http://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices#socialvoiceshttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=f77a093b-8c8a-43b1-975a-33b1faf948aeSemi-naked cabin crew stripping for the cameras isn't just seedy, it's out of date and out of touch, says Cathy WinstonTue, 18 Dec 2012 03:30:54 -0800Cathy Winstonb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a05f77a093b-8c8a-43b1-975a-33b1faf948aeBlogArticleA1D846B6978697D4012012-12-18T13:32:12.783Semi-naked cabin crew stripping for the cameras isn't just seedy, it's out of date and out of touch, says Cathy WinstonGiven that it's an airline that has mooted doing away with toilets and making overweight people pay a special tax, I probably shouldn’t be surprised by Ryanair's tacky new calendar featuring female cabin crew in bikinis, underwear and high heels.   I mean, seriously? With 2013 just days away, have we not moved on even slightly from the days when every mechanic’s workshop had pictures of scantily clad women on the wall? Apparently not.   More than a decade has passed since members of the WI stripped with strategically arranged buns to raise money for charity, yet after endless tongue-in-cheek, ironic nude calendars, Ryanair is still stuck in the dark ages churning out its seedy shots of employees in (what I imagine to be) highly flammable bits of nylon.   Yes, a not-to-be-missed opportunity for highly trained staff - responsible for your safety in a worst case scenario - to gyrate in poses even lads’ mags would feel a bit queasy about - as well as getting to flog scratchcards to unwilling passengers.   "If it isn't sexist, why are there no men in the calendar?"   Pirelli might be able to get away with it (just) with some of the world’s most sought-after photographers and glamorous models in its famous calendar, but even Ryanair can’t argue they’re in the same league.   And I can’t help but notice that it’s only the female cabin crew who are pouting and posing with shower hoses – the men seem to have escaped being oiled up and paraded in front of the cameras. And the message that sends is this: we're happy to be sexist as well as living in the past.   Ah, but it’s for charity, someone is bound to say – TVN Foundation, one of Poland’s largest charities. Well, I’m all for raising money for good causes but how about doing it in a way which doesn’t objectify women?   Why not substitute gorgeous shots of some of the airline’s destinations? I mean the destinations people think they’re flying to, not the actual place an hour away where the planes touch down of course.   "If they want to give to charity, why not donate from the profits?"   Would the £10 calendar sell as many? Maybe not – but if CEO Michael O’Leary is committed to helping Ryanair’s chosen charity, perhaps he could top it up from the budget carrier’s profits.   It would certainly make me admire them more – even if it’s probably not what you’d expect from the man who has debated standing ‘seats’ to cram more people on, all to squeeze a few extra pounds out of each passenger.   I sometimes wonder what Mrs O'Leary thinks of all this. Because for once, this isn’t just one of Ryanair’s headline-grabbing stunts, it feels a bit grubby for everyone involved. Rather like how I feel after flying on the airline itself...   Cathy Winston has visited 55 countries (so far) and is already plotting journeys to the other 141. In between ignoring her unpacking, she's written for publications including National Geographic Traveller and the Independent, as well as starting her own blog, www.mummytravels.com​. Follow Cathy Winston on Twitter @cathywinston.   Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writers.Given that it's an airline that has mooted doing away with toilets and making overweight people pay a special tax, I probably shouldn’t be surprised by Ryanair's tacky new calendar featuring female cabin crew in bikinis, underwear and high heels.   I mean, seriously? With 2013 just days away, have we not moved on even slightly from the days when every mechanic’s workshop had pictures of scantily clad women on the wall? Apparently not.   More than a decade has passed since members of the WI stripped with strategically arranged buns to raise money for charity, yet after endless tongue-in-cheek, ironic nude calendars, Ryanair is still stuck in the dark ages churning out its seedy shots of employees in (what I imagine to be) highly flammable bits of nylon.   Yes, a not-to-be-missed opportunity for highly trained staff - responsible for your safety in a worst case scenario - to gyrate in poses even lads’ mags would feel a bit queasy about - as well as getting to flog scratchcards to unwilling passengers.   "If it isn't sexist, why are there no men in the calendar?"   Pirelli might be able to get away with it (just) with some of the world’s most sought-after photographers and glamorous models in its famous calendar, but even Ryanair can’t argue they’re in the same league.   And I can’t help but notice that it’s only the female cabin crew who are pouting and posing with shower hoses – the men seem to have escaped being oiled up and paraded in front of the cameras. And the message that sends is this: we're happy to be sexist as well as living in the past.   Ah, but it’s for charity, someone is bound to say – TVN Foundation, one of Poland’s largest charities. Well, I’m all for raising money for good causes but how about doing it in a way which doesn’t objectify women?   Why not substitute gorgeous shots of some of the airline’s destinations? I mean the destinations people think they’re flying to, not the actual place an hour away where the planes touch down of course.   "If they want to give to charity, why not donate from the profits?"   Would the £10 calendar sell as many? Maybe not – but if CEO Michael O’Leary is committed to helping Ryanair’s chosen charity, perhaps he could top it up from the budget carrier’s profits.   It would certainly make me admire them more – even if it’s probably not what you’d expect from the man who has debated standing ‘seats’ to cram more people on, all to squeeze a few extra pounds out of each passenger.   I sometimes wonder what Mrs O'Leary thinks of all this. Because for once, this isn’t just one of Ryanair’s headline-grabbing stunts, it feels a bit grubby for everyone involved. Rather like how I feel after flying on the airline itself...   Cathy Winston has visited 55 countries (so far) and is already plotting journeys to the other 141. In between ignoring her unpacking, she's written for publications including National Geographic Traveller and the Independent, as well as starting her own blog, www.mummytravels.com​. Follow Cathy Winston on Twitter @cathywinston.   Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writers.BlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=00abcd09-c255-4ad0-a077-1ea54cd81129It's totally unrealistic to expect Olympo-mania to transform a whole city, says Warpdog.Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:50:51 -0800InflightEntertainmentb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a0500abcd09-c255-4ad0-a077-1ea54cd81129BlogArticle8F92E52657B9AF6C012012-12-17T14:55:53.98It's totally unrealistic to expect Olympo-mania to transform a whole city, says Warpdog.We Londoners are experts in ignoring you, we despise tourists and we certainly wouldn't give up our precious seat for you even if you were a pregnant pensioner on crutches. So are you really surprised that London has been voted one of the most unfriendliest cities in the world for 2012? This result is despite London holding two exciting tourist-teasing events this year. The Queen's Diamond Jubilee managed to evoke booze fuelled smiles from locals as thousands danced in their streets, and even more crowd-pleasing was the 2012 Olympics, bringing thousands of tourists from all over the world to good ole London town.   But although people expected the feelgood factor to last, how could it? The tourists have pushed off back to their own homes - probably in much sunnier climes than this - and we went back to work, in the rain.   "Whoever said cities were friendly places anyway?" But how friendly are cities anyway? Let's face it, all cities are overcrowded, overpriced and overhyped. Add to this higher crime rates due to overpopulation and higher poverty and it's no wonder we're all moody. We don't have the monopoly on grumpiness either: Paris is just as unfriendly. During a Valentine's weekend a few years back I was endowed with hateful looks during my romantic break, but I didn't expect anything less.   I got shouted at in New York every day for either being too indecisive in a deli or walking too slow on the subway, and some locals looked like they'd rather beat themselves up with a corndog than help me with directions to Time Square. Why, might you ask, are we unfriendly? Well, it's because we don't like you, because you get in our way and because we're in a hurry.   "We don't mind a bit of grumpiness - we thrive on it, in fact." We don't want to wait another two minutes for a tube. That's why we barge into you. Yes, we'll scowl at you if you push your Oyster card in the ticket slot, and standing on the wrong side of the escalator is quite frankly asking for a hardcore tutting.   But all this worrying about whether London has lost it's Olympic shine seems to be done by people who don't actually live in London. We're perfectly happy with the way things are. So what if our cabs are overpriced, so what if we try and run you over on our Boris Bikes as we jump the lights, and so what if our streets are strewn with chicken takeaway boxes, discarded furniture and vomit.   We love our city and we're proud to be the most unfriendliest. Let's just try and beat Moscow next year!   Warpdog is a copywriter and screenwriter and likes to grump about pretty much everything. Follow her on @warpdogWe Londoners are experts in ignoring you, we despise tourists and we certainly wouldn't give up our precious seat for you even if you were a pregnant pensioner on crutches. So are you really surprised that London has been voted one of the most unfriendliest cities in the world for 2012? This result is despite London holding two exciting tourist-teasing events this year. The Queen's Diamond Jubilee managed to evoke booze fuelled smiles from locals as thousands danced in their streets, and even more crowd-pleasing was the 2012 Olympics, bringing thousands of tourists from all over the world to good ole London town.   But although people expected the feelgood factor to last, how could it? The tourists have pushed off back to their own homes - probably in much sunnier climes than this - and we went back to work, in the rain.   "Whoever said cities were friendly places anyway?" But how friendly are cities anyway? Let's face it, all cities are overcrowded, overpriced and overhyped. Add to this higher crime rates due to overpopulation and higher poverty and it's no wonder we're all moody. We don't have the monopoly on grumpiness either: Paris is just as unfriendly. During a Valentine's weekend a few years back I was endowed with hateful looks during my romantic break, but I didn't expect anything less.   I got shouted at in New York every day for either being too indecisive in a deli or walking too slow on the subway, and some locals looked like they'd rather beat themselves up with a corndog than help me with directions to Time Square. Why, might you ask, are we unfriendly? Well, it's because we don't like you, because you get in our way and because we're in a hurry.   "We don't mind a bit of grumpiness - we thrive on it, in fact." We don't want to wait another two minutes for a tube. That's why we barge into you. Yes, we'll scowl at you if you push your Oyster card in the ticket slot, and standing on the wrong side of the escalator is quite frankly asking for a hardcore tutting.   But all this worrying about whether London has lost it's Olympic shine seems to be done by people who don't actually live in London. We're perfectly happy with the way things are. So what if our cabs are overpriced, so what if we try and run you over on our Boris Bikes as we jump the lights, and so what if our streets are strewn with chicken takeaway boxes, discarded furniture and vomit.   We love our city and we're proud to be the most unfriendliest. Let's just try and beat Moscow next year!   Warpdog is a copywriter and screenwriter and likes to grump about pretty much everything. Follow her on @warpdogBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=48e5575f-df2d-4f72-a318-0bb6b8effdc0You don't buy a Jaguar and paint it to look like a Skoda, says David WhitleyWed, 12 Dec 2012 09:21:43 -0800David Whitleyb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a0548e5575f-df2d-4f72-a318-0bb6b8effdc0BlogArticle0C22B372CA5E9862012012-12-14T10:07:39.83You don't buy a Jaguar and paint it to look like a Skoda, says David WhitleyThe news that American carrier Delta is to take a 49% stake in Virgin Atlantic has led to tears in some quarters. It is feared an airline that gets an unusual amount of love in the generally loathed aviation industry could be about to die. Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airways, seems to think so. His speculation about Virgin Atlantic not existing in its current form in five years’ time has led to a childish war of words with Virgin head honcho Richard Branson.   The overgrown kids are currently offering to knee each other in the groin. Bless. Virgin is regarded fondly by a lot of people, partly because of good PR and marketing, but mainly because it consistently offers a better experience than its competitors. If flying to the States, Virgin would be my first choice, providing the price was right.   "The fear is that if Delta pulls the strings, standards will drop." Delta, on the other hand, is not well thought of as an airline. Fairly or unfairly, a reputation for surly flight attendants that are even older and more decrepit than the planes has stuck. Delta is unlikely to win many plaudits for its in-flight service and entertainment either. The fear is that with Delta pulling the strings, Virgin’s standards will get pulled down to the pit-like level of its new big brother. I suspect this fear is misplaced. Lots of airlines have shares in other airlines, but this is usually about combining strengths on route networks that don’t clash all that much rather than imposing one company’s standards on another.   Delta is buying its 49% shareholding off Singapore Airlines, yet very few passengers would know that Singapore Airlines had anything to do with Virgin.   "What Delta really needs is to attract more Brits to the US." Any argument that Virgin’s high standards are a result of Singapore Airlines’ involvement can be brushed aside when you remember that Singapore Airlines also has a large shareholding in Tiger Airways – an airline with a dreadful reputation.   Delta probably doesn’t care all that much about British passengers going to the States, Caribbean and other Virgin destinations. What it cares about is getting the vast market of American customers to Europe. At the moment it’s at a massive disadvantage because it has hardly any landing slots at Heathrow.   If it can transfer customers from small airports all over the US onto Virgin Atlantic planes in order to get them to London, then Delta is almost certainly going to get more business.   