Beijing vs. Audi

In March, we ran a Beijing cover. We asked for your opinions — did we make the right choice, or should we have gone with our runner-up, the Audi cover? Which cover option won more favor? The results were unanimous.

I think you made the right choice for the March cover. I see cars on plenty of other magazines. I don’t see your usual cover subjects on other magazines. Stay different and better!

Nicky Hamilton, Novi, Mich.

I have nothing against fine automobiles, but if I wanted a picture of one, I’d look at an auto magazine. Your cover photos, and all your photos, are always so colorful and interesting. You certainly made the right choice. I hope you continue to choose in the same manner. Also, I like the new look. GT continues to improve while not straying from your roots.

Charles J. Alexander, Oak Park, Ill.

No contest on the cover options. The “Rev It Up” option creates confusion: Global Traveler? A car magazine? Your dramatic, colorful Beijing cover says exotic places and experiences ahead. I couldn’t wait to see what was inside.

Gail Woodard, Sonoita, Ariz.

The Beijing cover was more suited for the magazine and was perfect! Not really sure what a luxury car on the front of a travel magazine would have to do with any of the articles. Maybe a Lear Jet would have been
more appropriate instead of a vehicle.

Alfredo M. Caliva, Chicago, Ill.

Your New Look

I like the new design of Global Traveler. It is clean and fresh-looking. I am glad you didn’t make major changes, as I always thought GT looked great. You made the right choices. I will take your beautiful covers of skylines or city views any day. Great work!

Ryan Shannon, Evanston, Ill.

Summertime, and the Skiing’s in Chile

Tim Leffel’s article on skiing in Chile (March 2012) was so entertaining. I’d never given much thought to the prospect, but I was so intrigued, I’m considering booking a summertime ski trip to Chile. Thanks for the suggestion!

Margorie Scanlon, via email

Good Deeds with Hotel Amenities

In our Feb. 29 issue of eFlyer USA, we wrote about Global Soap Project, an initiative to re-purpose hotel amenities for less fortunate countries. One reader shares his own initiative.

I always pack a medium-sized Ziploc bag and regularly bring home bath amenities from my travels. I donate them to a local men’s shelter. They really appreciate receiving them.

Doug Bardwell, Columbia Station, Ohio

Photo Correction

In our March 2012 issue, we erroneously identified Jean Saito as advertising, sales and promotion coordinator. Ms. Saito is the marketing manager for All Nippon Airways. We apologize for the error. — Editor

United MileagePlus

At the end of 2011, United Airlines debuted a brand-new MileagePlus frequent-flyer program as part of its merger with Continental Airlines. After we reported on the program changes, some of our readers shared their opinions.

I have been an elite frequent flyer with United for as long as I can remember. As a business owner, I have achieved 1K status in the past, but with the economy of the last few years, I have been at the Premier level. In a world of shrinking value in the name of so-called improvements, United has the gall to proudly proclaim a better frequent-flyer program that actually punishes the lowly
Premiers, who probably make up the bulk of loyal flyers.

Two of the joys of frequent travel are perks and control. It’s great to be able to assign your own seat online and minimize day-of-travel surprises. But no more! The lowly Premier will no longer be able to select an Economy Plus seat at booking but must wait until
check-in. This means the Premier will get the leftovers, the middle seats, the worst seats, if any at all. A couple of years ago, United increased the achievement level for 1K from 100 segments to 120 segments, which is no small jump. This punished the short-hop or connecting-flight travelers. I’m confused how reducing benefits, punishing loyal travelers and taking control out of our hands is a
“better, new and improved” MileagePlus.

P. Johan Sekovski, via email

A recent eFlyer article implies United MileagePlus Premier members are getting a lot of new benefits. What it doesn’t address are the benefits that were withdrawn in 2012. We spent last year being loyal to United so we could maintain status, often at the cost of higher fares for some routes. We were authorized two bags free, 50 pounds or less. In 2012, it is only one. We used to reserve
Economy Plus seats at booking, but in 2012, we must wait until 24 hours prior to our flight for the same benefit.

Bob Yeager, via email

We reached out to United Airlines for a response: A consistent point of feedback from our highest-level elite members is that they want assured access to premiumcabin upgrades when available and Economy Plus aisle and window seats, even when they book very close to departure. The changes to MileagePlus ensure a strong, competitive set of benefits for all members, with an additional
suite of services for our elite members and the highest levels of service for our most loyal customers.

Charles Hobart, media relations representative, United Airlines

E-Cigarettes in Flight

In our Feb. 29 edition of eFlyer USA, we asked your thoughts on electronic cigarette use while in flight. Here are a few of the responses.

I believe there is still some sort of vapor that emits from e-cigarettes, so I think they should be banned from flights.

Kate Koeteeuw, Denver, Colo.

Of course an electronic cigarette should be allowed! It does not transmit a signal, so what’s the problem? The manufacturer advertises you can use them anywhere, but now people are saying no! Either people need to lighten up or the advertising
company needs to change their tune.

Harry Price, via email

When the e-cigarette first appeared, I used it on a number of United and US Airways flights with no problem. After a while, it was added to the list of banned devices. The lithium battery has nothing to do with it, as computers also use them. The problem is that other passengers may think it is a real cigarette and cause an incident. I think that they should be allowed.

Jon Bourner, Reading, Pa.

As a person who smoked for almost 40 years, I can share with you that e-cigarettes made it possible for me to completely quit smoking in an easy, satisfying and successful way. All other products failed miserably and some painfully. That said, it is the general consensus among most e-smokers that using an e-cigarette is acceptable only in places where we have permission and/or it is not specifically denied. E-smoking emits water vapors, and vaping in the close quarters of an airplane is going to upset those who believe it is a regular cigarette and those who still smoke and are upset someone is allowed to smoke when they are not.

Suzanne Kammerer, via email

It’s not up to me or any other reader to think it’s all right to light up a lithium battery-powered e-cigarette. If it’s banned — rightly or wrongly — it’s banned. Rules are meant for all and cannot selectively be followed.

Claire Walter, Boulder, Colo.

I’ve vaped e-cigarettes on long-haul flights (e-cigarettes produce vapor and not smoke, so one never “smokes” an e-cigarette). E-cigarettes are safe to use in proximity of other people, and there’s no such thing as secondhand vapor. As for the banning of lithium-ion batteries on planes, most mobile devices use these batteries, so that’s just a fabricated excuse for not allowing e-cigarettes on board.

Charles Robert Hayden-Gilbert, via email

Contact GT

Do you have a story to share? Thoughts on a recent GT article?

Email us: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Write to: Letters to the Editor
310 Floral Vale Blvd.
Yardley, PA 19067

Letters must be written exclusively to Global Traveler and must include your full name, mailing address and contact phone number. Letters become the property of Global Traveler. We cannot respond to every letter. Global Traveler reserves the right to edit letters to the editor for length and clarity. The opinions expressed in Mail Call are not necessarily those of Global Traveler, and Global Traveler cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions.