The Amazing Race 11 (All-Star Edition), Episode 2

Cotopaxi National Park (Ecuador) - Santiago (Chile) - Calama (Chile) - Chuquicamata (Chile) - San Pedro de Atacama (Chile)

I had hoped that the All-Star Edition of The Amazing Race , with a cast selected from participants in previous seasons of the reality-television show, would provide useful lessons about how people learn from the experience of travel, and do things differently the second time they travel around the world.

Thus far, reality has disappointed, as the teams (and the producers who plan the route and activities, although I'll leave that for another week) have repeated some of the classic mistakes that were made by first-time world travellers in previous seasons.

This week's episode, for example, was not the first time that altitude sickness was the main factor in the results of an episode of the race, as I discussed when it happened at 2500 meters (8000 feet) in Ethiopia in season 6.

This time, there probably wasn't anything Drew and Kevin could have done to avoid falling behind and being eliminated. Some people are more susceptible to altitude sickness, or generally feel its effects at lower altitudes. Even people who've had no problems on previous ascents to a given altitude may suddenly experience serious symptoms at the same altitude on a later trip. And perhaps most importantly, serious altitude sickness isn't something you can, or should, simply "be tough" and suffer through. If you need medical treatment for altitude sickness, you should probably go down to a lower altitude at the first opportunity to do so.

If your symptoms are mild, you can rest, go no higher, and hope to acclimatize over several days. That won't help you win any races (not that you're likely to win any races while out of breath from the altitude), but your life is worth more than a million dollars. The potential need for time to acclimatize -- somewhat unpredictable, regardless of your physical fitness or prior experience with high altitudes -- is a strong reason to not to plan a rushed schedule.

If you have a tour or an onward flight already booked, you may be tempted to ignore the warning signs of altitude sickness. Don't. More severe symptoms can become life-threatening quickly, and you aren't likely to enjoy anyway if you continue your planned high-altitude itinerary. Here's how Drew described it in an interview with BuddyTV , which is publishing interviews with each eliminated team this season:

Altitude sickness, if you've ever had it, it’s really bad. I don't know how to compare it to sea sickness because I've never had that but let me tell you, you get a headache that feels like your head is in a vice and someone’s just squeezing the vice; slowly and surely squeezing it. I was vomiting all night and after I was done vomiting I had the dry heaves all night. I had to sleep on the floor, which many of us did, but I was furthest away from the fireplace so I had the chills and they had to give me oxygen all night. It was pretty bad.

The biggest factor in the severity of Drew's symptoms was the altitude -- 3,550 meters (11,500 feet) -- at which they spent the night on the slope of Cotopaxi. A day trip to a higher altitude from a lower altitude where you sleep is much less likely to produce severe altitude sickness than sleeping high. And it's usually much easier to turn around and descend if you get ill on a day trip than if you have already flown to a high-altitude base. The racers flew to 2500 meters (8200 feet) at Calama, and immediately started driving up from there to the Chuquicamata copper mine at 2850 meters (9350 feet).

It's quite typical of the real world that Kevin and Drew didn't realize that they should have gone down to a lower altitude (or stayed at a lower altitude once they had descended to sea level to change planes in Lima), and that they didn't realize that they were in no condition to be driving.

People whose mental functioning is impaired by altitude sickness frequently need to have their condition pointed out by those around them, and sometimes need to be forced by their companions to descend, against their impaired judgement that they are able to go on.

Perhaps the television production crew included doctors who were able to give confident advice that the racers were in no danger, physically fit to go back up to the Atacama desert and mentally fit to operate motor vehicles. But real travelers don't have doctors in attendance. If you are in severe pain from altitude, or people tell you that you are "acting stupid" or abnormally clumsy, trust their judgement ahead of your own.

Driving while light-headed, confused, and with reactions slowed by altitude sickness can easily be as dangerous, to yourself and others, as driving while falling-down drunk. Stop right away, and get to a lower altitude as soon as possible. Reactions to altitude vary from person to person, so if you have to drive to get down, have the person least affected by the altitude do the driving. Mountain roads often get narrower as they climb, with fewer places to turn around. So stop and think, before you continue past a turnaround point, whether you are confident you'll be able to turn back if either the condition of the road or the condition of your body and mind gets worse farther up the road.