There’s no real advantage to be gained in taking a wrecking ball to what Virgin currently does – it’ll just be a case of tweaking flight times and sending a few more planes to Delta’s US hubs in order to make transfers more seamless.   There’s a strong argument for keeping things they are. The Virgin brand is highly regarded in the US. If a potential Delta customer in Buffalo or Pittsburgh knows he’ll fly the New York to London leg with Virgin, he’s probably more likely to book the whole flight with Delta than a competitor.   Though it is a much smaller airline, the Virgin brand is much stronger than the Delta brand. It’d be senseless to kill it. You don’t buy a Jaguar and paint it to look like a Skoda – and that applies in the airline industry too.   David Whitley is a freelance travel journalist, who can be found blogging at GrumpyTraveller.com and tweeting as @MrDavidWhitley. You should all probably go and buy his new book – Hardly Paradise: Anti-Postcards from a Grumpy Traveller. It will almost certainly make your life complete.The news that American carrier Delta is to take a 49% stake in Virgin Atlantic has led to tears in some quarters. It is feared an airline that gets an unusual amount of love in the generally loathed aviation industry could be about to die. Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airways, seems to think so. His speculation about Virgin Atlantic not existing in its current form in five years’ time has led to a childish war of words with Virgin head honcho Richard Branson.   The overgrown kids are currently offering to knee each other in the groin. Bless. Virgin is regarded fondly by a lot of people, partly because of good PR and marketing, but mainly because it consistently offers a better experience than its competitors. If flying to the States, Virgin would be my first choice, providing the price was right.   "The fear is that if Delta pulls the strings, standards will drop." Delta, on the other hand, is not well thought of as an airline. Fairly or unfairly, a reputation for surly flight attendants that are even older and more decrepit than the planes has stuck. Delta is unlikely to win many plaudits for its in-flight service and entertainment either. The fear is that with Delta pulling the strings, Virgin’s standards will get pulled down to the pit-like level of its new big brother. I suspect this fear is misplaced. Lots of airlines have shares in other airlines, but this is usually about combining strengths on route networks that don’t clash all that much rather than imposing one company’s standards on another.   Delta is buying its 49% shareholding off Singapore Airlines, yet very few passengers would know that Singapore Airlines had anything to do with Virgin.   "What Delta really needs is to attract more Brits to the US." Any argument that Virgin’s high standards are a result of Singapore Airlines’ involvement can be brushed aside when you remember that Singapore Airlines also has a large shareholding in Tiger Airways – an airline with a dreadful reputation.   Delta probably doesn’t care all that much about British passengers going to the States, Caribbean and other Virgin destinations. What it cares about is getting the vast market of American customers to Europe. At the moment it’s at a massive disadvantage because it has hardly any landing slots at Heathrow.   If it can transfer customers from small airports all over the US onto Virgin Atlantic planes in order to get them to London, then Delta is almost certainly going to get more business.   There’s no real advantage to be gained in taking a wrecking ball to what Virgin currently does – it’ll just be a case of tweaking flight times and sending a few more planes to Delta’s US hubs in order to make transfers more seamless.   There’s a strong argument for keeping things they are. The Virgin brand is highly regarded in the US. If a potential Delta customer in Buffalo or Pittsburgh knows he’ll fly the New York to London leg with Virgin, he’s probably more likely to book the whole flight with Delta than a competitor.   Though it is a much smaller airline, the Virgin brand is much stronger than the Delta brand. It’d be senseless to kill it. You don’t buy a Jaguar and paint it to look like a Skoda – and that applies in the airline industry too.   David Whitley is a freelance travel journalist, who can be found blogging at GrumpyTraveller.com and tweeting as @MrDavidWhitley. You should all probably go and buy his new book – Hardly Paradise: Anti-Postcards from a Grumpy Traveller. It will almost certainly make your life complete.BlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=80ea913a-8c93-46c1-8bc2-934941fb5883Ignore the idiots saying Bugarach and Sirince are the safest places, says David Whitley.Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:05:51 -0800David Whitleyb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a0580ea913a-8c93-46c1-8bc2-934941fb5883BlogArticle0C22B372CA5E9862012012-12-12T14:21:58.133Ignore the idiots saying Bugarach and Sirince are the safest places, says David Whitley.According to people who watch bad action films and will swallow all manner of absurd mumbo jumbo, the world will end on 21 December. According to flight search engine Skyscanner, the belief the end of the world will happen this month has led to a spike in demand for flights to two unusual places.   Sirince in Turkey is said to be where the Virgin Mary ascended to heaven, and thus has the sort of positive energy that will be ever so helpful in terms of surviving Armageddon.   The other spot due for an influx of mugs is Bugarach, in France, where aliens have supposedly turned a mountain into a garage for their spaceship. Sixty thousand people are predicted to turn up to Bugarach in the hope of getting a ride away from the carnage.   "Congregating with other paranoid idiots isn't going to help." No doubt there will be other people retreating to caves with tins of baked beans, as there is every time Armageddon is forecast. Yet these idiots are not thinking straight. If Armageddon does arrive – presumably in the shape of a massive asteroid hitting the Earth – your chances of survival will be largely based on how close to the impact you are.   If it lands in the Pacific Ocean, those who went to hide on an obsure Pacific island are going to die in the tsunami. If it lands in the middle of Switzerland, those who went for Alpine caves are goners.   "The nutters in France and Turkey will find that 2013 will roll on." More to the point, the ensuing climatic change would affect everywhere in the world roughly equally. Going somewhere full of paranoid religious zealots and UFO fetishists is not going to help.   In fact, these are probably the last people you want to be surrounded by in a disaster. These social groups aren’t usually associated with rationality and strength in a crisis.   If you’re going to go anywhere to escape the end of the world, then it should probably be to a subsistence farming village in a developing country, where people are quite used to getting on with things and adapting their lifestyle to lean spells.   "Are the Mayans the best folk to follow in matters of survival?"   The other option is to stay exactly where you are. When natural disasters hit, the death toll is always far higher in developing countries than it is in developed ones.   You’ve got a far better chance of survival when there’s proper infrastructure, good medical treatment and organised emergency services. I’m fairly sure I’d have a better chance of surviving Armageddon in south London than in south-east Asia.   It’s all fairly irrelevant though. The world isn’t going to end on 21 December. If the Mayans were so clued up on survival, they’d have probably had better defence and healthcare systems to deal with the Spanish invasion that pretty much wiped them out. Besides, it’s all based on a misunderstanding of the Mayan calendar – it’s just the end of a cycle that occurs roughly every 394 years. The world didn’t end in 1224 and 1618 – and the nutters heading to France and Turkey are soon going to find that it won’t end in 2012 either.  Freelance travel writer David Whitley is @MrDavidWhitley on Twitter and blogs at www.grumpytraveller.comAccording to people who watch bad action films and will swallow all manner of absurd mumbo jumbo, the world will end on 21 December. According to flight search engine Skyscanner, the belief the end of the world will happen this month has led to a spike in demand for flights to two unusual places.   Sirince in Turkey is said to be where the Virgin Mary ascended to heaven, and thus has the sort of positive energy that will be ever so helpful in terms of surviving Armageddon.   The other spot due for an influx of mugs is Bugarach, in France, where aliens have supposedly turned a mountain into a garage for their spaceship. Sixty thousand people are predicted to turn up to Bugarach in the hope of getting a ride away from the carnage.   "Congregating with other paranoid idiots isn't going to help." No doubt there will be other people retreating to caves with tins of baked beans, as there is every time Armageddon is forecast. Yet these idiots are not thinking straight. If Armageddon does arrive – presumably in the shape of a massive asteroid hitting the Earth – your chances of survival will be largely based on how close to the impact you are.   If it lands in the Pacific Ocean, those who went to hide on an obsure Pacific island are going to die in the tsunami. If it lands in the middle of Switzerland, those who went for Alpine caves are goners.   "The nutters in France and Turkey will find that 2013 will roll on." More to the point, the ensuing climatic change would affect everywhere in the world roughly equally. Going somewhere full of paranoid religious zealots and UFO fetishists is not going to help.   In fact, these are probably the last people you want to be surrounded by in a disaster. These social groups aren’t usually associated with rationality and strength in a crisis.   If you’re going to go anywhere to escape the end of the world, then it should probably be to a subsistence farming village in a developing country, where people are quite used to getting on with things and adapting their lifestyle to lean spells.   "Are the Mayans the best folk to follow in matters of survival?"   The other option is to stay exactly where you are. When natural disasters hit, the death toll is always far higher in developing countries than it is in developed ones.   You’ve got a far better chance of survival when there’s proper infrastructure, good medical treatment and organised emergency services. I’m fairly sure I’d have a better chance of surviving Armageddon in south London than in south-east Asia.   It’s all fairly irrelevant though. The world isn’t going to end on 21 December. If the Mayans were so clued up on survival, they’d have probably had better defence and healthcare systems to deal with the Spanish invasion that pretty much wiped them out. Besides, it’s all based on a misunderstanding of the Mayan calendar – it’s just the end of a cycle that occurs roughly every 394 years. The world didn’t end in 1224 and 1618 – and the nutters heading to France and Turkey are soon going to find that it won’t end in 2012 either.  Freelance travel writer David Whitley is @MrDavidWhitley on Twitter and blogs at www.grumpytraveller.comBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=b22f36f0-5f11-4d08-bd83-537644351e45Andy Jarosz just wants a cheap, healthy meal, not flashy gourmet offerings. Thu, 29 Nov 2012 02:28:17 -0800Andy Jaroszb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a05b22f36f0-5f11-4d08-bd83-537644351e45BlogArticleDA130E8DC892D1E1012012-11-29T12:00:25.54Andy Jarosz just wants a cheap, healthy meal, not flashy gourmet offerings. You may have missed it, but the winner of the World’s Best Airport Restaurant was recently announced with Barcelona’s Porta Gaig coming out on top.   Let’s face it – giving out airport restaurant awards is about as sensible as having an Oscar category for the best performance in a school nativity play; nice for those involved, completely meaningless to the rest of us.   There was a time, not so long ago, when airports didn’t try to fool passengers (or themselves) about the quality of the food on offer. You could sink your teeth into an overpriced greasy burger or a sorry-looking sandwich, for which you’d pay around twice the going rate on the high street.   "Don't big-name chefs have anything better to do?"   Those who travelled regularly would learn to avoid the need to eat while waiting to board; for first-time flyers or those waiting to go on holiday, a couple of beers and a generous helping of anticipation would help mask the dubious quality of airport food.   But in today’s age of big name chefs, nowhere is off-limits in their mission to spread their culinary fairy dust. With celebrities such as Pat LaFrieda in New York’s La Guardia, Charles Gaig in Barcelona and our very own Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay in Gatwick and Heathrow respectively, airports are re-inventing themselves as the best places to experience fine dining. Where these giant egos tread, awards and accolades have to follow, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at this American-dominated (and American-commissioned) list.   "All we want is cheap, tasty, healthy food - not gourmet cuisine."   But I wonder just how many of us will go to an airport to seek out an extravagant dining experience. With one eye on the flight screens and another firmly on the menu prices, eating at the airport is for most of us all about dealing with hunger in the quickest and cheapest way.  An airport is never going to be the place we choose to mess around with fancy food. With the prices on offer in these big name eateries we could easily spend more money on our pre-flight meal than we paid for our flights.  Airports should stick to the basics and concentrate on getting those right. If they just provide us with simple, healthy and affordable food, perhaps they might be more deserving of an award.    Andy Jarosz is a freelance travel writer who writes for various publications including BBC Travel, National Geographic Traveller and Coast magazine.  Follow Andy on @501places Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoicesYou may have missed it, but the winner of the World’s Best Airport Restaurant was recently announced with Barcelona’s Porta Gaig coming out on top.   Let’s face it – giving out airport restaurant awards is about as sensible as having an Oscar category for the best performance in a school nativity play; nice for those involved, completely meaningless to the rest of us.   There was a time, not so long ago, when airports didn’t try to fool passengers (or themselves) about the quality of the food on offer. You could sink your teeth into an overpriced greasy burger or a sorry-looking sandwich, for which you’d pay around twice the going rate on the high street.   "Don't big-name chefs have anything better to do?"   Those who travelled regularly would learn to avoid the need to eat while waiting to board; for first-time flyers or those waiting to go on holiday, a couple of beers and a generous helping of anticipation would help mask the dubious quality of airport food.   But in today’s age of big name chefs, nowhere is off-limits in their mission to spread their culinary fairy dust. With celebrities such as Pat LaFrieda in New York’s La Guardia, Charles Gaig in Barcelona and our very own Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsay in Gatwick and Heathrow respectively, airports are re-inventing themselves as the best places to experience fine dining. Where these giant egos tread, awards and accolades have to follow, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at this American-dominated (and American-commissioned) list.   "All we want is cheap, tasty, healthy food - not gourmet cuisine."   But I wonder just how many of us will go to an airport to seek out an extravagant dining experience. With one eye on the flight screens and another firmly on the menu prices, eating at the airport is for most of us all about dealing with hunger in the quickest and cheapest way.  An airport is never going to be the place we choose to mess around with fancy food. With the prices on offer in these big name eateries we could easily spend more money on our pre-flight meal than we paid for our flights.  Airports should stick to the basics and concentrate on getting those right. If they just provide us with simple, healthy and affordable food, perhaps they might be more deserving of an award.    Andy Jarosz is a freelance travel writer who writes for various publications including BBC Travel, National Geographic Traveller and Coast magazine.  Follow Andy on @501places Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoicesBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=17d79052-c1c0-4ed4-bcc6-0286d5c1729eCathy Winston scoffs at the amateurs who don't argue on holiday.Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:54:04 -0800Cathy Winstonb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a0517d79052-c1c0-4ed4-bcc6-0286d5c1729eBlogArticleA1D846B6978697D4012012-11-28T15:52:26.993Cathy Winston scoffs at the amateurs who don't argue on holiday.Most families manage to get their first holiday row out of the way 25 minutes in, it seems. Amateurs. By the time we’ve left the house, I like to have racked up several bickering exchanges and outright huffs. At least I’m not alone. 69% of parents said their family fought while they were away, in a new survey from MyVoucherCodes.co.uk, while more than three-quarters of couples apparently have at least two major arguments during a two-week holiday, according to Latedeals.co.uk.   There’s the stress of making sure you book something perfect to suit everyone (somehow always my responsibility, just because I travel for a living). Then there’s the packing. Got something for every eventuality? Will the suitcase close? What if I sit on it? What if we both sit on it? Then there’s checking the passports every five minutes in case they’ve somehow evaporated or crawled out of the bag by themselves. Which probably means we’re running late, just to ratchet up the stress.   "Fighting on holiday is normal, it isn't if you don't." Not that it takes me the whole trip. I once made it all the way to the tube station where I got so anxious about the lack of trains and possible delays that my husband had stopped speaking to me before we got off the platform. Occasionally we manage to make it all the way to the airport though, where I can fret about queues, security, whether the baby will cry on the plane, and usually where I discover I’ve forgotten something mildly essential.   Or on one occasion, where the airline had lost the information about my husband’s special on-board meal. By the time he’d finished arguing with a string of airline staff, I’d stopped speaking to him… right up until the point they upgraded us in apology. "Despite the stress, I would never swap holidaying with family."   Then there are plenty more opportunities to argue when you arrive. After running late, forgetting things and the pressure of spending too much time together, the top reason for rows was disagreeing over what activities to do. Or, in the case of some of my family holidays, why we shouldn’t be doing all the activities I’d like to. While I’m raring to go and busy plotting the best things to see and do, it turns out my loved ones want to kick back, chill out and relax. Which is why I haven’t yet managed to visit Lanzarote’s Pirate Museum. Yes - there, I said it. But I wouldn’t swap the chance to get away with my family – and not just because I was able to borrow from my mum when one airline mislaid my suitcase for five days of a seven-day trip. All we have to do is survive the first half hour.   Cathy Winston has visited 55 countries (so far) and is already plotting journeys to the other 141. In between ignoring her unpacking, she's written for publications including National Geographic Traveller and the Independent, as well as starting her own blog, www.mummytravels.com​. Follow Cathy Winston on Twitter @cathywinston.   Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writers.Most families manage to get their first holiday row out of the way 25 minutes in, it seems. Amateurs. By the time we’ve left the house, I like to have racked up several bickering exchanges and outright huffs. At least I’m not alone. 69% of parents said their family fought while they were away, in a new survey from MyVoucherCodes.co.uk, while more than three-quarters of couples apparently have at least two major arguments during a two-week holiday, according to Latedeals.co.uk.   There’s the stress of making sure you book something perfect to suit everyone (somehow always my responsibility, just because I travel for a living). Then there’s the packing. Got something for every eventuality? Will the suitcase close? What if I sit on it? What if we both sit on it? Then there’s checking the passports every five minutes in case they’ve somehow evaporated or crawled out of the bag by themselves. Which probably means we’re running late, just to ratchet up the stress.   "Fighting on holiday is normal, it isn't if you don't." Not that it takes me the whole trip. I once made it all the way to the tube station where I got so anxious about the lack of trains and possible delays that my husband had stopped speaking to me before we got off the platform. Occasionally we manage to make it all the way to the airport though, where I can fret about queues, security, whether the baby will cry on the plane, and usually where I discover I’ve forgotten something mildly essential.   Or on one occasion, where the airline had lost the information about my husband’s special on-board meal. By the time he’d finished arguing with a string of airline staff, I’d stopped speaking to him… right up until the point they upgraded us in apology. "Despite the stress, I would never swap holidaying with family."   Then there are plenty more opportunities to argue when you arrive. After running late, forgetting things and the pressure of spending too much time together, the top reason for rows was disagreeing over what activities to do. Or, in the case of some of my family holidays, why we shouldn’t be doing all the activities I’d like to. While I’m raring to go and busy plotting the best things to see and do, it turns out my loved ones want to kick back, chill out and relax. Which is why I haven’t yet managed to visit Lanzarote’s Pirate Museum. Yes - there, I said it. But I wouldn’t swap the chance to get away with my family – and not just because I was able to borrow from my mum when one airline mislaid my suitcase for five days of a seven-day trip. All we have to do is survive the first half hour.   Cathy Winston has visited 55 countries (so far) and is already plotting journeys to the other 141. In between ignoring her unpacking, she's written for publications including National Geographic Traveller and the Independent, as well as starting her own blog, www.mummytravels.com​. Follow Cathy Winston on Twitter @cathywinston.   Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writers.BlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=5001c510-7f64-411d-9cce-c2120465e26bTravellers need to take responsibility for themselves, says David WhitleyWed, 28 Nov 2012 05:46:08 -0800David Whitleyb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a055001c510-7f64-411d-9cce-c2120465e26bBlogArticle0C22B372CA5E9862012012-11-28T14:05:23.52Travellers need to take responsibility for themselves, says David WhitleyIf an airline sells you a ticket, they should make sure you get on the plane, right? Well not necessarily in the tragic case of Vilma Soltesz. New Yorker Vilma died in Hungary last month while visiting her family there. She weighed over 30 stone, was wheelchair bound and spent over a week trying to get a flight back home. According to reports, she was turned away from a series of flights by KLM, Delta and Lufthansa. The airlines said it wasn’t safe for her to fly from either Budapest or Prague as she was too big to safely sit on the plane – even when allocated three seats.   It looks like the case is going to descend into a blizzard of legal action. I’ve no desire to get tangled up in that, so I’m not going to make judgements about a story I’ve only got second hand knowledge of. However, sometimes travellers have to accept responsibility for their own decisions. And it’s not fair to blame airlines and travel companies when we ignore our own limitations.   "If I'd broken a body part, I wouldn't be signing up for a long trek." I know my level of fitness, and consequently, I won’t sign up to climb Kilimanjaro. Similarly, if I’d broken my leg I wouldn’t buy a ticket for a day trek and if I suffered from chronic seasickness I wouldn’t agree to go on a cruise. But some travellers seem to insist on trying to do things that are totally inappropriate. Many of the deaths on Everest every year can be put down to people with bags of enthusiasm but not enough fitness or training. When does this become someone else’s fault? With the Everest example, clearly there is a burden of responsibility on the tour guide and the company they work for to monitor a customer’s suitability for the mission. Sometimes it is better to say no rather than try to accommodate.   "There is a line where travelling is dangerous or just impossible." It’s essential that tour companies and airlines have the right to assess whether it is safe for a customer to travel. And if they judge that someone can’t travel safely, then it is in the best interests of that customer – and the other travellers that will be affected – to turn them away.   Every effort should be made to safely accommodate as many people as possible – be they old, young, disabled or oddly shaped. But there is a line when it's impossible or plain dangerous.   Alas, people have a habit of misrepresenting their abilities – either through deceit or delusion. It’s all too easy to say we’re okay when we’re not. Such hubris can lead to embarrassment and tragedy – but it’s not fair to blame others for our own inability to face up to home truths.   If you’re too shaky to ski the black run, too wheezy to walk the distance, too drunk to drive or too fat to fly, then you do have a certain responsibility to recognise it.   What do you think?   Freelance travel journalist David Whitley blogs at GrumpyTraveller.com and is @MrDavidWhitley on TwitterIf an airline sells you a ticket, they should make sure you get on the plane, right? Well not necessarily in the tragic case of Vilma Soltesz. New Yorker Vilma died in Hungary last month while visiting her family there. She weighed over 30 stone, was wheelchair bound and spent over a week trying to get a flight back home. According to reports, she was turned away from a series of flights by KLM, Delta and Lufthansa. The airlines said it wasn’t safe for her to fly from either Budapest or Prague as she was too big to safely sit on the plane – even when allocated three seats.   It looks like the case is going to descend into a blizzard of legal action. I’ve no desire to get tangled up in that, so I’m not going to make judgements about a story I’ve only got second hand knowledge of. However, sometimes travellers have to accept responsibility for their own decisions. And it’s not fair to blame airlines and travel companies when we ignore our own limitations.   "If I'd broken a body part, I wouldn't be signing up for a long trek." I know my level of fitness, and consequently, I won’t sign up to climb Kilimanjaro. Similarly, if I’d broken my leg I wouldn’t buy a ticket for a day trek and if I suffered from chronic seasickness I wouldn’t agree to go on a cruise. But some travellers seem to insist on trying to do things that are totally inappropriate. Many of the deaths on Everest every year can be put down to people with bags of enthusiasm but not enough fitness or training. When does this become someone else’s fault? With the Everest example, clearly there is a burden of responsibility on the tour guide and the company they work for to monitor a customer’s suitability for the mission. Sometimes it is better to say no rather than try to accommodate.   "There is a line where travelling is dangerous or just impossible." It’s essential that tour companies and airlines have the right to assess whether it is safe for a customer to travel. And if they judge that someone can’t travel safely, then it is in the best interests of that customer – and the other travellers that will be affected – to turn them away.   Every effort should be made to safely accommodate as many people as possible – be they old, young, disabled or oddly shaped. But there is a line when it's impossible or plain dangerous.   Alas, people have a habit of misrepresenting their abilities – either through deceit or delusion. It’s all too easy to say we’re okay when we’re not. Such hubris can lead to embarrassment and tragedy – but it’s not fair to blame others for our own inability to face up to home truths.   If you’re too shaky to ski the black run, too wheezy to walk the distance, too drunk to drive or too fat to fly, then you do have a certain responsibility to recognise it.   What do you think?   Freelance travel journalist David Whitley blogs at GrumpyTraveller.com and is @MrDavidWhitley on TwitterBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=e5ec6d74-40c9-4538-881b-e3c7318ffeb4For better or worse, it's the reality of regular air travel, says Andy JaroszWed, 21 Nov 2012 06:38:25 -0800Andy Jaroszb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a05e5ec6d74-40c9-4538-881b-e3c7318ffeb4BlogArticleDA130E8DC892D1E1012012-11-22T10:09:08.157For better or worse, it's the reality of regular air travel, says Andy JaroszEasyjet today announced that profits are up by 28%. This follows the announcement of a 10% rise in half-yearly profits by their bitter rival Ryanair.   It appears that despite our constant whining about low-cost airlines, we can’t help ourselves when it comes to buying those bargain seats.   It’s not as if we don’t know any better. Those of us who have flown on the bright orange planes know exactly what to expect.   First, it’s the constant upselling as we try to book our flights online: do you want insurance? Luggage? Car hire? The ‘not interested’ option is usually carefully tucked away out of sight.    At the airport, if we haven’t been fined and had our bags thrown in the hold for being one millimetre too wide, there’s just the mad scramble at the boarding gate to contend with, where families, friends and couples engage in a Lord of the Flies battle to be the first on the plane. The losers in this competition then can’t fit their bags in the stuffed overhead bins.   "You already know the food is going to be rubbish. Why get mad?" But, there's no point moaning about this. We already know this, many times over by sheer dint of the fact that we travel a lot more than we used to, partly in thanks to budget airlines making it so affordable.   You already know that the food is going to be rubbish, so buy a sandwich at the airport. You've already witnessed the enforcement of the One Luggage Rule, so there's no point in getting mad when your attempt to sneak on two bags fails.   "The real mystery is why we continue to moan yet still travel."   We know what to expect. It won’t be fancy, it probably won’t be very comfortable and we’ll be glad when it’s over.   But low-cost flights are generally reliable, get us from local airports in the UK to local airports in mainland Europe and, as long as we follow their rules, work out cheaper than the traditional airlines even when we add on all the extras.   There's no surprise why low-cost airlines are so successful - perhaps the real mystery is why so many people continue to moan about them while at the same time feeding their profits by booking more cheap flights.   Andy Jarosz is a freelance travel writer who writes for various publications including BBC Travel, National Geographic Traveller and Coast magazine.  Follow Andy on @501places Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoicesEasyjet today announced that profits are up by 28%. This follows the announcement of a 10% rise in half-yearly profits by their bitter rival Ryanair.   It appears that despite our constant whining about low-cost airlines, we can’t help ourselves when it comes to buying those bargain seats.   It’s not as if we don’t know any better. Those of us who have flown on the bright orange planes know exactly what to expect.   First, it’s the constant upselling as we try to book our flights online: do you want insurance? Luggage? Car hire? The ‘not interested’ option is usually carefully tucked away out of sight.    At the airport, if we haven’t been fined and had our bags thrown in the hold for being one millimetre too wide, there’s just the mad scramble at the boarding gate to contend with, where families, friends and couples engage in a Lord of the Flies battle to be the first on the plane. The losers in this competition then can’t fit their bags in the stuffed overhead bins.   "You already know the food is going to be rubbish. Why get mad?" But, there's no point moaning about this. We already know this, many times over by sheer dint of the fact that we travel a lot more than we used to, partly in thanks to budget airlines making it so affordable.   You already know that the food is going to be rubbish, so buy a sandwich at the airport. You've already witnessed the enforcement of the One Luggage Rule, so there's no point in getting mad when your attempt to sneak on two bags fails.   "The real mystery is why we continue to moan yet still travel."   We know what to expect. It won’t be fancy, it probably won’t be very comfortable and we’ll be glad when it’s over.   But low-cost flights are generally reliable, get us from local airports in the UK to local airports in mainland Europe and, as long as we follow their rules, work out cheaper than the traditional airlines even when we add on all the extras.   There's no surprise why low-cost airlines are so successful - perhaps the real mystery is why so many people continue to moan about them while at the same time feeding their profits by booking more cheap flights.   Andy Jarosz is a freelance travel writer who writes for various publications including BBC Travel, National Geographic Traveller and Coast magazine.  Follow Andy on @501places Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoicesBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=0483ef44-f3f4-4a9d-b723-93dcf21f9b59Holidays offering a 'break' from technology are on the increase, and Poorna Bell finds herself itching to sign up.Mon, 05 Nov 2012 06:01:23 -0800Poorna Bellb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a050483ef44-f3f4-4a9d-b723-93dcf21f9b59BlogArticle157FC84665F7488F012012-11-05T14:01:23.187Holidays offering a 'break' from technology are on the increase, and Poorna Bell finds herself itching to sign up.When I first heard of the term ‘digital detox holiday’, I admit, I scoffed. The idea of a holiday catering to a person so weak-willed they’d have to hand in their mobile phone to avoid temptation, seemed like a cheap ploy – rather like offering to charge a mate for babysitting her phone so she doesn’t drunkenly call her ex after 10 vodkas.   Plus, I’m a pragmatist – surely if you want a holiday from technology, the solution is just to keep it switched off or head to the nearest Himalayan peak (the reception is terrible there – they really need to do something about that).   But in the past year, I’ve come to realise that perhaps having a technology nanny would actually be a blessed relief.  And clearly the rest of you agree.   No longer the gimmick as first thought, digital detox holidays have been steadily gaining in popularity. Proof of that is that according to the World Travel Market’s (WTM) global trend report, there has been a rise in these types of packages being offered by hotels – and if anyone is going to know, it will be WTM – the Yoda of the travel world.   "Some of us feel guilty about not being contactable by phone 24/7."   There are two types of people who have a hard time switching off. There are those who genuinely look forward to turning on their phone or laptop and finding out what Baz has been up to on Facebook, even though they may be metres away from a sandy beach in the Adriatic. And then there are those who carry around a Quasimodo-sized hump of guilt – the guilt at not being contactable at all times. I fall in the latter camp.   It’s not so much work that I have a problem with, because I’m quite good at erecting boundaries between my work and personal life. It’s differentiating between my personal life and my holiday life.   All too familiar is the sight of a frantic text from my mum and dad, asking if I’m alive because they haven’t heard from me in 24 hours. Or if it’s a solo trip, my husband prefacing the announcement of some domestic disaster with “I don’t want you to worry but…”   "There's no way of saying 'I'm off grid' without hurting their feelings."   I love my family and friends, but if they aren’t with me on the trip, I don’t really want to hear from them until I get back home. I don’t need to know if the dog was sick on my shoes at that exact moment in time.   My idea of a holiday is getting absolutely absorbed in exploring the place I’m in and completely switching off – and almost 99% of the time, any kind of communication will invariably drag me back to my everyday life.   And because there’s no way of phrasing “I don’t want to talk to you or anyone else back home until I return” without completely destroying the other person’s feelings, the idea of a digital detox is pretty amazing. I can wholeheartedly blame it on the hotel.   The final solution might be to just take yourself off to somewhere so remote that switching off isn’t much a choice as a mandatory lifestyle. But not all of us can afford this and in any case, you can't guarantee you'll be sans phone reception even in the most remote areas.   It reminds me of a trip to the Himalayas, where the director of the tourism company was so addicted to texting, that he actually made the daily trek to the tiny mast in a village where if you stood on one leg, and waggled your phone, you might catch a signal.   If only he'd had a mobile phone Mary Poppins to come to his rescue.   What do you think? Do you think you digital detox holidays are a waste of time?   Poorna Bell is the editor of MSN Travel. She tweets @msntravel and @msntravelpoorna.When I first heard of the term ‘digital detox holiday’, I admit, I scoffed. The idea of a holiday catering to a person so weak-willed they’d have to hand in their mobile phone to avoid temptation, seemed like a cheap ploy – rather like offering to charge a mate for babysitting her phone so she doesn’t drunkenly call her ex after 10 vodkas.   Plus, I’m a pragmatist – surely if you want a holiday from technology, the solution is just to keep it switched off or head to the nearest Himalayan peak (the reception is terrible there – they really need to do something about that).   But in the past year, I’ve come to realise that perhaps having a technology nanny would actually be a blessed relief.  And clearly the rest of you agree.   No longer the gimmick as first thought, digital detox holidays have been steadily gaining in popularity. Proof of that is that according to the World Travel Market’s (WTM) global trend report, there has been a rise in these types of packages being offered by hotels – and if anyone is going to know, it will be WTM – the Yoda of the travel world.   "Some of us feel guilty about not being contactable by phone 24/7."   There are two types of people who have a hard time switching off. There are those who genuinely look forward to turning on their phone or laptop and finding out what Baz has been up to on Facebook, even though they may be metres away from a sandy beach in the Adriatic. And then there are those who carry around a Quasimodo-sized hump of guilt – the guilt at not being contactable at all times. I fall in the latter camp.   It’s not so much work that I have a problem with, because I’m quite good at erecting boundaries between my work and personal life. It’s differentiating between my personal life and my holiday life.   All too familiar is the sight of a frantic text from my mum and dad, asking if I’m alive because they haven’t heard from me in 24 hours. Or if it’s a solo trip, my husband prefacing the announcement of some domestic disaster with “I don’t want you to worry but…”   "There's no way of saying 'I'm off grid' without hurting their feelings."   I love my family and friends, but if they aren’t with me on the trip, I don’t really want to hear from them until I get back home. I don’t need to know if the dog was sick on my shoes at that exact moment in time.   My idea of a holiday is getting absolutely absorbed in exploring the place I’m in and completely switching off – and almost 99% of the time, any kind of communication will invariably drag me back to my everyday life.   And because there’s no way of phrasing “I don’t want to talk to you or anyone else back home until I return” without completely destroying the other person’s feelings, the idea of a digital detox is pretty amazing. I can wholeheartedly blame it on the hotel.   The final solution might be to just take yourself off to somewhere so remote that switching off isn’t much a choice as a mandatory lifestyle. But not all of us can afford this and in any case, you can't guarantee you'll be sans phone reception even in the most remote areas.   It reminds me of a trip to the Himalayas, where the director of the tourism company was so addicted to texting, that he actually made the daily trek to the tiny mast in a village where if you stood on one leg, and waggled your phone, you might catch a signal.   If only he'd had a mobile phone Mary Poppins to come to his rescue.   What do you think? Do you think you digital detox holidays are a waste of time?   Poorna Bell is the editor of MSN Travel. She tweets @msntravel and @msntravelpoorna.BlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=fec0f682-5719-4afe-9bb7-e179a328453cDavid Whitley reckons the monument wouldn't even make it into a Britain's top 20.Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:33:38 -0700David Whitleyb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a05fec0f682-5719-4afe-9bb7-e179a328453cBlogArticle0C22B372CA5E9862012012-10-26T14:46:40.7David Whitley reckons the monument wouldn't even make it into a Britain's top 20.When a piece of British heritage is sold off to be turned into a gaudy bling palace for the absurdly rich, I feel I should probably get angry. But the news that London's Admiralty Arch is to be flogged to Spanish developer Rafael Serrano for £60m makes me feel something of a traitor. I should care that one the nation’s great monuments is being pimped out like a plastic toy with a Happy Meal. I should be protesting that it hasn’t been turned into a museum so the public can enjoy it. I should be enraged about a tribute to Queen Victoria being turned into a shrine to ostentatious money-flinging.   But the truth is that it really doesn’t matter all that much.   "It's not as if we're selling the Tower of London." For all the pompous bluster about Admiralty Arch being a national treasure, I bet it wouldn’t feature in most people’s list of top 20 London landmarks. In fact, it would struggle to get into the top 50. It’s not as if we’re selling off the Tower of London and turning it into a car park for Qatari-owned Bugattis or making St Paul’s Cathedral a high end brothel for oligarchs.   The sad truth is that Admiralty Arch has been standing empty at the cost to the taxpayer of £900,000 a year. It’s like a nice but ultimately useless piece of furniture that is kept in the garage because it just doesn’t fit in the living room.  London isn’t exactly short on monuments. Admiralty Arch is one of the spare ones. We can afford to let it go. But could it be turned into something better than a luxury hotel? Rafael Serrano is the man behind the Bulgari Hotel in Knightsbridge – London’s most expensive with rooms starting at £850 a night. "If Serrano wants to fit the Arch with silver unicorns, let him." It has been nicknamed the Vulgari due to its unabashed bling factor. And it’s highly likely that Admiralty Arch will be turned into something similar, given the astronomical sum it will take to develop the monument.   Could it not be turned into a museum instead? Well, that’s a fine idea, but London’s not exactly short on them either. And no one has come up with a viable idea for a museum to put inside Admiralty Arch that would pull in enough visitors to make the cost of the development even vaguely worth it.   So if Serrano wants to fit the Arch out with golden fountains and fill every suite with satin-draped silver unicorns, does it really matter? It’s not as if we’ll get to see the tasteless tackfest inside. And if idiots with more money than sense want to pay the best part of a grand to stay in a laughably OTT sparkling bedroom, then is that really doing anyone any harm?   It’s a move best filed under picking your battles. There have been far worse planning decisions in the past, and there will be far worse in the future. We’re probably better off letting Admiralty Arch go under a blanket of apathy - and saving our righteous indignation for something that really matters.   What do you think?   Freelance travel journalist David Whitley blogs at GrumpyTraveller.com and is @MrDavidWhitley on Twitter.When a piece of British heritage is sold off to be turned into a gaudy bling palace for the absurdly rich, I feel I should probably get angry. But the news that London's Admiralty Arch is to be flogged to Spanish developer Rafael Serrano for £60m makes me feel something of a traitor. I should care that one the nation’s great monuments is being pimped out like a plastic toy with a Happy Meal. I should be protesting that it hasn’t been turned into a museum so the public can enjoy it. I should be enraged about a tribute to Queen Victoria being turned into a shrine to ostentatious money-flinging.   But the truth is that it really doesn’t matter all that much.   "It's not as if we're selling the Tower of London." For all the pompous bluster about Admiralty Arch being a national treasure, I bet it wouldn’t feature in most people’s list of top 20 London landmarks. In fact, it would struggle to get into the top 50. It’s not as if we’re selling off the Tower of London and turning it into a car park for Qatari-owned Bugattis or making St Paul’s Cathedral a high end brothel for oligarchs.   The sad truth is that Admiralty Arch has been standing empty at the cost to the taxpayer of £900,000 a year. It’s like a nice but ultimately useless piece of furniture that is kept in the garage because it just doesn’t fit in the living room.  London isn’t exactly short on monuments. Admiralty Arch is one of the spare ones. We can afford to let it go. But could it be turned into something better than a luxury hotel? Rafael Serrano is the man behind the Bulgari Hotel in Knightsbridge – London’s most expensive with rooms starting at £850 a night. "If Serrano wants to fit the Arch with silver unicorns, let him." It has been nicknamed the Vulgari due to its unabashed bling factor. And it’s highly likely that Admiralty Arch will be turned into something similar, given the astronomical sum it will take to develop the monument.   Could it not be turned into a museum instead? Well, that’s a fine idea, but London’s not exactly short on them either. And no one has come up with a viable idea for a museum to put inside Admiralty Arch that would pull in enough visitors to make the cost of the development even vaguely worth it.   So if Serrano wants to fit the Arch out with golden fountains and fill every suite with satin-draped silver unicorns, does it really matter? It’s not as if we’ll get to see the tasteless tackfest inside. And if idiots with more money than sense want to pay the best part of a grand to stay in a laughably OTT sparkling bedroom, then is that really doing anyone any harm?   It’s a move best filed under picking your battles. There have been far worse planning decisions in the past, and there will be far worse in the future. We’re probably better off letting Admiralty Arch go under a blanket of apathy - and saving our righteous indignation for something that really matters.   What do you think?   Freelance travel journalist David Whitley blogs at GrumpyTraveller.com and is @MrDavidWhitley on Twitter.BlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=a78186b3-5dd4-4a3d-ae3c-4650be058ee8Warpdog hopes that the new ruling will include the UK, but worries airlines may just wriggle out of it regardlessTue, 23 Oct 2012 13:42:18 -0700Warpdogb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a05a78186b3-5dd4-4a3d-ae3c-4650be058ee8BlogArticleE053F6D9437B637B012012-10-24T11:20:24.27Warpdog hopes that the new ruling will include the UK, but worries airlines may just wriggle out of it regardlessWe’ve all been there. Delayed at an airport. Thinking it would be impossible to be more bored as we browse duty free for the thousandth time. And if we’re really lucky, a nonchalant airline rep will hand over a voucher for a soggy sandwich and a lukewarm coffee.   But now, if your flight is delayed for more than three hours, thanks to new EU regulations passed yesterday, your airline might have to do a bit more. The pivotal bit is that the European Court of Justice has ruled that mechanical problems don't constitute as "extraordinary circumstances" - and too right. An Icelandic volcano we can understand, technical problems not so much.   What's shocking about this ruling is that it has taken this long to arrive. Technical faults and mechanical issues should never have been classified as extraordinary circumstances. If an aeroplane fails it’s the airline’s fault, rather than an act of God's.   "British airlines are among the biggest culprits in delayed flights."   Moreover, it's galling that we've had to wait for the EU to help us out with this - especially since two of the UK’s most well-known airlines have the longest delays in Europe.   In just one month, over 5,000 Easyjet flights were delayed but British Airways won the battle of the lame with a whopping 6,314 delays, coming second only to Lufthansa. Given that 25% of British Airways flights are either delayed or cancelled, the change is most welcome and couldn’t have come any sooner.   But I won't be unwrapping the party poppers just yet. Like most cynics, I'm sure passengers will need to prepare themselves for more delays being branded ‘extraordinary circumstances’ once airlines are forced to fork out compensation. Current extraordinary blights include thunderstorms, snow and terrorist attacks. However airlines have argued in the past that mechanical faults and even air traffic control problems are exceptional circumstances.   "I don't know whether I want cash or to just be treated nicely."   Two years ago, Ryanair somehow managed to persuade a district judge that one of their flights, delayed due to a technical fault, was an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ and won a court case against a disgruntled passenger.   But really - I don't know if it's monetary compensation that we're after, or just wanting to be treated a bit decently.   I’ve been delayed many times and the different levels of customer services offered by airlines never ceases to amaze me: from British Airways, who promptly put me on another flight and let me use their phone to make alternative arrangements, to Ryanair, who quickly closed down their customer services desk and scuttled away, leaving me with nothing to do apart from try on every single nail polish at Marrakech Airport.   So - what would you prefer? An airline to treat you decently or compensate you in cash? Stats courtesy of (flightstats.com)   Warpdog is a copywriter and screenwriter and likes to grump about pretty much everything. Follow her on @warpdogWe’ve all been there. Delayed at an airport. Thinking it would be impossible to be more bored as we browse duty free for the thousandth time. And if we’re really lucky, a nonchalant airline rep will hand over a voucher for a soggy sandwich and a lukewarm coffee.   But now, if your flight is delayed for more than three hours, thanks to new EU regulations passed yesterday, your airline might have to do a bit more. The pivotal bit is that the European Court of Justice has ruled that mechanical problems don't constitute as "extraordinary circumstances" - and too right. An Icelandic volcano we can understand, technical problems not so much.   What's shocking about this ruling is that it has taken this long to arrive. Technical faults and mechanical issues should never have been classified as extraordinary circumstances. If an aeroplane fails it’s the airline’s fault, rather than an act of God's.   "British airlines are among the biggest culprits in delayed flights."   Moreover, it's galling that we've had to wait for the EU to help us out with this - especially since two of the UK’s most well-known airlines have the longest delays in Europe.   In just one month, over 5,000 Easyjet flights were delayed but British Airways won the battle of the lame with a whopping 6,314 delays, coming second only to Lufthansa. Given that 25% of British Airways flights are either delayed or cancelled, the change is most welcome and couldn’t have come any sooner.   But I won't be unwrapping the party poppers just yet. Like most cynics, I'm sure passengers will need to prepare themselves for more delays being branded ‘extraordinary circumstances’ once airlines are forced to fork out compensation. Current extraordinary blights include thunderstorms, snow and terrorist attacks. However airlines have argued in the past that mechanical faults and even air traffic control problems are exceptional circumstances.   "I don't know whether I want cash or to just be treated nicely."   Two years ago, Ryanair somehow managed to persuade a district judge that one of their flights, delayed due to a technical fault, was an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ and won a court case against a disgruntled passenger.   But really - I don't know if it's monetary compensation that we're after, or just wanting to be treated a bit decently.   I’ve been delayed many times and the different levels of customer services offered by airlines never ceases to amaze me: from British Airways, who promptly put me on another flight and let me use their phone to make alternative arrangements, to Ryanair, who quickly closed down their customer services desk and scuttled away, leaving me with nothing to do apart from try on every single nail polish at Marrakech Airport.   So - what would you prefer? An airline to treat you decently or compensate you in cash? Stats courtesy of (flightstats.com)   Warpdog is a copywriter and screenwriter and likes to grump about pretty much everything. Follow her on @warpdogBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=00471b5e-f604-4a26-9e29-6cf97cb3623bThree quarters of us seem to think the same - what's wrong with that? Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:24:18 -0700Rooksana Hossenallyb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a0500471b5e-f604-4a26-9e29-6cf97cb3623bBlogArticle98A17B8D15823ABC012012-10-18T16:25:04.7Three quarters of us seem to think the same - what's wrong with that? A new Tripadvisor survey has found that three quarters of us expect people to speak English on holiday and I’ve got to ask – what’s wrong with that? While it’s true that I have always made the effort to know how to say my hellos and thank you’s in the local language of the country I’m visiting, I am making less and less of an effort. I wouldn’t say I’m lazy or say that English is a superior language, but in the last decade it just seems that more people speak English around the globe.   It’s not that we don’t try either – the same survey found that 94% of us do give it a go (presumably along the lines of muttering ‘scorchio’) but even when I swallow my pride, and try my hand at a few pre-learnt phrases from my guidebook, I find that no matter where I am, people are adamant about answering back in English. English is the language of the world - there's no getting round it. Granted that people living in secluded villages of China, for example, may not all speak English, but with English being the universal language, it's the world's way or the highway, I'm afraid. The real question for Great Britain, is whether we should be encouraging our children to learn other languages when the minute a British accent is heard, people ignore all our efforts and go on in perfect English? Let's not waste time on other languages. We should be working on perfecting our own English, because before we know it, we’ll find that the rest of the world speaks better English than us. And we should be shaking in our boots.   According to the same TripAdvisor survey, only 11% of Brits claim to be fluent in another language while our German friends top the list with a whopping 70%, followed by about half of Italians and French. And speculation as it might be, that ‘other language’ is probably English.   The French and the Germans speak our language better than us.   And that's not because everyone's trying to align themselves with those holidaymakers that hang out in Irish pubs, whether in Bognor or Timbuktu - it's because English is the language of business. If everyone wants to speak English, let them. And with a large fraction of the country’s literacy rate plummeting, it makes sense to focus on our own language.   Cling on to your Shakespeare, because if the French start quoting entire sonnets, he’ll be turning in his grave.   What do you think? Do you expect people to speak English when you're on holiday?   Rooksana has been writing about travel and contemporary culture for the last five years. You can find most of her work on Twitter @RooksanaH or on her blogs: Zoned In and We are what we do.A new Tripadvisor survey has found that three quarters of us expect people to speak English on holiday and I’ve got to ask – what’s wrong with that? While it’s true that I have always made the effort to know how to say my hellos and thank you’s in the local language of the country I’m visiting, I am making less and less of an effort. I wouldn’t say I’m lazy or say that English is a superior language, but in the last decade it just seems that more people speak English around the globe.   It’s not that we don’t try either – the same survey found that 94% of us do give it a go (presumably along the lines of muttering ‘scorchio’) but even when I swallow my pride, and try my hand at a few pre-learnt phrases from my guidebook, I find that no matter where I am, people are adamant about answering back in English. English is the language of the world - there's no getting round it. Granted that people living in secluded villages of China, for example, may not all speak English, but with English being the universal language, it's the world's way or the highway, I'm afraid. The real question for Great Britain, is whether we should be encouraging our children to learn other languages when the minute a British accent is heard, people ignore all our efforts and go on in perfect English? Let's not waste time on other languages. We should be working on perfecting our own English, because before we know it, we’ll find that the rest of the world speaks better English than us. And we should be shaking in our boots.   According to the same TripAdvisor survey, only 11% of Brits claim to be fluent in another language while our German friends top the list with a whopping 70%, followed by about half of Italians and French. And speculation as it might be, that ‘other language’ is probably English.   The French and the Germans speak our language better than us.   And that's not because everyone's trying to align themselves with those holidaymakers that hang out in Irish pubs, whether in Bognor or Timbuktu - it's because English is the language of business. If everyone wants to speak English, let them. And with a large fraction of the country’s literacy rate plummeting, it makes sense to focus on our own language.   Cling on to your Shakespeare, because if the French start quoting entire sonnets, he’ll be turning in his grave.   What do you think? Do you expect people to speak English when you're on holiday?   Rooksana has been writing about travel and contemporary culture for the last five years. You can find most of her work on Twitter @RooksanaH or on her blogs: Zoned In and We are what we do.BlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=8a19b937-7e24-4c19-bf50-4de0de644bc2If you see Bibi Lynch on holiday, don't even think about striking up a conversation. Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:51:57 -0700Poorna Bellb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a058a19b937-7e24-4c19-bf50-4de0de644bc2BlogArticle157FC84665F7488F012012-10-16T10:54:00.353If you see Bibi Lynch on holiday, don't even think about striking up a conversation. Holiday heaven: lying on a lounger; sun on my skin; the sound of waves gently lapping up the beach; pretending to read but really daydreaming about Harry Styles introducing me to his dad… And holiday hell? A stranger beaming at me, plonking themselves next to me and declaring: "Budge up, love. Oh, no! Don’t drink the water! It’ll give you the squits!"   I find people tricky at the best of times, but on holiday? On those precious few weeks of the year when you can legitimately do what you want, no, I don’t want to chat. I don’t want to mingle, and I most definitely don’t want to make new friends. I’m on holiday to get away from the friends I already have at home!   I want peace, I want quiet, I don’t want to discuss tourist attractions, sunburn or funny foreign biscuits with someone who was wearing a sombrero on the flight in.   Why would a new chum enrich your holiday?   I would honestly rather drink a coconut shell full of Ambre Solaire than bond on my hols. And it seems I’m not alone. A survey by travel agent www.sunshine.co.uk found only 8% of British holidaymakers made friends on their last trip.   Look, people say holidays are really testing times with actual friends and family - and you love them. So why would a new holiday chum enrich your fortnight away?    No wonder. Holidays are ‘you’ time. Time to zone out, relax and to reassess what’s going on in your life and let important answers and decisions naturally bubble up in your thoughts. Or time to eat and drink until you’re the size of the island you’re actually staying on.   I want my holiday to be all about me, me me.   It’s not ‘them’ time, and it will be ‘them’ time. Night two of your new friendship and Barbara will be drunkenly telling you how she thinks Jon is cheating on her but she’ll stay put because they’ve just built a new conservatory. Cue photos of the conservatory.     I want my vacation to be all about me, or all about me and my - chosen - holiday partner; not shared with someone I don’t know and most probably won’t really get on with. Do you really think Barbara is your soulmate? Or is she perhaps Babs-No-Mates and that’s why she’s super-keen to be your new BFF? Babs is the holiday equivalent of the person who befriends you on your first day in a new job. The one you’re very grateful to for sharing an otherwise lonely coffee break with but whose puppy-dog gaze you then spend the next 12 months avoiding. I don’t want to spend my holiday running back to my apartment every time I hear Barbara’s ‘Oooeee!’. See? Hell.   Bibi Lynch is a columnist, writer and broadcaster (for many publications/station ​ s, including: The Guardian, Grazia and BBC London radio). Londoner in Manchester — doing her thing for the North/South divide. Short. Follow Bibi on Twitter @bibilynchHoliday heaven: lying on a lounger; sun on my skin; the sound of waves gently lapping up the beach; pretending to read but really daydreaming about Harry Styles introducing me to his dad… And holiday hell? A stranger beaming at me, plonking themselves next to me and declaring: "Budge up, love. Oh, no! Don’t drink the water! It’ll give you the squits!"   I find people tricky at the best of times, but on holiday? On those precious few weeks of the year when you can legitimately do what you want, no, I don’t want to chat. I don’t want to mingle, and I most definitely don’t want to make new friends. I’m on holiday to get away from the friends I already have at home!   I want peace, I want quiet, I don’t want to discuss tourist attractions, sunburn or funny foreign biscuits with someone who was wearing a sombrero on the flight in.   Why would a new chum enrich your holiday?   I would honestly rather drink a coconut shell full of Ambre Solaire than bond on my hols. And it seems I’m not alone. A survey by travel agent www.sunshine.co.uk found only 8% of British holidaymakers made friends on their last trip.   Look, people say holidays are really testing times with actual friends and family - and you love them. So why would a new holiday chum enrich your fortnight away?    No wonder. Holidays are ‘you’ time. Time to zone out, relax and to reassess what’s going on in your life and let important answers and decisions naturally bubble up in your thoughts. Or time to eat and drink until you’re the size of the island you’re actually staying on.   I want my holiday to be all about me, me me.   It’s not ‘them’ time, and it will be ‘them’ time. Night two of your new friendship and Barbara will be drunkenly telling you how she thinks Jon is cheating on her but she’ll stay put because they’ve just built a new conservatory. Cue photos of the conservatory.     I want my vacation to be all about me, or all about me and my - chosen - holiday partner; not shared with someone I don’t know and most probably won’t really get on with. Do you really think Barbara is your soulmate? Or is she perhaps Babs-No-Mates and that’s why she’s super-keen to be your new BFF? Babs is the holiday equivalent of the person who befriends you on your first day in a new job. The one you’re very grateful to for sharing an otherwise lonely coffee break with but whose puppy-dog gaze you then spend the next 12 months avoiding. I don’t want to spend my holiday running back to my apartment every time I hear Barbara’s ‘Oooeee!’. See? Hell.   Bibi Lynch is a columnist, writer and broadcaster (for many publications/station ​ s, including: The Guardian, Grazia and BBC London radio). Londoner in Manchester — doing her thing for the North/South divide. Short. Follow Bibi on Twitter @bibilynchBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=adc7aa02-489f-401b-9919-05f112fbc2b4Shah Jahan is probably turning in his grave as we speak, says Poorna BellTue, 09 Oct 2012 05:30:16 -0700Poorna Bellb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a05adc7aa02-489f-401b-9919-05f112fbc2b4BlogArticle157FC84665F7488F012012-10-09T12:30:16.317Shah Jahan is probably turning in his grave as we speak, says Poorna BellI’ve never been to Dubai, and with news of their latest development, it’s unlikely that I ever will. Locked in a relay race with Las Vegas to build the fastest, tallest, longest, hairiest (insert name of sight here), Dubai has just announced plans to build a replica of the Taj Mahal. As if it isn’t bad enough that Dubai's architects are copying one of India’s most poignant pieces of architecture, a love poem written in marble from an emperor to his wife, they are turning it... into a hotel. So whereas the original is a mausoleum to the empress Mumtaz, Dubai’s version will have rooms and shops, where you can buy a box of dates or have your shoes shined. Oh, and it wouldn’t be Dubai if they weren’t making FOUR TIMES BIGGER.     The fact is, replicas are an affront to everyone. If Shah Jahan was still alive, I'm sure he’d be pretty cheesed off that the country building a replica of his beloved building is a three-hour flight away. Worse still, it’s sharing space in a giant zoo of other replicas  - rubbing shoulders with the Pyramids and the Leaning Tower of Pisa in a development called Dubailand. The fact is, replicas (unless they are meant in a tongue-in-cheek, crazy golf sort of way) are an affront to everyone: including the general public and the person who actually dreamed up the initial design. It's like drinking a glass of orange juice only to find out it's watered-down squash. And the decision to build them speak volumes about the company developing it. We don’t have an iota of creativity, they seem to say, so we’re just ripping off another building. Dubai should commission its own architects to build a masterpiece   It’s not like these babies come cheap, either. They aren’t made out of paper or polystyrene – this new ‘Taj Arabia’ is estimated to cost around $1 billion. Wouldn’t that money have been much better spent on Zaha Hadid? Or even to champion Dubai’s architects, because that would be something to write about. I’m not a fan of one-upmanship tourism. And Dubai really has to do better than this kind of gimmick tourism because it really doesn’t say much about the kind of legacy it’s leaving, or the kind of contribution it’s making to the world in terms of culture and beauty. It should take notes from Singapore, which has invested in showstopper buildings that have wowed the world over. Or from nearby Abu Dhabi, which is slowly stealing its thunder with better, more worthwhile initiatives such as eco-tourism. What do you think? Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices.I’ve never been to Dubai, and with news of their latest development, it’s unlikely that I ever will. Locked in a relay race with Las Vegas to build the fastest, tallest, longest, hairiest (insert name of sight here), Dubai has just announced plans to build a replica of the Taj Mahal. As if it isn’t bad enough that Dubai's architects are copying one of India’s most poignant pieces of architecture, a love poem written in marble from an emperor to his wife, they are turning it... into a hotel. So whereas the original is a mausoleum to the empress Mumtaz, Dubai’s version will have rooms and shops, where you can buy a box of dates or have your shoes shined. Oh, and it wouldn’t be Dubai if they weren’t making FOUR TIMES BIGGER.     The fact is, replicas are an affront to everyone. If Shah Jahan was still alive, I'm sure he’d be pretty cheesed off that the country building a replica of his beloved building is a three-hour flight away. Worse still, it’s sharing space in a giant zoo of other replicas  - rubbing shoulders with the Pyramids and the Leaning Tower of Pisa in a development called Dubailand. The fact is, replicas (unless they are meant in a tongue-in-cheek, crazy golf sort of way) are an affront to everyone: including the general public and the person who actually dreamed up the initial design. It's like drinking a glass of orange juice only to find out it's watered-down squash. And the decision to build them speak volumes about the company developing it. We don’t have an iota of creativity, they seem to say, so we’re just ripping off another building. Dubai should commission its own architects to build a masterpiece   It’s not like these babies come cheap, either. They aren’t made out of paper or polystyrene – this new ‘Taj Arabia’ is estimated to cost around $1 billion. Wouldn’t that money have been much better spent on Zaha Hadid? Or even to champion Dubai’s architects, because that would be something to write about. I’m not a fan of one-upmanship tourism. And Dubai really has to do better than this kind of gimmick tourism because it really doesn’t say much about the kind of legacy it’s leaving, or the kind of contribution it’s making to the world in terms of culture and beauty. It should take notes from Singapore, which has invested in showstopper buildings that have wowed the world over. Or from nearby Abu Dhabi, which is slowly stealing its thunder with better, more worthwhile initiatives such as eco-tourism. What do you think? Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices.BlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=e9b9e682-f871-4483-b855-eef8b0c94eb1Nikki Bayley says you can have her phone - when you prise it from her dying gripThu, 04 Oct 2012 07:33:18 -0700Nikki Bayleyb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a05e9b9e682-f871-4483-b855-eef8b0c94eb1BlogArticleF276DEDB58A1001B012012-10-05T08:47:00.337Nikki Bayley says you can have her phone - when you prise it from her dying gripHello, my name is Nikki and I am a nomophobe. I have a raging fear of discovering I have no access to mobile technology. But I'm not alone in my addiction to being constantly-connected ​ ; a new survey from TripAdvisor has revealed that over two-thirds of Brits have been on holiday with someone who refuses to be parted from their mobile phone. Why do people have such a problem with it? Surely the world of travel has evolved beyond taking a map and a compass to explore the reaches of the world. I travel a lot and I almost always travel alone. I would literally be lost without my smartphone. The map function is my lifeline when it's dark, I'm tired and by myself and just want to find my hotel or a good restaurant fast. It's not useful for maps - it's a social necessity too. And yes, I know what you non-nomophobes will say, 'Why don't you ask someone?' Well, I often do, but what should I do when there's no one around? And how will someone in the street link me to reviews of where I'm going and help me decide whether unfamiliar local restaurant A is better than unfamiliar local restaurant B?  But let's be honest, it's not just handy apps like maps and so on that make having a smartphone by your side all day and all night a social necessity, there's the fun of sharing that experience too. Just a few years ago you'd have to wait until your photos came back from the chemist to show bored people your blurry beach shots and close-ups of unrecognisable foreign food delicacies. No more. Now you can make sure you get a perfect shot, upload it online  and within seconds share that with everyone on Facebook and Twitter.    Smug folk who boast-post on Facebook have given us a bad name I can already imagine you non-nomophobics pouting about 'boast-posting' and yes, 64% of Brits admit to posting an update or photo of their travels on to a social media site to make those at home jealous. And okay, while I groan at the people who've obviously just visited some amazing world landmark, and who rather than revelling in the moment have chosen to take a picture and instantly post it up, I love the conversations that get started because of 'boast-posting', the recommendations that I get and the new people I start talking to who've responded to a hashtagged image. But there's an easy fix if you don't like it; you know where the unfriend/unfollow button is, right?  Tell me what you think. Are you a fellow nomophobe or does the idea of having your mobile on holiday with you terrify you? Nikki Bayley is a travel writer who can be found Twitpic-ing pretty much everything @nikkibayley She also blogs about her new life in Canada.Hello, my name is Nikki and I am a nomophobe. I have a raging fear of discovering I have no access to mobile technology. But I'm not alone in my addiction to being constantly-connected ​ ; a new survey from TripAdvisor has revealed that over two-thirds of Brits have been on holiday with someone who refuses to be parted from their mobile phone. Why do people have such a problem with it? Surely the world of travel has evolved beyond taking a map and a compass to explore the reaches of the world. I travel a lot and I almost always travel alone. I would literally be lost without my smartphone. The map function is my lifeline when it's dark, I'm tired and by myself and just want to find my hotel or a good restaurant fast. It's not useful for maps - it's a social necessity too. And yes, I know what you non-nomophobes will say, 'Why don't you ask someone?' Well, I often do, but what should I do when there's no one around? And how will someone in the street link me to reviews of where I'm going and help me decide whether unfamiliar local restaurant A is better than unfamiliar local restaurant B?  But let's be honest, it's not just handy apps like maps and so on that make having a smartphone by your side all day and all night a social necessity, there's the fun of sharing that experience too. Just a few years ago you'd have to wait until your photos came back from the chemist to show bored people your blurry beach shots and close-ups of unrecognisable foreign food delicacies. No more. Now you can make sure you get a perfect shot, upload it online  and within seconds share that with everyone on Facebook and Twitter.    