Airlines communicate with their passengers.

Sometimes, in letters (emails these days) and sometimes verbally.

In the past (and much of the software that runs airlines is old, or copied from older versions) proper address included a title.

You could no more start an email "Dear Kate Gregory" than you could start it

"Hey Kate" (as Netflix does when emailing me.)

I know for a fact that airlines I use address me formally in emails, and if I happen to speak to a human, they also do.

Like while boarding, "have a nice flight Ms Gregory" as they give me the boarding pass back after scanning.

The fact that many passengers don't want to be called Mr

Whoever or Miss Whatsit doesn't cause the disappearance of those who do want to be addressed that way.

The software exists, and sort of handles titles -- though clearly you can see design decisions from people who never imagined names ending in mr or dr, so the motivation to change it is very small.

In Germany, Doctor becomes legally an addendum of the name.

Kind of medieval and never updated.

The title is written in official identity documents, etc.

This does not apply to Professor, but if you make a special case for Doctors, why not go the whole nine yards?

Same reason so many web forms reject valid e-mail addresses.

Because people who make web forms copy older ones.

So the hasn’t-been-needed-for-years “required field” endures.

“We’ve always done it that way.”

If you think Lufthansa is bad (they only use two titles plus address—or three titles if you include Mr/Mrs as a title), then wait till you see British Airway’s list:

On the other hand, Finnair does precisely what you suggest:

Given this glaring difference between three European airlines (and flag carriers) that should otherwise be very similar, I strongly suspect the underlying reason is one of culture, heritage and history.

In Germany, the title Dr. has a special legal status, can be added to your ID documents, your credit card and you can insist on being called Dr. Meyer.

Prof. does not have this special legal status but still carries a general prestige with it; interviewees, for example on television, will often be titled Prof. in the name badge things that pop up at the bottom of the screen if appropriate (exceptions exist).

In the UK, aside from the old distinction Mrs/Miss still being kept (as well as

the more neutral Ms being available) and the you’re-not-quite-a-Mr-yet,-boy title master, a lot of those titles that can be selected relate to the old aristocracy or still existing royal institutions (The Rt Hon).

While indeed most of the time most of those titles would not be used, proper politeness in formal situations requires being aware of them.

In Finland, society is perceived as much more egalitarian.

Thus, all those distinctions are irrelevant and it boils down to Mr/Mrs (although the selection fields are male/female).

To further elaborate, allow me to present the booking form of Deutsche Bahn , the German railway company where online tickets are tied to a specific person whose name must be entered.

I couldn’t expand both menus simultaneously, the left one simply contains the options Herr and Frau or Mr and Mrs .

In a sense, it is identical to Lufthansa’s except it separates the gender and title into 2 × 4 fields rather than one list of 8.

(I didn’t think of using the English booking system, sorry.)

When travelling with business/first class with e.g. British Airways you may be greeted with your title.

I for one have been greeted with "Lord" when flying with Club World.

First of all, not all airlines do this.

I know plenty of forms that only offer mr/mrs or male/female options - but always at least that.

Some offer additional options for that field.

If they do, it presumably for a simple reason: They know that at least some of their passengers like to be addressed in that way.

In many cultures and/or demographics addressing people with their title is considered important and people will take offense if it’s not done.

And those who do not care can simply select mr or mrs - the inconvenience to them is minimal.

How to address your customers is not a question of right or wrong, but of knowing who they are.

Instagram will never address users as “dear mrs user”, but if your bank starts important letters with “hey Kate” that would be just as wrong.

Title is a part of name

The reason for this is that traditionally (at least in some societies) the honorific title is an unalienable part of the full name when adressing someone.

It's impolite to omit the title, and it's extremely impolite to use the wrong title - so if you want to address someone in a polite formal manner, you need to know their full name including the title.

You can't simply assume a title based on gender.

Calling Sir John Doe as Mr John Doe is totally wrong; if your relationship allows that, then you might call them informally as John or Johnny or whatever, but if you address them using a title, then it must be Sir and not Mr, and of course for women there's the marital status implied by the title with you can't know without asking.

The other option is to simply avoid using titles at all - but that means using language that's informal and

(at least traditionally, at least in some cultures) considered not polite enough for companies addressing their customers with proper respect.

Question: Every time you book a ticket, the airline website asks you for your title. As an example, here are the options provided on Lufthansa's website:   But why do airlines ask for the title in addition to the name? It's not like anyone ever asks you to prove that you're a doctor or a professor. So why not drop the Title field and just ask for the name and gender?  (inspired  by this somewhat related question )

Why do airline tickets have titles in addition to names?

