknowledge that Geezers have legitimate complaints about a range of difficulties that face them, particularly those involving health and finances.  But I think that competitive complaining in a group conversation may be serving functions for Geezers that are similar to those for the young university students approaching exam week described above.  By focusing on obstacles and issues that are not under our control, we Geezers prepare others to attribute our limitations and degraded performance to those factors, rather than to our lack of effort, unhealthy diet or slovenly habits.  For Geezers, competitive complaining establishes a public basis for pardoning our failure to take responsibility for doing what we can, despite the challenges of aging. Although this may be effective in managing the impression others have of us, it can be also be very dysfunctional to the extent we come to believe our own excuses -- see my blog on The Power of Negative Thinking. The irony of competitive complaining is that it may be self-fulfilling -- we may unwittingly worsen the problems about which we are complaining.

And of course the irony of this blog is that I'm complaining about competitive complaining.  Hmmm.  I may have just invented a new form of the game: "Meta-Competitive Complaining," or competitive complaining about competitive complaining.  Top that!!
___________________________________________________
The Geezerhood Series so far:

Geezerhood Can Suck
Embracing Your Inner Geezer
How to Compress Your Morbidity
The Power of Negative Thinking
Thoughts for a New Year
So, What Do You Do All Day?
Jogging the Memory of a Geezer
Decision Making In Geezerhood
Don't Go To Your 50th High School Reunion!
Taste Buds Are Wasted On The Young!

A "Pele" Merry Christmas

Pele (pronounced "Peh - Ley," almost rhymes with "Merry" if you're British) is the Hawaiian goddess of fire, believed to be currently residing in Kilauea Volcano, about 95 miles from where I live.  I'm not sure what she thinks about the celebration of Christmas, but I bet she likes New Year's -- all those great fireworks!

The Holiday Season in Hawai'i is ..... well, different.  

First, there's the weather. Certainly there are a few places in the mainland U.S. where it is warm at this time of year, and some even have palm trees, like Florida and southern California. But in Hawai'i  the warmth is most often accompanied by "makani olu'olu"  -- pleasant, caressing breezes.  Also, few other places have comfortable temperatures day and night.  Even at this time of year we eat dinner outside on our lanai, where we can see the Christmas lights of our neighbors and look back inside to our own Christmas tree glowing brightly.

But more noteworthy is how Christmas has been adapted to express the local culture and traditions.  For instance,  people frequently decorate their open convertibles with bows, candy canes or wreaths on the front grill or hood, and our annual evening Christmas parade along the waterfront features hula dancers and Santa with a floral lei around his neck. Speaking of Santa, he often arrives here in an outrigger canoe or even on a surfboard wearing board-shorts. The Salvation Army bell ringer at our local Walmart has traded the bell for an ukelele, which she strums as she sings Christmas Carols and hymns. Holiday parties are almost always outdoor affairs, featuring "pupus," appetizers that usually are enough to feed an army and can always be a substitute for a full meal.

Some of the season's traditions are followed even though they are a bit out of place here, and for me it adds to the charm of Christmas in Hawai'i.  For instance, our climate makes it very difficult to grow spruce and pine trees.  Even so, many people are keen on using them to decorate their homes and so boatloads of trees are shipped each year in refrigerated containers from tree farms in the Pacific Northwest. The big-box stores are the best places to obtain these, and people watch closely for the containers to arrive because the best trees sell quickly.  And unlike on the mainland, a new shipment may not arrive very soon, if at all.  (Actually, living in a place where nearly everything is brought in involves being quick to take advantage of the availability of things -- if you don't you'll very likely lose out).  The trees actually last pretty well, probably thinking it is a nice warm spring after a short but chilly winter.

Just like people living on the mainland, Hawaiian residents enjoy decorating the outside of their homes, though too many lights can make the season rather expensive -- we have just about the highest electric rates in the nation.  Still, you see many houses with the usual glowing icicles hanging from roofs, and reindeer, snowmen, and traditionally-dressed Santas in people's yards.  Perhaps we appreciate these all the more because we know the expense of lighting them.  Of course, icicles, reindeer and snowmen do not really exist here and it can seem odd to see them side by side with orchids, hibiscus, and bougainvillea.  Oh, actually I'm wrong about snowmen.  Occasionally during this time of year snow does fall on 13,000-foot Mauna Kea and ambitious residents will drive to the summit, fill their pickups with a load then rush down to their homes or to the beach and build a snowman.  Of  course it lasts maybe two hours, max.


New Year's Eve celebrations feature a LOT of fireworks, both the big institutional displays like on the mainland (here provided by the fancy resorts), and also more private shows set off in front of people's houses.  The weather encourages this outdoor activity, of course, but also it is probably an expression of our large Asian culture that embraces fireworks in a big, big way. A week or so before New Year's fireworks are on sale in supermarkets, drug stores, and of course the big box stores like Costco, where they have prepackaged assortments that range from small to humongous.  My wife only lets me indulge in one of the smaller assortments.  Fireworks have become much more tightly regulated in the last 10 years or so in an attempt to cut down on fires and injuries, but New Year's celebrations here still more closely resemble July 4th on the mainland.

One final noteworthy aspect of the Holidays here has to do with the spirit of the season -- the feeling of warmth toward others, generosity, compassion and joy at being with loved ones.  This of course is the spirit emphasized by seasonal music, greeting cards, media specials, etc.  But here it is called the Spirit of Aloha and one of the best parts about living in Hawai'i is that it lasts all year......

Mele Kalikimaka (Merry Christmas) and Hou'oli Makahiki Hou (Happy New Year)!

Geezerhood Can Suck

[Note:  This is another blog in my Geezerhood series.  Younger readers or those still in denial might just bookmark this for future reading and go do something more fun, like doing a SnapChat or Tweeting something. Also, please be advised that the content below might be regarded as "TMI" or "over-sharing"].

I've written several times about my journey through Geezerhood, often putting the emphasis on the positive aspects of getting older (see list of blogs below).  In the spirit of being "Fair and Balanced" (choke) it may be time to talk about some of the more sucky parts of Geezerhood I've encountered recently.

I realize that my recent conditions pale in comparison to those of other people out there and I sincerely apologize for making my difficulties seem so bad.  But my problems are severe enough to make me much more sympathetic for the plight of those who are worse off and to make me admire them for their ability to face their situation and continue their lives with grace and good humor.

Up to this point I've been fairly healthy -- maybe three overnight hospital stays in my entire lifetime, no significant surgeries, ZERO prescription meds on a daily continuing basis.  Not to say there are no issues at all -- family history of glaucoma so I've been monitoring my status often, pre-hypertensive (I take my pressure at home regularly), medium high cholesterol buffered by very high HDL (the good kind of cholesterol), a few pre-cancerous lesions on my forehead, treated and monitored regularly, and of course a slightly enlarged prostate, common in men of my age but being monitored.  Oh, and an irritating susceptibility to bruising on my arms and hands attributed by my dermatologist to years of unprotected sun exposure.  She also blaims the sun for those "age spots" on my hands -- embarrassing reminders of my passage into Geezerhood, but not life-threatening. All in all, not too bad for a 69-year-old.

Then, about a month ago, I began to disintegrate.

In very short order my blood pressure went up by 10 points, I had a retinal hemorrhage in my right eye, and not long after that I had a dandy case of shingles, an affliction that has led me to reset my "worst pain you've ever experienced" index.  I went from zero prescription meds to three, all of which have potential side effects and interactions, and from visits to doctors maybe once or twice per year to once or twice a week. 

One of the most disturbing things about all this is that the appearance of the problems was so unexpected and unpredicted.  For example, the glaucoma risk had nothing to do with the retinal hemorrhage, though the spike in blood pressure might.  Of course the rise in pressure is a puzzle that so far none of my platoon of medical experts can explain.  Shingles can occur in anyone who has had chickenpox, and though the risk increases with age, it can strike young whipersnappers as well.  By age 80, 50% of the population will get shingles. Having the shot (which I did) only cuts your chances by about 40-50%, though in my case it lulled me into complacency and a false sense of invulnerability. The trigger is uncertain, though some research suggests high stress (which I don't have) or a compromised immune system (which I don't have) may be causes.