Don't get overly worried. If you plan your itinerary with adequate time to reach higher altitudes slowly and to acclimatize, pay attention to the symptoms of altitude sickness, and descend if they are serious, increasing, or prolonged, your problems should be limited to moderate discomfort. But unless you too have doctors and a support team prepared to intervene and evacuate you if things go wrong, don't follow the example that the racers set this week.

The Amazing Race 11 (All-Star Edition), Episode 1

Miami, FL (USA) - Quito (Ecuador) - Cotopaxi National Park (Ecuador)

The cast of The Amazing Race , which started its new All-Star season tonight with relatively short flights from Miami to Quito, Ecuador, typically spend about two weeks of the month-long race around the world on airplanes or in airports. That's par for the course: the quickest real-life trip around the world typically involves about a week of air travel time, and the televised race (like most real trips) involves more than a minimal number of stops, and often a somewhat circuitous and lengthier route than would be fastest.

So for the racers, as for many business travellers as well as those "leisure" travellers who try to crowd too much travel into too little time, the experience of travel is primarily the experience of airplanes and airports -- a phenomenon insightfully explored by Pico Iyer in the chapter on Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in his book, "The Global Soul".

I enjoy the different perspective on the world one gets from 10,000 meters (33,000 feet), and the vastly greater safety of air travel compared to any other means of transportation. But that doesn't mean I enjoy it when my flight is cancelled or delayed, when I'm on a plane that sits on the runway for hours, or when the airline fails to tell the passengers -- its customers -- what is happening or when (if ever) they can expect to get where they have paid to be transported.

That's the issue that's in the news this week, with some JetBlue Airways passengers having been trapped on planes, on the ground, for more than ten hours while waiting to take off during an ice storm in New York.

What happened to the JetBlue passengers was, obviously, outrageous, and JetBlue has a history of putting their foot in their mouth in response to scandals about their business practices -- as when I exposed that they had turned over their entire historical archive of reservations to a military contractor for the since-discredited and officially disbanded (although continuing under other names) Total Information Awareness surveillance research program.

The problem of cancelled flights was worse for JetBlue and its customers than it would have been for another airline, since by its own choice JetBlue, unlike most "legacy" airlines, has no interline agreements to permit them to endorse tickets to other airlines -- a problem I've mentioned previously in relation to "The Amazing Race".

But JetBlue was, in fact, acting according to industry norms. Every year or two, a planeload of people gets held on a plane for hours, forbidden (for "security" reasons) from walking down the steps and across the ramp back to the terminal. In recent years, these incidents have involved Northwest Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines, among others. It could equally have been almost any other airline in the USA.

I once spent five or six hours on the tarmac in New Delhi -- although to be fair to Thai Airways, it was more comfortable on their plane than in the terminal at Indira Gandhi International Airport, foreign airlines' norms of service are much higher than those of USA-based airlines, and none of us were demanding to get off. My trip home from Washington yesterday involved a more unpleasant series of events, including two successive flights cancelled because of mechanical difficulties, and being sent to the furthest terminal of a very large hub airport, and back again, twice (accompanied by another passenger with a bad leg, for whom the requested wheelchair transfer had not been provided), without being told that the alternate flight on which we were being rebooked was also delayed indefinitely and might be cancelled.

In response to this week's public hue and cry, Senator Barbara Boxer of California announced on Thursday that she plans to introduce Federal legislation in the USA for an "airline passengers' bill of rights".

By coincidence, I was in Washington this week for an aviation security conference (from which I and the rest of the press were expelled , in breach of my registration contract, after I was invited and paid the fee to attend). When Senator Boxer made her announcement, I was already scheduled to meet with her staff the next day, Friday, on issues including airline passengers' rights.

I don't know what will be in Boxer's bill, but previous proposals for an "Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights" have varied widely. About a dozen such bills were introduced in Congress in 1999-2001: go here to the Library of Congress legislative archive, click the "check all" box to search all past Congresses, and search for "airline passenger rights". None of these measures got out of committee or to a vote on the floor of the House and Senate, and since 11 September 2001 Congress has focused on airline "security" rather than airline consumer protection.

It's easy to say, "There ought to be a law". It's much harder to write a law that will be effective.

Most of the past proposals have tried to define minimal standards for humane treatment of passengers, especially once they are trapped on a plane with the doors closed, at the mercy of the airline. The big legislative differences have been in enforcement mechanisms.