On some airlines, you may be greeted with your title. Also, doctor is often a legal title in some countries.

Some airlines greet people with their title, while in countries such as Germany the title is part of the name.

Airlines such as British Airways greet people with their title.

In Germany, the title of Doctor is part of their name.


The currency of Switzerland is obviously the Swiss Franc, not the Euro .

Many businesses accept euros, but: not all do to make sure they're covered against fluctuations of the exchange rate, they will add a "spread" on the exchange rate in their favour, sometimes quite extreme.

For instance, even though 1 EUR is about 1.10 CHF at this time, they may very well apply 1 EUR = 1 CHF for simplicity in most cases, change will be given in Swiss Francs.

Not that this does not mean you need to buy Swiss Francs before arriving or that you need to exchange Euros for Swiss Francs.

Withdrawing Swiss Francs at an ATM in Switzerland will often be the cheapest option (though you should check the charges of your card issuer in terms of exchange rate spread and for foreign transactions).

Likewise, you can pay for many things directly with a credit card or debit card with a balance in Euros (or any other currency).

Your card issuer will convert the currency automatically, and if your card has low fees, this will often be even cheaper.

As pointed out by IMSoP in the comments, if when paying by card the retailer (or rather the terminal) suggests to perform the currency conversion for you (this is called DCC – Dynamic Currency Conversion), you usually will want to refuse, as the rate applied is generally much worse than what you can get from your bank.

But again: check the fees for your credit or debit cards before you leave.

They're the key to making the right decisions (which may involve getting a new card with better fees!).

It is always less expensive to use a country's own currency when in that country.

Merchants lose money on conversion fees when they accept payment in foreign currency, and they typically cover that by using a less favorable exchange rate to figure the foreign-currency price than you will find in the banking system.

Yes, it's cheaper, the exchange rate is not favourable for the client.

If you go shopping for currency upfront, you can find a better deal for exchanging whatever you need and you'll paying a one time fee, instead of a fee in every payment.

It's also more convenient.

Small businesses won't necessarily accept euros, and they have no obligation to do it.

Hotel chains and department stores will probably accept them, shops near the borders probably too.

Notice that you will get the change in Swiss Franc anyway.

Absolutely.

Every time you exchange money, with anyone, anywhere, anytime, they are going to charge you for the privilege.

In my experience, banks give the best exchange rates, especially YOUR bank (if you just use a random ATM, your bank will make the exchange).

"Exchange" kiosks are all over the place.

The ones in London airport are particularly egregious, last I went.

Local businesses that don't specialize in exchange may be willing to do the exchange for free to get your business, or they may not, or they may simply refuse to do the exchange.

One thing is for sure, though: They will not give you a better deal in the exchange.

Ultimately, it's at their discretion, though, and since they're going to the bank to exchange your Euros later, and they have to pay the exchange fee, I would definitely anticipate that 99% of the time they would at least pass that on to you.

Protip:

Most exchanges post a buy rate and a sell rate.

(buy_rate - sell_rate)/sell_rate is a good metric for how hard you're being fleeced in the exchange.

0 is a free exchange.

(is about a 5% exchange rate) is probably the best you'll get anywhere.

Some places in "tourist traps" will be up to like 25%.

The answers so far provide you some good insight as to why you might want to prefer cash CHF vs cash EUR.

Allow me to add my view on avoiding this altogether.

If you are only travelling temporary and you use cash, they you always have some loss as you can'd budget to the nearest centime.

You'll end up leaving with some cash CHF which you cannot use elsewhere

and you'll probably keep it as "souvenirs".

I suggest that you take into account using a multi-currency card, like TransferWise

This way you can keep an amount of USD in your account and the conversion is made every time you pay with it in CHF, at the mid-market rate .

This way, you avoid converting too much or too little, and, more importantly, you avoid the unfair conversion rate of the shops and banks

As noted by a comment, most credit cards work this way.

However, with the credit card of your bank, the conversion is done by them, at a rate that's advantageous for the bank, plus some non-negligible fee.

With multi-currency cards, the conversion is done at the mid-market rate and the fee is very small.

For even cheaper option, you can foresee a bit how much you will spend and "transform" some money on your card just once, thus your card effectively holding 2 currencies and using the best one for each payment.

More details here: https://transferwise.com/gb/borderless/

So if you use a credit card card, the problem can be avoided altogether.

And if it is multi-currency, it can be significantly cheaper than your standard bank.

I am not affiliated in any way, I just like their product.