Another disturbing aspect is the feeling that I've been sucked into a giant medical-industrial complex that seems designed not to let me go.  I've seen a half-dozen doctors, all of whom make me fill out the same forms over again, then perform the same tests the others have performed shortly before, apparently not trusting their colleagues or not liking the exact way the tests were performed.  They then have prescribed medications that have possible side effects that have a good chance of limiting my fairly active life-style, leading to other kinds of problems. And of course they all want me to come back in the near future to do the same tests over again.

The drug side effects are potentially very problematic and it is troubling to me that my doctors, while aware of the effects, are so focused on treating my symptoms that they don't fully appreciate the impact on my quality of life, i.e. , their impact on me as a person.  Here are a few of the possible side-effects from the drugs they have selected for me:

• Drug A (Eye Drops): Eye discomfort/itching/redness, blurred vision, dizziness, dry mouth, drowsiness, or tiredness (my emphasis).
• Drug B (Blood Pressure):  Dizziness or lightheadedness may occur ...
• Drug C (Shingles pain):  Drowsiness, dizziness, loss of coordination, tiredness, blurred/double vision, unusual eye movements, or shaking (tremor) may occur.

Note, these are possible side effects, not things that invariably occur.  Each drug's highlighted side effects has a fairly small (but known) probability of effecting any one person.  But when all three drugs are being taken at the same time, the probability that at least one of them will produce the side effects is much greater.  And guess what -- I feel tired, dizzy and clumsy. Of course which drug(s) is (are) causing these problems isn't clear because I started taking all three at the same time. Oh, and I checked online and found that these three drugs have the least severe side effects of those available for my conditions.

So the good news is that I'm receiving treatment for my retinal hemorrhage, my Shingles pain, and my blood pressure.  The bad news is that my fairly active lifestyle (hiking, working out in our pool, aerobic exercise of various types), is possibly extinct.  For the potential negative consequences of this, see my blog How to Compress Your Morbidity.

All in all I've been pretty bummed out by the whole thing.  The physical problems are themselves rather hard to deal with, but so is the treatment.  And I feel somehow cheated that my attention to diet, exercise, and precautionary actions wasn't enough to avoid these problems. I was being such a good boy, why did this happen to me?!!  The unsettling answer is, of course, "who the h*** knows?"

After lots of careful analysis, research, and intellectually rigorous consideration of the various probabilities and alternative scenarios I've come to a conclusion. My advice to myself is "GET A GRIP!"

Ok, I've got some problems that pose challenges -- this is part of living. And dying. There will be more challenges ahead, no doubt, and they may occur just as unexpectedly.  Geezerhood will end someday no matter what I do.  But I can control my mental state as it approaches, or if my mind deteriorates to the point where that isn't possible, I can still control it until my sense of self dissolves. I can choose a positive or negative path through Geezerhood.

It's up to me.
_______________________________________
Related Blogs on Geezerhood:

Embracing Your Inner Geezer
How to Compress Your Morbidity
The Power of Negative Thinking
Thoughts for a New Year
So, What Do You Do All Day?
Jogging the Memory of a Geezer
Decision Making In Geezerhood
Don't Go To Your 50th High School Reunion!
Taste Buds Are Wasted On The Young!

Business Math + Banker's Math III: Flying High

Airlines are having a tough time these days.  For example, the recent merger between United and Continental apparently didn't go as smoothly as hoped and the company lost $723 million last year.  Poor Jeff Smisek, United's CEO, suffered from his mistakes in handling the merger -- his total compensation for the year dropped a whopping 41% leaving him with a mere $7.9 million, down from $13 million the year before.  Barely enough to make ends meet, I'm sure. Though Jeff's compensation is still extravagant (IMHO) at least this is one case where it appears to have been influenced by the company's financial performance.  This is rare, however -- industry-wide studies of the connection between CEO income and company profits have repeatedly shown that overall there is very little correlation between the two.

As airlines have struggled to cut costs and increase revenue it has more often been the passengers, not the CEO's who have borne the brunt -- more crowded planes, charges for food, baggage fees, extra fees for booking over the phone, no blankets or pillows or snacks, charges for reserving seats in advance, higher change fees, greatly diminished rewards for miles flown (see my blog, "Flying the (Un)Friendly Skies"), etc., etc.