Smug folk who boast-post on Facebook have given us a bad name I can already imagine you non-nomophobics pouting about 'boast-posting' and yes, 64% of Brits admit to posting an update or photo of their travels on to a social media site to make those at home jealous. And okay, while I groan at the people who've obviously just visited some amazing world landmark, and who rather than revelling in the moment have chosen to take a picture and instantly post it up, I love the conversations that get started because of 'boast-posting', the recommendations that I get and the new people I start talking to who've responded to a hashtagged image. But there's an easy fix if you don't like it; you know where the unfriend/unfollow button is, right?  Tell me what you think. Are you a fellow nomophobe or does the idea of having your mobile on holiday with you terrify you? Nikki Bayley is a travel writer who can be found Twitpic-ing pretty much everything @nikkibayley She also blogs about her new life in Canada.BlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=e75bfb79-e7b4-4c81-ab0a-1779c23f33bfSorry Mike, says Warpdog, but holidays aren't a waste of time - the exact opposite Thu, 04 Oct 2012 00:58:14 -0700Warpdogb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a05e75bfb79-e7b4-4c81-ab0a-1779c23f33bfBlogArticleE053F6D9437B637B012012-10-04T09:55:38.14Sorry Mike, says Warpdog, but holidays aren't a waste of time - the exact opposite So Michael O'Leary thinks holidays are a "complete waste of time"? Well, that's hardly a shock seeing as the man contrives to make every aspect of travelling with his airline a hellish one, from the extortionate fees for printing boarding passes to suggesting that overweight people pay a special tax.  It's a spectacular Ratners moment: after all, the multi-millionaire makes his living from the holiday-loving public. But - and this proves just how desperate we are for a cheap holiday - unlike the jeweller who went bust after saying his products were a load of "crap", we doubt the CEO's statements will dent his sales as we're already aware of Ryanair's frustrating flying policies. And still we continue to fly with them. Of course, this could just be O'Leary barking out statements to hit headlines - he's like the Jeremy Clarkson of the aviation world. But whether or not its a joke, it's an affront to people like you and me, who like holidays, and are the ones putting all those pennies in his bank account. For most of us, (not earning over £1m per year, thank you Michael) our holiday is the most important and exciting part of the year. The only chance to get away and have a week or two of guaranteed sunshine, to embrace another culture, and to reconnect with our family or partner. But we can't expect O'Leary to understand this - his airline does away with seat pockets while continuing to place a copy of Ryanair's inflight magazine on seats.   Perhaps he hates holidays because of flying with his own airline?   Although if you think about it, O'Leary's holiday hatred sort of makes sense, especially if he always has the misfortune of flying with his own airline. Or perhaps he intentionally makes his flights horrifically vile out of his own sadistic holiday hatred? If HE can’t enjoy a holiday, no one else can!   A Ryanair flight = tortured in hell by a naked Jeremy Kyle.   Being tortured in hell by a naked Jeremy Kyle is surely the only thing worse than a flight with Ryanair. Most people only use the cheap and cheerless airline if they’re holidaying on a budget or couldn’t get on any other flight - my old boss used to ask me to book his flights and every request would end in a “NOT with Ryanair”!           But we'll still continue to fly with them because we don't think holidays are a waste of time. We still love ‘em, Mike, even if we have to endure one of your flights to have one.    Warpdog is a copywriter and screenwriter and likes to grump about pretty much everything. Follow her on @warpdogSo Michael O'Leary thinks holidays are a "complete waste of time"? Well, that's hardly a shock seeing as the man contrives to make every aspect of travelling with his airline a hellish one, from the extortionate fees for printing boarding passes to suggesting that overweight people pay a special tax.  It's a spectacular Ratners moment: after all, the multi-millionaire makes his living from the holiday-loving public. But - and this proves just how desperate we are for a cheap holiday - unlike the jeweller who went bust after saying his products were a load of "crap", we doubt the CEO's statements will dent his sales as we're already aware of Ryanair's frustrating flying policies. And still we continue to fly with them. Of course, this could just be O'Leary barking out statements to hit headlines - he's like the Jeremy Clarkson of the aviation world. But whether or not its a joke, it's an affront to people like you and me, who like holidays, and are the ones putting all those pennies in his bank account. For most of us, (not earning over £1m per year, thank you Michael) our holiday is the most important and exciting part of the year. The only chance to get away and have a week or two of guaranteed sunshine, to embrace another culture, and to reconnect with our family or partner. But we can't expect O'Leary to understand this - his airline does away with seat pockets while continuing to place a copy of Ryanair's inflight magazine on seats.   Perhaps he hates holidays because of flying with his own airline?   Although if you think about it, O'Leary's holiday hatred sort of makes sense, especially if he always has the misfortune of flying with his own airline. Or perhaps he intentionally makes his flights horrifically vile out of his own sadistic holiday hatred? If HE can’t enjoy a holiday, no one else can!   A Ryanair flight = tortured in hell by a naked Jeremy Kyle.   Being tortured in hell by a naked Jeremy Kyle is surely the only thing worse than a flight with Ryanair. Most people only use the cheap and cheerless airline if they’re holidaying on a budget or couldn’t get on any other flight - my old boss used to ask me to book his flights and every request would end in a “NOT with Ryanair”!           But we'll still continue to fly with them because we don't think holidays are a waste of time. We still love ‘em, Mike, even if we have to endure one of your flights to have one.    Warpdog is a copywriter and screenwriter and likes to grump about pretty much everything. Follow her on @warpdogBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=68fd20d6-900c-4156-811e-a729b3adb7c8The end is in sight, says David Whitley, as a hotel chain scraps its internet charges, but there's still a long way to go.Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:59:39 -0700Poorna Bellb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a0568fd20d6-900c-4156-811e-a729b3adb7c8BlogArticle157FC84665F7488F012012-08-29T14:59:39.597The end is in sight, says David Whitley, as a hotel chain scraps its internet charges, but there's still a long way to go.Hotel company Accor – which includes the Mercure, Novotel and Ibis brands – has decided to scrap wi-fi charges in 500 of its hotels. This, it seems, is something we’re supposed to be grateful for. But it’s hardly groundbreaking stuff. Stay at a cheap chain motel in the US or a guesthouse in South East Asia, and the internet access will more than likely be free. And if the budget accommodation brands can offer this, there’s no reason why mid-range and luxury hotels can’t either. A few brands have already bowed down to the inevitable on this and now offer free in-room internet access as a matter of course. Best Western does it, Shangri-La does it. Andaz does it. But many more big hotel chains treat internet access as a cash cow, figuring that their guests have no option but to pay it. Stay at the Hilton London Tower Bridge, for example, and you’ll pay £15 for 24 hours’ access. Meanwhile, the Crowne Plaza London St James hits guests up with a £9.99 bill if they want a day’s access.   The issue comes when the charge is so ridiculously high.  I’ve seen far worse abroad – I remember paying the equivalent of £20 or more in Switzerland and Australia. The problem isn’t necessarily that web access is charged for, however. Premier Inn, for example, charges £3 a day – and that seems reasonably fair given the relatively cheap room rates. The issue comes when the charge is so obviously extortionate. Virtually every traveller trying to get online in their hotel room will have internet access at home. And they know what they pay for their monthly broadband deal. Even at the more expensive end of the scale, they’ll not be paying any more than £2 a day – and that usually includes phone lines and TV channels. So when a traveller sees exorbitant charges of £10 or more for a day’s wi-fi access at a hotel, the only logical conclusion is that they are being completely ripped off. Ask why they charge so much, and hotels will come up with all manner of excuses – such as being tied into expensive contracts with service providers or people hogging bandwidth by streaming videos.   They know you know much it really costs - and they don't care. But the excuses are a front. The real reason they charge so much for wi-fi is because they don’t care what you think. You’re not guests – you’re numbers on the balance sheet. They know that you know how much it really costs. They know that you know you’re being ripped off. And they couldn’t care less as long as you keep handing over the cash. That doesn’t feel good, does it? And this is the reason why Accor has decided to ditch the wi-fi charges. It’s not an altruistic attempt to do the right thing – it’s a response to a stream of complaints about the previous policy. Accor feared that customers would go elsewhere after finally snapping at the outrageous internet charges. You can only treat people as if they’re stupid for so long. And hopefully the other hotel chains will realise this very soon. What do you think? David Whitley writes about travel for the likes of National Geographic Traveller, the Sydney Morning Herald and BBC Travel. He blogs at GrumpyTraveller.com and his book – Hardly Paradise: Anti-Postcards From A Grumpy Traveller – is out now. Follow David on Twitter.   Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writers.Hotel company Accor – which includes the Mercure, Novotel and Ibis brands – has decided to scrap wi-fi charges in 500 of its hotels. This, it seems, is something we’re supposed to be grateful for. But it’s hardly groundbreaking stuff. Stay at a cheap chain motel in the US or a guesthouse in South East Asia, and the internet access will more than likely be free. And if the budget accommodation brands can offer this, there’s no reason why mid-range and luxury hotels can’t either. A few brands have already bowed down to the inevitable on this and now offer free in-room internet access as a matter of course. Best Western does it, Shangri-La does it. Andaz does it. But many more big hotel chains treat internet access as a cash cow, figuring that their guests have no option but to pay it. Stay at the Hilton London Tower Bridge, for example, and you’ll pay £15 for 24 hours’ access. Meanwhile, the Crowne Plaza London St James hits guests up with a £9.99 bill if they want a day’s access.   The issue comes when the charge is so ridiculously high.  I’ve seen far worse abroad – I remember paying the equivalent of £20 or more in Switzerland and Australia. The problem isn’t necessarily that web access is charged for, however. Premier Inn, for example, charges £3 a day – and that seems reasonably fair given the relatively cheap room rates. The issue comes when the charge is so obviously extortionate. Virtually every traveller trying to get online in their hotel room will have internet access at home. And they know what they pay for their monthly broadband deal. Even at the more expensive end of the scale, they’ll not be paying any more than £2 a day – and that usually includes phone lines and TV channels. So when a traveller sees exorbitant charges of £10 or more for a day’s wi-fi access at a hotel, the only logical conclusion is that they are being completely ripped off. Ask why they charge so much, and hotels will come up with all manner of excuses – such as being tied into expensive contracts with service providers or people hogging bandwidth by streaming videos.   They know you know much it really costs - and they don't care. But the excuses are a front. The real reason they charge so much for wi-fi is because they don’t care what you think. You’re not guests – you’re numbers on the balance sheet. They know that you know how much it really costs. They know that you know you’re being ripped off. And they couldn’t care less as long as you keep handing over the cash. That doesn’t feel good, does it? And this is the reason why Accor has decided to ditch the wi-fi charges. It’s not an altruistic attempt to do the right thing – it’s a response to a stream of complaints about the previous policy. Accor feared that customers would go elsewhere after finally snapping at the outrageous internet charges. You can only treat people as if they’re stupid for so long. And hopefully the other hotel chains will realise this very soon. What do you think? David Whitley writes about travel for the likes of National Geographic Traveller, the Sydney Morning Herald and BBC Travel. He blogs at GrumpyTraveller.com and his book – Hardly Paradise: Anti-Postcards From A Grumpy Traveller – is out now. Follow David on Twitter.   Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writers.BlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=77a49c0d-3ea2-43d9-800f-237103f78c41It makes as much financial sense to have a holiday in the UK as it does to invest in chocolate teapots, says Nikki BayleyFri, 24 Aug 2012 07:50:15 -0700Nikki Bayleyb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a0577a49c0d-3ea2-43d9-800f-237103f78c41BlogArticleF276DEDB58A1001B012012-08-24T15:59:25.49It makes as much financial sense to have a holiday in the UK as it does to invest in chocolate teapots, says Nikki BayleyA survey by website MyVoucherCodes.co.uk ​ has claimed that over half of all people on a ‘staycation’ found it was “more expensive” than their last foreign holiday. It won't be news to anyone who's tried to have an affordable break in Britain that a holiday here is more expensive than going abroad.  I've lost count of the times I've found myself furiously mouthing: "How much?!" after checking prices on British hotels to even raise an eyebrow at this.  To be fair, it's not just the crippling accommodation costs that make a Brit break over-priced. Once you factor in everything, from ridiculous public transport costs to over-priced petrol, from jacked-up food prices to family-unfriendly entrance tickets, you start to see why Britain is a popular destination amongst the mega-minted Russian gazillionaire set.  The Tripadvisor's TripIndex works out the cost of a night out for two, including cabs, hotel, dinner and cocktails in major cities across the world. No prizes for guessing that London beat every other city to the title of most expensive. Sure, we know we're gold medal winners, but who knew you'd need to melt one down to afford a night in our capital?    It isn't just London that's expensive - its the UK in general.   And it's not just London. Let's say your family of four fancied a day at Blackpool Pleasure Beach. That's £95 on wristbands before you've even bought lunch, snacks and been badgered into buying souvenir photos and a Kiss Me Quick hat! Compare that to some of the amazing deals for families at world-famous attractions like Disneyland (accommodation and park package at around £65 per person). Even if you're rubbish at maths, you can see that a holiday in Britain just isn't the recession-friendly option most people think it is.   