**Some shops, like the post office, do not accept credit cards, only maestro debit cards

Question: We are traveling to Switzerland (mostly Zurich and closeby) for several days later this year and, one of our friends told us to bring Swiss Francs with us as  things would be generally cheaper if we pay with Francs as opposed to paying with Euros . Our home currency is U.S. dollars.  Is this actually true?   (keeping it broad intentionally, but please let me know if any additional details are needed)

Is using Swiss Francs (CHF) cheaper than Euros (EUR) in Switzerland?

The currency of Switzerland is obviously the Swiss Franc, not the Euro. It is always less expensive to use a country's own currency when in that country, as exchange rates are not favourable for the client.

It is always cheaper to use a country's own currency, i.e. Swiss Francs.


Bangkok to Ulaanbaatar in January: 27.0 °C – (–21.6 °C) = 48.6 °C .

Nonstop flights are operated by MIAT Mongolian Airlines, twice weekly (Wednesday and Saturday) from November to March.

Timetable .

I have done some more research and found a rather obscure one.

Pegas Fly operates a seasonal charter EO 2479 from Chita to Phuket , every two weeks, from January to May. Full schedule can be found on the Pegas Touristik website .

In January, there is a staggering difference of 28.1-(-25.2) = 53.3°C .

It also appears that Nordwind Airlines, of which Pegas Fly is a subsidiary, operates a seasonal charter N4 2521 from Yakutsk (-38.6°C in January) to Pattaya (26.1°C in January).

At a difference of 64.7°C, we would have had the certain winner here.

Unfortunately, according to FlightMapper , that flight stops in Irkutsk for an hour, which is about 20°C warmer than Yakutsk.

I nominate S7 6330 Phuket – Irkutsk in January.

28,1 – (–17,8) = 45,9 °C .

I nominate Harbin-Singapore, operated by Scoot (TR 155).

The mean temperature in Harbin is -17.6°C in January, while in Singapore it's 26.5°C, for a total difference of 44.1°C .

The flight time is 7.5 hours.

Yakutsk is significantly colder with a daily mean of -38.6° in January, but there aren't direct flights to any warm cities from Yakutsk airport during the winter.

A comment noted that all answers to date have both cities in the northern hemisphere (winter in January), so here's one with one end in the southern hemisphere (winter in July).

(courtesy mapsofworld.com )

In general, the southern hemisphere has a lot less land mass than the north, and (AFAIK) not a single major city where daily mean winter temperatures go negative.

The best I could find is Dubai to Buenos Aires , with 35.5 - 7.4 in July, for a comparatively puny temperature difference of 28.1°C .

For other temperature hunters, Riyadh is slightly hotter (36.8) but has less long-distance flights, while Doha and Abu Dhabi are very slightly cooler.

On the cool side, Johannesburg hits 9.6 in June (10.0 in July) while Auckland clocks in at a balmy 10.9.

I will nominate my personal experience although this may count as an outlier case.

In February / March 2018, there was a storm called Beast from the East that hit quite a few parts of Europe.

I had to fly from Munich to Chennai during the end of Feb, via Frankfurt (LH 758) with a 2 hour halt.

Temperature in Munich =

Temperature in Frankfurt =

-10 Temperature in Chennai =

34 Difference between Munich (-18) and Chennai (34) =

52 degrees Difference between Frankfurt (-10) and Chennai (34) =

44 degrees I was sitting with my multi layered jacket for a really long time after the flight took off from Frankfurt

; I felt like I was melting when I landed in Chennai.

Question: For the purpose of this question,   temperature refers to daily mean temperature in a month (shown as "daily mean" on Wikipedia) of the city/town that an airport primarily serves  passenger flight refers to scheduled flights and public charters with a published schedule  it can be any month of the year   Example:  Singapore (SIN) - Moscow (DME) SQ 362 in February, daily mean for Singapore 27.1°C, daily mean for Moscow -6.7°C, difference  33.8°C .

Which non-stop passenger flight connects two cities with the largest temperature difference?

Suggestions include Bangkok  to  Ulaanbaatar  in January with a temperature difference of  48.6°C; Chita to Phuket; Phuket to Irkutsk; and Harbin-Singapore.

A number of routes are possible such as Bangkok to Ulaanbaatar, Phuket to Chita/Irkutsk and Harbin to Singapore.

Bangkok to Ulaanbaatar.
Phuket to Chita or Irkutsk.
Harbin to Singapore.


Cleaning them thoroughly should be good enough.

Here is what happened when we tried to get in with dirty boots in March 2016.