As I told Boxer's staff, I've interviewed the top enforcement officials of the USA Department of Transportation (DOT), and they've made no secret of the fact that they have neither interest nor resources to police airlines' treatment of passengers or enforce the consumer protection provisions of Federal laws that already apply to airlines. Given that the stated policy of the DOT -- reconsidered and reaffirmed just last year -- is to use "prosecutorial discretion" not to enforce the existing Federal law which prohibits deceptive advertising of incomplete prices for airline tickets, there's no reason to expect them to do a better job of enforcing new standards for passenger treatment.

It costs an airline around US$5,000 an hour to hold a plane on the ground, so current maximum fines of US$1,000 per incident for violations of Federal rules for treatment of passengers aren't large enough to have much impact on an airline's bottom line or behavior. Some of the past proposals for a "Passengers' Bill of Rights" would have increased the potential fines to as much as US$100,000, but that won't matter unless the DOT actually polices violations and imposes maximum fines, neither of which seems at all likely. And as of now, the only way for aggrieved passengers to sue an airline is to bring suit in Federal court, a process that typically requires a lawyer, costs tens of thousands of dollars, and takes years to produce a decision.

What's needed is the ability for state and local consumer protection officials (the "fraud squad"), and/or travellers themselves, to seek redress of grievances against the airlines under existing state and local consumer protection in the existing state courts, including small claims courts (there is no Federal small claims court) that already hear most consumer complaints.

That's what 45 state Attorneys General called for in 2000 in a formal request to Congress to end or narrow the "preemption" of state jurisdiction over airlines' treatment of their customers, a position that underlies more recent objections by Attorneys General to moves to weaken already weak Federal enforcement of rules protecting airline passengers.

Some of the 2001 and earlier bills included provisions to clarify that, in reserving exclusive Federal jurisdiction to control fares and routes, Congress had not intended to exempt the airlines totally from state and local action for fraud, deceptive advertising, or breach of contract.

I told Boxer's staff that such language is essential to give enforcement "teeth" through state courts, including small claims courts, to any meaningful "Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights".

If you are contacting your Representative or Senators about this, urge Congress to address the "Federal preemption" of regulation of the airlines, so that airlines can be held to the same standards of truth in advertising and enforcement of contract terms as any other businesses.

More importantly, though, the unconscionable mistreatment and delay of a few hundred or thousand passengers a year by "we don't care; we don't have to" airlines is small compared to the injustice visited on half a million would-be passengers a year who have been completed denied their right to travel on the basis of secret "threat scores" generated by a secret "Automated Targeting System" on the basis of secret dossiers on their travel history and other records maintained by the government and compiled from airlines and other unnamed private sources. Most of these people are entirely innocent, and all of them should be presumed innocent, since none have been afforded a court hearing on the secret extrajudicial administrative orders barring them from travelling by airline or other common carrier.

If Senator Boxer, or other members of Congress, are serious about protecting the rights of travellers, the most important thing is for them to uphold our fundamental right to travel . That right is already guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in more detail by Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights .

The ICCPR has been signed and ratified by the USA and most other countries. But it isn't "self-effectuating", and there's great reluctance by many people in the USA to allowing international bodies (like the U.N. Human Rights Committee, which interprets the ICCPR) to have jurisdiction over people and activities in the USA. The USA has never taken the final small but necessary step, as required by the terms of the treaty, to make it not merely binding on the USA but enforceable in U.S. Federal courts.

As I told Boxer's staff, if anyone in Congress really wants a Bill of Rights to protect travellers, they should start by introducing and enacting a bill to grant jurisdiction to the Federal courts to hear cases ("causes of action") arising under the ICCPR, including its Article 12 protecting the right to freedom of movement.

What do you think? Let me know -- and let Congress know. I'll be talking about the proposed "Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights" on KNX radio (1070 AM in Los Angeles) from 11 a.m. to noon Pacific time (GMT - 8) on Monday, 19 February 2007. You can listen online or on the air, and call in with your comments, questions, and opinions.

[Addendum: Showing why an "Airline Passengers' Bill Of Rights" needs to address the human rights and civil liberties that some people in the USA have forgotten, and not just customer service issues, right-wing commentator Michelle Malkin has this to say about it: "I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it."]