These are the obvious ways of raising income, but there are a number of costs that are hidden in the price of the ticket itself.  One I came across for the first time recently was a KLM ticket my wife and I purchased online for a European trip. When it came time to pay for the ticket we were stuck with a 15 euro fee (about $20) for paying with a credit card.  The only way to avoid the extra charge was to purchase the ticket via a direct debit transfer from our bank. The 15 euros is a flat fee, the same regardless of the cost of the ticket.  In our specific case it amounted to a rather stiff 5% of the total that goes to KLM, not to the credit card company.  I'm sure U.S. carriers are watching public reaction to this very carefully and would love to do the same thing if they can get away with it.

Extra charges and fees can add up to a substantial portion of the total cost of a ticket.  In the case of our KLM ticket (Amsterdam to Nice, France) these add-ons comprised a stunning 61% of the total!  Don't think this is just true of European carriers, either -- for our ticket on United Airlines from the U.S to Amsterdam the extra charges were less, but still a hefty 44% of the total price. Note, both of these are international tickets but differ in two ways:  KLM is a European carrier and the flight is within Europe. United is a U.S. carrier and the flight is from the U.S. to Europe.

So what are these add-ons, exactly and are they different for the two tickets?  A close look at the ticket cost breakdowns suggests the following categories, along with the %  for each category in the case of the two tickets described above:

• Extra Airline Charges: booking fees, international surcharges, credit card fee (26% KLM, 33% United)
• Airport Fees: airport service charges, airport international airport service charges (16% KLM, 2.3% United)
• Security Fees: "Security Charge" (8.4% KLM), "September 11th Security Fee" (3.4%United)
• Taxes and Government Fees:  "French Aiport Tax, Soilidarity Tax, Netherlands Noise Isolation Charge" (11% KLM),  "U.S Customs User Fee, U.S. Immigration Fee, U.S. APHIS Fee, U.S. Federal Transportation Tax, U.S. Flight Segment Tax" (5% United)

There are a few things I find interesting about the breakdown.  First, most of the extras don't go to the airlines themselves but to other entities.  Second, the KLM add-ons are greater in every category except for the portion going to the airline itself.  Perhaps we shouldn't blame KLM for the credit card fee -- they're just trying to bring their portion of the ticket to the same level as other major carriers based in the U.S.

Third, it is interesting to note that the biggest difference by far is the portion going to the airports (16%% for KLM versus 2.3% for United). I don't know if this is true of other countries and carriers, but at least in this case it seems that some the funds for building and maintaining airports are coming from the users of those facilities.   We have found a general superiority around the world in foreign airports compared to those in the U.S.  -- perhaps this might be a good idea for us to consider as a way to upgrade U.S. facilities.

Fourth, the next biggest difference is that our concern with security in the U.S. isn't reflected in the portion of our tickets that supports security efforts -- KLM adds more than twice as much to a ticket as United does, 8.4% versus 3.4%.  Of course, this might be due to the way security is funded -- in the U.S. it is through general income taxes to fund the TSA's budget ($7.6 billion in 2012), whereas in Europe it may again be supported more by user fees assessed through ticket charges.

Finally, the amount added specifically for government taxes and fees is greater for the progressive European countries of Holland and France than for the U.S., but the absolute levels (11%, 5%) don't seem to me to give much support to the "damn taxes for big guvment!" folks.

Now for some disclaimers.  My analysis is not very general and different results might be obtained using different airlines and different countries.  I invite you to do your own research.  Also, my analysis is limited to international travel in which a sizable portion of the add-ons were those assessed because of this.  Indeed, when I did a quick check using domestic travel the add-ons dropped to 48% for KLM and just 12% for United.

The lesson I got from this analysis is that increases in airfare are not necessarily under the control of the airlines.  To maintain profitability and competitiveness they have turned to those things they can control, like baggage fees, configuration of seating, charging for food, etc. I can't blame them for that, though it has made air travel particularly unpleasant these days.

However I'd feel a whole lot better if airlines would show frugality in another area they can control -- CEO compensation.  Or, if you are still going to pay someone like Jeff Smisek nearly $8 million in a year the company lost $723 million, at least make him fly to Europe in the middle seat of the last row of the plane, with the video of him breathlessly touting all the wonderful changes coming to United looping over and over on the screen.