At Charlotte International Airport, we were spotted and stopped by agricultural inspectors while waiting to collect our luggage.

They took us into a separate room and provided us with shoe cleaning stuff.

We were made to clean our shoes thoroughly and only let out after the inspectors were satisfied.

They were friendly, polite, and entirely reasonable, but we did nearly miss our connecting flight.

Last time I brought hiking boots into the US, the customs form asked two separate questions: I am bringing (...)

(d) soil or have been on a farm/ranch/pasture I have

(We have) been in close proximity of livestock (such as touching or handling) Since we had been hiking in England, crossing common land grazed by cows, we answered "yes" to the first question. See this question for more information .

This was a later trip (May 2018) than the shoe cleaning debacle, we had learned our lesson and nothing special happened despite answering yes.

U.S. CBP does care about soil on your shoes, but as long as you've made a reasonable effort to clean them, then it won't be a problem, especially if the soil was not from a farm or some such thing.

As gerrit mentioned, two of the questions on the customs declaration form that you fill out when entering the United States are: I am bringing (...)

(d) soil or have been on a farm/ranch/pasture I have

(We have) been in close proximity of livestock (such as touching or handling)

When I actually had visited a farm in Thailand and so answered yes to the first of those questions, the immigration officer asked about it.

When I told him I had been to the farm in Thailand, he had me go to the secondary agricultural inspection.

At agriculture inspection, they asked what sort of animals I had been around and when I told them that it was elephants rather than livestock, they weren't very concerned with that.

However, they did still ask whether I had mud and such on the shoes or clothes that I was wearing while there.

In my case, it had been dry while I was there

and the ground was mostly covered in grass,

so I (truthfully) told them that my shoes probably had some light dust, but no caked on mud.

They said that wasn't a problem at all and didn't even bother physically looking at anything in my bag.

If it had been rainy while I was there and my shoes had actually been muddy, I expect they'd have had me clean them as gerrit experienced, especially if I had been around cows or other such livestock rather than just elephants.

Given that they weren't concerned at all about the light dust and such, I don't think you'll have any problem at all if you've thoroughly cleaned your shoes but were just unable to get them completely clean.

Since you haven't even been on farms, it sounds like you should truthfully be able to answer 'no' to the inspection questions, in which case they're unlikely to ask about, look at, or care about your shoes at all.

Just declare the shoes as soiled and let customs officials handle the rest.

I live in Australia, we're an island

so these things are strictly controlled.

If you've cleaned them well they generally let you through, otherwise they will clean them for you.

I actually don't mind the cleaning service, it takes them about 2-3mins compared to my 10min effort.

Yes.

It's a problem.

Yes, you need to declare it.

No, it's not a 'big deal'

but you're going to have to stop at the USDA booth

and they'll take your shoes and disinfect them with some nasty spray.

Having them clean as possible will make it easy.

But if they're caked in dirt they're going to make you wait while they do it.

Source:

Been there, done that.

Came back from England during Mad Cow with a backpack.

And other trips.

Something to understand here:

Yes, our agricultural inspection people tend to care about mud on shoes--they care about anything that can carry pests or disease that we don't have here

(Which is why the lists can seem pretty nonsensical at times--they don't care about the items, they care about hitchhikers.)

However, they aren't interested in playing gotcha unless you fail to declare something.

If you have any question about whether they care about something you declare it and see what they say--there is no penalty (other than loss of the item--

note that in this case the forbidden item would be the dirt, not the shoes) for bringing forbidden materials.

The only time they'll actually penalize you (I've seen it happen) is if you don't declare the material.

Question: I'm soon travelling from Europe to the USA and I'm bringing hiking and running shoes with dirt on them (originating only from the EU and not from any farms). I have already thoroughly cleaned them, but it's hard to get them completely clean.   Will this be a problem when entering the USA? Should I do anything in particular? I'm travelling via the preclearance in Dublin, if that makes a difference.

Bringing hiking shoes with dirt/soil to the US?

Although agricultural inspection people tend to care about mud on shoes, If you've cleaned them well they generally let you through, otherwise they will clean them for you.

Authorities care about mud on shoes, though declaring them and cleaning them should suffice.

Cleaning them should be enough. Alternatively authorities can clean them for you.

Authorities do care about mud on shoes, but you should be fine if you declare them and attempt to clean them.


You will need to apply for a visa.

This text is taken directly from this page on the US CBP web site (my emphasis):

Travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP): Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country).

Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria.

No, you need a visa.

Apply for a B1/B2 visa on your Dutch passport, and if asked at the interview why you want a visa, explain it's because you're a dual Iranian national.