Holidaying in Blighty is worthwhile, it's just not cheap. There are breathtaking sights to see and wonderful things to do across the UK, I'm not denying that. It's great, in fact, that we're in the midst of icon sights such as Stonehenge, the Tower of London or the Angel of the North. Just don't be fooled into thinking it's a cheaper option to stay at home instead of going abroad.  Nikki Bayley writes about travel and lifestyle for Glamour, Sunday Times Travel magazine, The Sun and xojane.co.uk. If you like tweets about food, politics, travel and the difficulties of giving up swearing follow her @nikkibayley. Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writersA survey by website MyVoucherCodes.co.uk ​ has claimed that over half of all people on a ‘staycation’ found it was “more expensive” than their last foreign holiday. It won't be news to anyone who's tried to have an affordable break in Britain that a holiday here is more expensive than going abroad.  I've lost count of the times I've found myself furiously mouthing: "How much?!" after checking prices on British hotels to even raise an eyebrow at this.  To be fair, it's not just the crippling accommodation costs that make a Brit break over-priced. Once you factor in everything, from ridiculous public transport costs to over-priced petrol, from jacked-up food prices to family-unfriendly entrance tickets, you start to see why Britain is a popular destination amongst the mega-minted Russian gazillionaire set.  The Tripadvisor's TripIndex works out the cost of a night out for two, including cabs, hotel, dinner and cocktails in major cities across the world. No prizes for guessing that London beat every other city to the title of most expensive. Sure, we know we're gold medal winners, but who knew you'd need to melt one down to afford a night in our capital?    It isn't just London that's expensive - its the UK in general.   And it's not just London. Let's say your family of four fancied a day at Blackpool Pleasure Beach. That's £95 on wristbands before you've even bought lunch, snacks and been badgered into buying souvenir photos and a Kiss Me Quick hat! Compare that to some of the amazing deals for families at world-famous attractions like Disneyland (accommodation and park package at around £65 per person). Even if you're rubbish at maths, you can see that a holiday in Britain just isn't the recession-friendly option most people think it is.   Holidaying in Blighty is worthwhile, it's just not cheap. There are breathtaking sights to see and wonderful things to do across the UK, I'm not denying that. It's great, in fact, that we're in the midst of icon sights such as Stonehenge, the Tower of London or the Angel of the North. Just don't be fooled into thinking it's a cheaper option to stay at home instead of going abroad.  Nikki Bayley writes about travel and lifestyle for Glamour, Sunday Times Travel magazine, The Sun and xojane.co.uk. If you like tweets about food, politics, travel and the difficulties of giving up swearing follow her @nikkibayley. Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writersBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=14b25d8a-b5a0-4327-9970-d5e6cfa73218Recession-hit adults are choosing to holiday with their parents - writer Warpdog won't be among themFri, 10 Aug 2012 03:01:33 -0700Warpdogb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a0514b25d8a-b5a0-4327-9970-d5e6cfa73218BlogArticleE053F6D9437B637B012012-08-13T13:48:42.363Recession-hit adults are choosing to holiday with their parents - writer Warpdog won't be among themA survey published last week shows that a third of parents now pay for their grown-up offspring to come abroad with them because their kids either can’t afford it, or are saving for a mortgage. Go on holiday with my parents? I’d rather stick spoons in my eyes.   A few years ago my parents bought an apartment in Spain. I was delighted at the prospect of them being even further away until my mum gleefully announced that we could spend all our summer holidays together. The thought horrified me and I mumbled something about being skint. My mum hit back with: “It’s okay I’ll pay for your flights”. She even offered to pay for my boyfriend.   I needed a holiday to get over THAT holiday.   That’s not an easy offer to turn down so we endured seven days of sightseeing and shopping - my mum even told me what to wear at one point. On the last day, my dad got us out of bed at 7am and frogmarched us to a spice museum 40 miles away. I needed a holiday to get over it.   So why would any self-respecting adult want to go on holiday with their parents?   With many adults moving back in with their parents due to high rent costs, spending a holiday abroad with them may seem like a natural progression. But I remember the days when a foreign holiday was taken as a decadent treat. We were lucky if we went to Butlins, let alone Benidorm.   A holiday is a luxury, not a necessity. Perhaps this willingness to go abroad, even if it involves getting up at the crack of dawn and being told what to wear, signifies that we've come to view holidays as a must-have even if we are broke.   Well some of us, anyway. I’m penniless most of the time but I’m not that desperate to go away again with my olds. I wake up in a cold sweat sometimes at the memory of my mother making me wear a sailor dress in Majorca when I was 16.   Surprisingly, it's 30 to 40-somethings travelling with parents.   Surprisingly it’s not just hard up teens or twenty-somethings travelling with the parents. The average person joining their folks on holiday is now 30. That’s pretty desperate. Yet a whopping 19% are over 40. That’s just weird.   My parents still try to entice me away and now I tell them that I can’t find anyone to look after the cat. I don’t even have a cat! I may be skint but I’d rather go without. Bah humbug! Warpdog is a copywriter and screenwriter and likes to grump about pretty much everything. Follow her on @warpdog Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writersA survey published last week shows that a third of parents now pay for their grown-up offspring to come abroad with them because their kids either can’t afford it, or are saving for a mortgage. Go on holiday with my parents? I’d rather stick spoons in my eyes.   A few years ago my parents bought an apartment in Spain. I was delighted at the prospect of them being even further away until my mum gleefully announced that we could spend all our summer holidays together. The thought horrified me and I mumbled something about being skint. My mum hit back with: “It’s okay I’ll pay for your flights”. She even offered to pay for my boyfriend.   I needed a holiday to get over THAT holiday.   That’s not an easy offer to turn down so we endured seven days of sightseeing and shopping - my mum even told me what to wear at one point. On the last day, my dad got us out of bed at 7am and frogmarched us to a spice museum 40 miles away. I needed a holiday to get over it.   So why would any self-respecting adult want to go on holiday with their parents?   With many adults moving back in with their parents due to high rent costs, spending a holiday abroad with them may seem like a natural progression. But I remember the days when a foreign holiday was taken as a decadent treat. We were lucky if we went to Butlins, let alone Benidorm.   A holiday is a luxury, not a necessity. Perhaps this willingness to go abroad, even if it involves getting up at the crack of dawn and being told what to wear, signifies that we've come to view holidays as a must-have even if we are broke.   Well some of us, anyway. I’m penniless most of the time but I’m not that desperate to go away again with my olds. I wake up in a cold sweat sometimes at the memory of my mother making me wear a sailor dress in Majorca when I was 16.   Surprisingly, it's 30 to 40-somethings travelling with parents.   Surprisingly it’s not just hard up teens or twenty-somethings travelling with the parents. The average person joining their folks on holiday is now 30. That’s pretty desperate. Yet a whopping 19% are over 40. That’s just weird.   My parents still try to entice me away and now I tell them that I can’t find anyone to look after the cat. I don’t even have a cat! I may be skint but I’d rather go without. Bah humbug! Warpdog is a copywriter and screenwriter and likes to grump about pretty much everything. Follow her on @warpdog Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writersBlogArticlehttp://travel.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=22c4662e-9e9f-4dbb-a47c-694314500ebbAndy Jarosz says the move by Wizz Air makes the low-cost experience anything butMon, 06 Aug 2012 15:38:46 -0700Andy Jaroszb4badb10-0684-4f1b-bf09-655c03d18a0522c4662e-9e9f-4dbb-a47c-694314500ebbBlogArticleDA130E8DC892D1E1012012-08-07T14:59:24.64Andy Jarosz says the move by Wizz Air makes the low-cost experience anything butJust when you thought that low-cost airlines had dreamt up every possible add-on to their headline fares, another fee has come along that beggars belief. The latest in the ever-growing list of additional charges added to ‘bargain’ low-cost air fares is Wizz Air’s creative fee for bringing larger items of hand luggage onto a flight.   Basically if your bag can’t fit under the seat in front of you, you’ll have to pay. By charging people €10 to use the overhead bins, the airline says it is hoping to encourage passengers to check their heavy bags into the hold (and of course pay an even higher fee for the privilege).   Every time a fee is introduced, the feeble excuse usually trotted out is that the move will help the airline operate more 'efficiently' and offer passengers 'increased convenience and comfort’. Wizz Air claims their new baggage policy has received ‘positive feedback’ although from whom it doesn’t have the cheek to say – presumably its own Finance Director is particularly happy with the move.   Like most passengers I want my low-cost flights to be over as quickly as possible so that I don’t have to spend a moment longer than necessary in the narrow brightly-coloured wedges that pass for budget airline seats. This move lacks logic beyond extracting a few more euros. I will support any sensible moves by airlines to find safe ways of getting all passengers on board in five minutes so that the crew can shut the doors and get on their way immediately.  But this move lacks any logic beyond the simple purpose of extracting a few extra euros from the helpless travelling public. Presumably the only way the airline can police this rule is making passengers put their hand luggage into a second measuring cage at the gate, and then making offenders pay with a credit card. How on earth does that help the airline to depart on time?   Like lemmings, we still book low-cost even when it clearly isn't. Following on from web check-in fees, seat selection fees and credit card surcharges I’m hardly surprised at this latest ruse by a low cost airline. If they were operating a restaurant they would have offered us £5 steaks and then charged us an extra £7 to make a booking, £6 to sit with our partner, £3 for the cutlery and £2 to view the menu. Having declined the £5 cloakroom fee we would now be told there is a £3 charge to hang our jackets on the back of the chair.   Of course we wouldn’t stand for it in a restaurant and would go to an alternative place that didn’t keep trying to fleece us at every opportunity. Yet rather like lemmings, people still refuse to give up the chase for budget airline bargains with low headline prices, even when they are anything but cheap once the whole ordeal is finished and all the little charges have been added up.   What do you think? Do you feel low-cost airlines are taking people for a ride, or are they still a bargain despite all the extra fees?   Andy Jarosz is a freelance travel writer who writes for various publications including BBC Travel, National Geographic Traveller and Coast magazine.  Follow Andy on @501places Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writersJust when you thought that low-cost airlines had dreamt up every possible add-on to their headline fares, another fee has come along that beggars belief. The latest in the ever-growing list of additional charges added to ‘bargain’ low-cost air fares is Wizz Air’s creative fee for bringing larger items of hand luggage onto a flight.   Basically if your bag can’t fit under the seat in front of you, you’ll have to pay. By charging people €10 to use the overhead bins, the airline says it is hoping to encourage passengers to check their heavy bags into the hold (and of course pay an even higher fee for the privilege).   Every time a fee is introduced, the feeble excuse usually trotted out is that the move will help the airline operate more 'efficiently' and offer passengers 'increased convenience and comfort’. Wizz Air claims their new baggage policy has received ‘positive feedback’ although from whom it doesn’t have the cheek to say – presumably its own Finance Director is particularly happy with the move.   Like most passengers I want my low-cost flights to be over as quickly as possible so that I don’t have to spend a moment longer than necessary in the narrow brightly-coloured wedges that pass for budget airline seats. This move lacks logic beyond extracting a few more euros. I will support any sensible moves by airlines to find safe ways of getting all passengers on board in five minutes so that the crew can shut the doors and get on their way immediately.  But this move lacks any logic beyond the simple purpose of extracting a few extra euros from the helpless travelling public. Presumably the only way the airline can police this rule is making passengers put their hand luggage into a second measuring cage at the gate, and then making offenders pay with a credit card. How on earth does that help the airline to depart on time?   Like lemmings, we still book low-cost even when it clearly isn't. Following on from web check-in fees, seat selection fees and credit card surcharges I’m hardly surprised at this latest ruse by a low cost airline. If they were operating a restaurant they would have offered us £5 steaks and then charged us an extra £7 to make a booking, £6 to sit with our partner, £3 for the cutlery and £2 to view the menu. Having declined the £5 cloakroom fee we would now be told there is a £3 charge to hang our jackets on the back of the chair.   Of course we wouldn’t stand for it in a restaurant and would go to an alternative place that didn’t keep trying to fleece us at every opportunity. Yet rather like lemmings, people still refuse to give up the chase for budget airline bargains with low headline prices, even when they are anything but cheap once the whole ordeal is finished and all the little charges have been added up.   What do you think? Do you feel low-cost airlines are taking people for a ride, or are they still a bargain despite all the extra fees?   Andy Jarosz is a freelance travel writer who writes for various publications including BBC Travel, National Geographic Traveller and Coast magazine.  Follow Andy on @501places Let us know your views in the comments below. Join the debate on Twitter using the hashtag #socialvoices Do you want to join our #socialvoices? We're looking for great new writersBlogArticle