Why I Hate Liver

I have something in common with the late and great comedian Johnny Carson.  No, it's not his sense of humor, multiple divorces, or his bags of money.  It's our dislike of liver.

I discovered this years ago during one of his monologs on the Tonight Show, which he hosted brilliantly for nearly 30 years.  I forget the exact context of his revelation, but its impact was immediate and liberating.  Liver-haters like me could now come out of the closet!

The Beginning

My dislike for liver goes way, way back to when I was a child.  I have a vivid memory (possibly fabricated) of the first time I tasted it.  My parents were big fans of fried liver and onions, but seldom prepared it, perhaps because one or more of my older sisters wasn't too fond of it either.  On this particular night I remember the delicious smell of the liver cooking in the pan (probably the onions were the source of the good smell, but I didn't know that).  The raw liver looked kind of nice, too -- all smooth, shiny and deep red.  So I was prepared to enjoy what I recall as my first experience with liver as a food.

I chewed the first bite a couple of times and then tried to swallow.  You know about the "GAG REFLEX?" Well mine kicked in big time and my body refused to accept the taste and texture of this foreign substance in my mouth as something edible.  Our dog Rowdy was under the table (his usual dinner time position) and he had no such qualms, however.

Testing The Limits

As I grew older I encountered many friends and acquaintances who objected to my blanket rejection of what they regarded as a delicious, nutritious, and downright wonderful culinary treat.  "Oh, well, you just haven't had it prepared the right way!  You should try X, Y, Z...."  For X, Y, and Z just substitute any one of dozens of ways of cooking liver or preparing it -- braised, sauteed, ground into pates, stuffed into sausages, baked in a pixie oven, etc. etc..  Or they said "Oh, but have you tried Type A, Type B, Type C....I bet you'd really like that kind."  For Type A, B, and C just substitute any of the usual -- calve liver, pork liver, chicken liver, turkey liver, goose liver, moose liver, mongoose liver, humming bird liver.

Not wanting to seem closed-minded I tried most of their suggestions, always with the same result:  GAG.  After years of trying to correct my aberrant dislike I finally decided it was hopeless -- I do not now nor will I ever like liver in any way, shape or form.

Living With Liver

You'd think that would be the end of it -- having once committed to a liver-free life I'd just get on with it. But if you travel a lot, as my wife and I have done for many years, it's not that simple.

Traveling exposes you to many things, including the fact that most of the world doesn't speak English.  Menus are particularly problematic when they are in another language. Learning the word for "liver" helps somewhat (and I now know it in at least five languages) but chefs have a sneaky way of disguising its presence in their flowery descriptions of dishes or in idiomatic references like "Uncle Nickolai's Special Sausage."  This problem has lessened somewhat as English has become more widespread as a universal travel-language, but it still is present in many of the more exotic places we like to visit.

The solution has been to have my wife taste suspicious food that might be harboring liver in pure or sneakily adulterated ways.  She isn't a real liver fan either, but her aversion is much milder than mine.  This technique isn't perfect, though because she isn't as sensitive to the taste as I am.  It also makes me vulnerable to her joking around just to see me react when I dig into something she has declared liver safe and in fact is contaminated. Think Lucy holding the football for Charley Brown.

You might be critical of this procedure because it is exploitative of my wife's good nature.  However, we have a trade-off.  I do things that make her gag, like scrubbing toilets and cleaning up cat barf.

A Rational Conclusion (not)

As a psychological scientist I know that food preferences are largely learned and heavily determined by culture.  Texture, taste, and nutritional value do not by themselves drive the acceptance of certain items as food -- these qualities are interpreted within specific cultural frameworks and tempered by individual experiences and expectations. For example, insects are consumed readily by many people around the world, but not in our country.  This is despite the fact that insects are an excellent sustainable source of protein that is easily and safely produced with minimal input and very little environmental degradation.

It would be rational to eat insects.  It would be rational to eat liver.  See what I mean?

Please pass the pate d'cockroach.....
______________________________________________
Related Posts:
Microbes For Breakfast!
Taste Buds Are Wasted On The Young