Bring (on paper)

solid evidence of financial capacity and ties to the country where you live (marriage certificate, childrens' birth certificate, proof of income, consecutive bank statements, property ownership proof, notarised employment letter...) and answer any and all questions confidently and truthfully, even if you feel they're personal and invasive.

The fact is, anecdotal evidence suggests that, for those dual nationals who (correctly) apply for a visa, many consular officers will dig for reasons to deny a visa, as they're meant to represent US foreign policy to some extent, with which the relevant countries evidently haven't been currying much favour as of late.

That's why you should be careful to bring any and all documentation available to you.

You may not be asked a lot, in which case all good, but don't take any chances, as a refusal, despite what the letter states, will make it harder to get a visa in the future.

No, you may not visit the USA without a visa.

Nationals of certain countries, including the Netherlands, may visit the USA under the Visa Waiver Program .

Several conditions must be met, including not also being a national of Iran.

While this does not fully answer your question, please note that as the case of Annahita Mazaheri demonstrates, even with a visa you may still not be allowed to visit the USA.

I don't know what you can do to prevent the following from happening, just be mentally prepared.

Annahita Mazaheri is a Dutch woman born of Iranian parents.

She hadn't been to Iran for over 17 years and had a valid visa for the USA, but was turned down at the gate after a short interview with US officials (on Dutch soil) in early January 2020.

And yet the impossible happened.

At the last passport check before boarding, the stewardess suddenly recalled Annahita with the announcement that the US immigration service was on its way.

Three men in suits appeared shortly.

She had to sit at the gate and was subjected to a rapid fire of questions.

"They were just questions such as where I come from and what I do in daily life.

Nothing crazy.

The whole time I thought I could walk on to the plane just like that," Annahita reflects. — "Annahita krijgt duizenden reacties nadat ze op vlucht naar VS wordt geweigerd" (in Dutch), Het Parool , 2020-01-10 (translated from article)

As can be read in an article on Dutch News on the same incident, Stef Blok —the Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs— has been asked by parliament to explain why Annahita Mazaheri was barred from flying to the US, and what authority US immigration service officials have on Dutch soil.

The exact questions asked are available online (in Dutch).

They show that Ankie Broekers-Knol —the Dutch state secretary for Immigration, within the department of Justice and Security— was asked questions as well.

One of the questions identifies the men as US Immigration Liaison Officers.

As it transpires, Annahita had applied for an ESTA instead of a visa, for which she may not have been eligible.

Reaction American Airlines and Customs and Border Protection American Airlines has confirmed that Annahita was refused on a flight from Schiphol to Philadelphia.

A spokeswoman of American Airlines told NH Nieuws that she cannot provide any explanation for the refusal of Annahita, because the decision was made by the American Customs and Border Protection, which the airline has to follow.

Custom and Border Protection says that Annahita's background has nothing to do with the refusal.

Instead of an Esta, she should have applied for a Non-immigrant visa. — "Annahita (22) beleeft nachtmerrie: 'Geweigerd voor vlucht vanwege Iraanse afkomst'" (in Dutch), NH Nieuws , 2020-01-10 (translated from article)

It's a tough time for people with Iranian connections to enter the U.S.

There are news reports here in Canada of Iranian-born people with Canadian and even American citizenship being detained for hours and questioned at land border crossings.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/iranian-canadians-detained-interrogated-at-us-border-1.5415782 )

Question: I am resident in the Netherlands and have not been in Iran for 5 years. I have a Dutch passport and an Iranian passport. I plan on travelling using the Dutch passport.    Will I be allowed to enter the United States using my Dutch passport and nationality, under the US Visa Waiver Program?

Can I enter the US under the VWP as a Dutch and Iranian national?

You may not visit the USA without a visa, so you will need to apply for one.

You will require a visa to enter the USA.


Technically Mill Ends Park in Portland, Oregon, USA.

It is a circle 2 feet (0.6 m) across.

It was named an official city park in 1976, and is operated by Portland Parks & Recreation.

I nominate Tjoffsans

Tivoli in Malmö , Sweden.

It is an amusement park for mice (also known as amousement park) created by Anonymouse MMX .

It's not owned by any government, but it's public and maybe it could be classified as a charity.

It looks like it covers an area of approximately 1-2 m².

It's unclear whether it is still open though.

The other answers show non-official parks or "novelty" parks that you cannot actually fit a person into.

Hence, I nominate Jack Early Park, San Francisco, CA.

It has a flight of stairs leading up to a concrete platform with two benches.

You get a nice view over the bay.

I could not find any data on its size, but from having been there myself I estimate the area to not be much more than 25 m² (only counting the platform, not the stairs).

It is hard to find a good picture of the whole park, since it is a small platform.

I recommend viewing the 360° view on Google .

(c) 2009

Bryan Costales

Of course, in Japan everything is smaller.

This one is 0.25 square metres, complete with bench.

However, it's not technically a park, but a road feature, so it doesn't qualify for the Guinness Book of Records: See Japanese Wikipedia or a local web page for more details.

While not the smallest park in the world, the smallest park in the UK is Prince's Park in Burntwood, Staffordshire.

Photo © Geoff Pick via Wikipedia Commons

, CC-BY-SA Google Street View link

It was built in 1863 to commemorate the marriage of the future king Edward VII, and in 2013 was the location for the UK's shortest fun run, with the slowest competitor finishing in a mere 55 seconds: link .

I nominate the small corner lot at North Pacific Avenue and Mission Street, Santa Cruz, California.

I concede it is not named as a "Park," and doesn't appear in the City's list of parks , but it is treated as a park by the City and its residents, and is maintained by the City.

Here's a Street View Picture.

The public area is between the blue wall and the street from which the photo was taken:

I bet that the Heemskerk Lunet 10 does make a good chance as the smallest 'national park like' park, as it is a rather small bit of ground owned by Noordhollands Landschap.

Here is a link to it on google maps.

And here is a link to the charity that manages it as well as several others in the area.

I can not find any official information, the charity does not give it on their site.

Google maps gives me about 100 x 82 meter, which would give me 8200 m², but that is not very precise.

Question: As I stated in the title, where is the smallest public park (owned by government, local government or a charity such as RHS)?

Where is the smallest park by area?

Suggestions for the smallest part include Mill Ends Park  in Portland, Oregon; Jack Early Park, San Francisco, CA; North Pacific Avenue and Mission Street, Santa Cruz, California and Heemskerk Lunet 10.

Possible smallest parks are: Mill Ends Park, Portland, Jack Early Park, San Francisco, North Pacific Avenue and Mission Street, CA and Heemskerk Lunet 10.


In some cases, your status may allow you to bring in one or more guests .

This is very specific to each airline/program and the various levels, though, so you'll have to check the details for your own loyalty program.

This page gives some general rules.

They say that access via your travel class (business, first...) usually doesn't allow you to bring in a guest.

On the other hand, most programs (but not all) allow you to bring a guest if you get access through your frequent flyer status, with a few conditions and exceptions, though.

So, again, check the specifics for your combination of frequent flyer program / status / airline / type of flight (domestic or international) / class of travel.

Note that the number of guests is usually limited.

Even as a Flying Blue Platinum member, I can't (or couldn't the last time I tried) bring more than one person in a lounge, for instance.

However, giving your boarding pass to someone else so they can enter without you is most probably a breach of the terms and conditions of the program .

In recent years, I have encountered with all major airlines that they want to see your boarding pass and a valid ID.

As a consequence, you can of course walk out and in as often as you like, but someone else with your boarding pass (and ID!) will have trouble if he doesn't look a lot like you.

It is also a clear violation, and if caught, you will not only lose your access right, but also potentially be disqualified from their frequent flier club, losing any miles already collected.

As others mentioned, depending on airline and status you might be allowed to bring a guest, but they have started to be a lot less generous there too - just because you are Platinum Select member with an international business class flight doesn't mean you can bring your wife (with an economy boarding ticket) for free

Legally no, but often there is just a check of the ticket (and a scan of ticket, so that you may enter only once).

You might be able to pay an entry fee (maybe with a discount because of your eligibility).

It is said that it is cheaper than staying in the "normal areas"

: you have less time to wait near boutiques and restaurants, so possibly less expenses.

Could you?

Yes.

Should you?

No.

Better for you to load up on snacks in your bag, get a drink in a red cup/fill a bottle, and leave.

I flew 100k a year until recently and regularly brought doggie bags out.

I also got to take guests, and would grab total strangers for fun.

Sometimes it was good, sometimes they thought I was a creep.

To each their own.

Edit: I'm just going to leave this here: If you hand your ticket to your friend, they go into the lounge-

what ticket do you have?

Your friends?

If the TSA stop and decide to search you or your friend, what ID are you going to show?

Is it reasonable to explain you traded tickets so your buddy can get into a lounge?

Sure-

TSA or the police might not blink, but they are going to pull them out to look and be sure.

Just not worth it for a cheap brownie.

However the Sushi in Japan on the other hand...