Un/Welcome in Washington

I arrived in Washington, DC, yesterday evening (after speaking at the memorial for my dear departed friend Eric Weinberger Saturday in Boston, which made the trip to the East Coast not a complete waste) to what I can only describe as a mixed welcome.

At the downtown D.C. hostel, the person at reception did an incredulous double take when I showed my Hostelling International life membership card. "That isn't really you , is it? You're Edward Hasbrouck? The Practical Nomad? Really?" After trying to deny it, I admitted that I am, indeed, myself, and we chatted about books and travel. In addition to his job at the hostel, he works at the ADC Map & Travel Center , which has been around for years but has changed names and expanded its stock of books (including mine) as well as maps. With so many independent travel bookstores going out of business, it's a delight to visit one that seems to be going strong.

I got the opposite reception today. After a night's sleep, I went out past the Pentagon to Alexandria, VA, this morning to the "Aviation Security Summit" organized by World Research Group, Inc. -- only to be ordered to leave at the first coffee break!

The organizers of this conference had mailed me an invitation, addressed to "Edward Hasbrouck, Author, The Practical Nomad." I submitted the same information identifying myself as an author in order to download more information. They followed up with a phone call from one of their salespeople, who listened to my voicemail -- again identifying my profession -- before leaving me messages urging me to attend.

It was expensive, and there was no obvious way to request a press pass. But I decided it would be worth the US$1795 price (for anyone other than airport and government employees, who could get in for only $495) to hear from the horses' mouths, including conference chair Rafi Ron , what's being planned in airport "security". I read the brochure closely, and noticed that one, but only one, of the sessions was identified as being an "airport only ... closed forum.... Bring ... your airport ID to ensure admission into this exclusive session." The clear implication was that the rest of the two-day conference would be open to anyone paying the (steep) price of admission. There wasn't even a clause in the fine print like "we reserve the right to refuse admission".

I registered -- again, as "Edward Hasbrouck, Author, The Practical Nomad" -- and paid, in full, in advance. My registration was confirmed by e-mail; when the conference venue was changed, I was notified both by phone and by e-mail.

So it should have come as no surprise to anyone that I showed up, and that I'm an author. During breakfast, one of the airport security directors (from Dulles Airport, ironically given my previous experiences there) politely asked about my badge and profession. I explained, and we chatted. He was polite, and seemed quite happy to talk.

During the first session, unbeknownst to me until later, a Wired News reporter -- who like me had clearly identified himself at every step, and unlike me had been promised a press pass -- showed up and was turned away without ever being allowed into the room.

At the first coffee break, two hours into the morning, conference organizer Pamela Masselli of World Research Group called me out into the hall, One of the speakers, she said, had told her they would not "feel comfortable" giving the presentation they had prepared, containing such "sensitive" content, with a (gasp?) "author" in the audience.

So what did she want me to do about that? She proposed that I go out in the hall during this particular talk -- and, I presume, any of the other talks by speakers who might object to my presence, which would probably lead to my paying $1795 to spend two days pacing the halls.

I told her this was unacceptable: I had paid to attend all of the conference except the portion advertised as "airports only". If I wasn't to be allowed to do so, I would be owed my money back.

Ms. Maselli did agree, with apparent surprise but without argument, to refund the registration fee I had paid, if I left immediately. So I did, since otherwise she would presumably have had the authority as the tenant renting the room to order me evicted and force me to sue to get my money back. She admitted without hesitation that (1) they had invited me as an author, (2) they had accepted my registration as an author, (3) they had said nothing in any of the conference literature to indicate that the conference wouldn't be open to all paid attendees, or that they reserved any right to revoke registrations, and (4) that I had acted entirely properly, openly, in good faith, and in reliance on their written communications. "I feel terrible. I've never had to do this" [expel someone from a conference], she said.

Nevertheless, she said that "Our speakers are our conferences, and if they aren't willing to speak we have no conference. So we have to keep them happy." I pointed out that if it is worth it to them not to have me there, they and not I should be the ones to bear that cost. She was noncommittal as to whether they would reimburse my expenses for airfare from San Francisco, accommodations, and so forth, much less the value of several days of wasted time. I'll submit receipts, at least for the major out-of-pocket costs, and let you know what happens.

More at PapersPlease.org on what this says about airport security.

[Update: World Research Group refunded my conference registration fee. Eventually, they reimbursed me for my airfare and hotel expenses, but not for the value of my time.]