SAS doesn't check IDs, they use automated gates where you scan your boarding pass or passport and you can enter and exit how many times you like.

Question: Let's say I was traveling with a friend. My friend is flying economy whilst I'm flying first class. Could I visit the lounge, get the food and all that jazz, then exit the lounge, give my boarding pass to my friend and let them check the lounge out to see what the lounge life is all about?

Can you let someone else use your boarding pass to get into a travel lounge?

All major airlines may want to see your boarding pass and a valid ID, although in some cases,  your status may allow you to bring in one or more guests.

Sometimes it is possible to take guests into the lounge, though normally airlines require ID and boarding passes for accessing them.

You may sometimes be permitted to take guests into the lounge.

Airlines often require ID and boarding passes for lounge access.


Generally, yes.

On almost all airlines you can select/change frequent flier accounts as often as you want until check in.

Final selection typically happens during check in and most check in processes have an explicit or optional step explicitly for this.

In case you don't do it before the flight...

As alluded in other answers, pretty much all airlines allow you to "claim missing miles" even after the flight.

If the frequent flyer programme is for the same airline, then you usually do it online

and it's pretty straight forward

(I've done it quite a few times).

If it's a partner programme (e.g. you're flying on BA, but the FF is from American), then it'll be more hassle.

In either case, make sure to save your boarding passes - either electronic versions or printed/issued ones.

This is, as you say, airline dependent.

I know several airlines that do, and the best way for you to find out in your case is to contact the airline.

In your case I would also contact your university travel department and see if they will add a frequent flier number when booking.

I don't have first-hand experience with the airlines you mentioned, but any other airlines I have seen lets you add frequent flyer numbers at any time.

If you have the booking code and your name, you should be able to sign into view the reservation and add the frequent flyer number.

You can also have it added at check-in (online or in person) and sometimes even after the flight.

As already stated more than once, it is definitely possible.

However, you should check whether you have a contract saying that all frequent flyer benefits/points on university-paid travel belong to the university.

I have had a contract like that (though it wasn’t with a university).

It is always possible to add the Frequent Flyer number later.

The easiest place to do so (in my humble opinion) is when dropping off bags at a manned terminal.

They will request to see your passport/ticket/boarding pass (assuming online check-in)

anyway and you can just hand them your frequent flyer card additionally to get it entered.

If you are unlucky and don’t have the option of a manned check-in/bag drop-off desk, the next best option is probably at the departure gate although I haven’t tried that myself.

Finally, most airlines offer a manage my booking form where you can, for example, request a specific diet or pre-order extras.

Often, this will also have a field to enter your frequent flyer number and programme, typically as part of the passenger details.

I had a similar condition where the company booked a ticket for me.

But while doing boarding, I asked the Airlines staffs to add credit on my frequent travel card as ticket was under my name.

In addition, I took a flight from Finnair and forget to add my frequent flier.

However, later I logged in to my frequent flier site and add the ticket number.

It takes 48 hours and once airlines confirmed, I got my credit on Frequent flier.

So as per my knowledge, JAL is in ONEWORLD

and you can easily on it.

Best of luck and have a safe journey.

You should be able to do that on the airlines website once you have your booking code.

As a last resort, you can always get it added at the airport, even after you checked in.

Just make sure to do before the flight; afterwards is also possible, but a lot more tedious.

In most cases, you can either add it during the check-in process or ask any departure-gate agent working for the airline, after check-in and passing security.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the gate agent for your flight, so you can go to a different desk (as long as it's the same airline)

if that helps even out queues.

Usually, this can also be done at a layover airport if you have one with sufficient time, but I wouldn't recommend relying on that

(tarmac holds can shrink even long layovers unpredictably!).

Question: My university is responsible for booking flights on my behalf. I wanted to know if it's possible to add my frequent flier number and credit the miles to it after the flight has been booked?  Is it airline dependant? For this particular flight, the most likely choices are SIA, ANA or JAL

Is it possible to add a Frequent Flier number after the flight is booked?

It is possible to add frequent flyer numbers on most airlines, even after check-in, and to claim missing miles even after the flight. This depends on the airline.

It can depend on the airline, but generally it is possible to do this on your travel date or retrospectively.

This is generally possible on the day that you fly and even afterwards.

It depends on the airline but is generally possible.


Whether or not a hotel room is "notoriously unsafe" will vary wildly from hotel to hotel, but I'd be hard pressed to imagine one that is less safe for your valuables than a beach.

If your room has a safe, use that.

Otherwise, keep your passport out of sight (not just sitting on the desk) in your room.

You might need your passport to make certain purchases that require ID

(alcohol if you're in your 20s, pseudo-ephedrine decongestants, etc), but not just to walk around or to be on the beach.

Leave your passport and most valuables safely behind when you go to the beach for the day.

I do not think the U.S. requires foreigners to carry passports with them.

Unless you travel near the U.S.-Mexican border, virtually no one will check your passport.

You can put them in your room safe.

If you travel close to (meaning anywhere 100 miles/161km from) the U.S.-Mexican border, it is in your interest to carry your passport with you.

CBP and ICE USBP officers carry out random checks here and are known to detain (quite arbitrarily) individuals that they believe might be "illegal immigrants".

That said, if you have any plans to drink, you might want to show your ID.

Some U.S. establishments can be really strict, and might ID-check those who are apparently 21+.

As others have said, your hotel room safe is your best option that will be widely available.

Almost all hotels have them.

The more respectable hotels will definitely have one.

Even some Airbnbs will have one.

You will not need to have it on you for regular use while walking around.

Unless you are suspected of breaking the law, police will not require it of you.

So, why risk loposing it (through your own fault even) by carrying it.

If you are driving in the U.S.

the passport is not enough to be legal.

You actually need to be able to show your drivers license.

Now if the worst case scenario happens (you lose it, the hotel burns down,

it’s stolen), it is better to have taken precautions.

The first of which is to keep copies of you travel documents where you and only you can access them.

Maybe giving copies to a trusted family member could work.

At the very least, they can help you in recovering duplicates.

Or, they can send you the copies by fax or some other means in a pinch.

Most importantly, let your embassy know you will be traveling in the U.S. before you leave home.

That way, someone knows where you are or should be.

Most hotels have room safes.

I can’t remember the last hotel I stayed at that didn’t have a room safe.

Even though these room safes are notoriously easy to break into (often just a magnet is enough), it’s still safer than the beach.

The front desk of the hotel may have a separate safe.

If they do, they take responsibility for the contents.

The one place I would absolutely not trust is the lockers in youth hostels.

Some hotels have a facility to keep your passport in their own safe custody .

Please check with the front desk .

For moving around you can carry a scanned copy of your passport on yoir phone and any other supplementary identification card like your Driving license with you.

I have been told in the past that while in the United States I must always carry my passport with me, and I have been stopped at least once by Border Patrol officers (while already in the US) and been asked to show my passport.

I do not know what might have happened if I did not have it on me.

Doing a bit of searching online, I found Do I Need to Carry Documents While I’m in the USA?

which seems to indicate that it is required for all foreigners to carry their passport (or immigration documentation) on them at all times.

You may want to invest in a small water-proof sealed bag or container that you can attach to you while swimming (rather than having the risk of losing it or having it stolen if you leave it on the beach...)

If I was going swimming I'd consider a hotel safe as others have said. For all activities that did not require me to "lose control over my clothes"

I would (and always do) carry my passport with me at all times.

I use a small "purse" with a neck cord that is designed to fit a passport and a few other non-bulky items (eg VISA card and a number of $100 or equivalent notes.

I wear this with the strap adjusted

so it hangs inside my shirt and with one end straddling my trouser belt line.

There it is comfortable, location-invisible and even if someone knew it was there, exceeding-hard to access without me noticing.

On numerous international trips this has always been "hassle free".

YMMV -

but, probably not.

In my own country when visiting a beach to swim, I carry a minimum of valuable down to the beach.

I place car-keys and anything else valuable in a small plastic bag and surreptitiously bury this in the sand in an inobvious manner under my beach towel.

The main hazard is the potential to remember to recover it when I dress and leave :-).

You are not looking for a 100% secure, bullet-proof way to store your passport, but for the best option available to you.

And then you weigh in convenience

et voilà, the hotel room or front desk usually wins.

If you are feeling paranoid, keep it somewhere where noone would bother to look and staff cleaning your room won't accidentally throw it away.

As a precaution against loss of your passport in general, theft or otherwise, you should have printed copies of your passport at various locations, such as your backpack, wallet etc.

Nowadays, you should also have a PDF or image of it at a secure cloud hosting service.

Question: In the USA, what would be the best practice to keep my passport safe when I go e.g. to the beach for a day trip?  I'm worried that I might easily lose it on the beach (Solo traveller). On the other hand, a hotel room seems notoriously unsafe IMHO and I think as a visitor to the USA, I am required to carry a passport. Does CBP require this in all states?

Where to store passport during day trip in foreign country

Leaving your passport in the hotel room safe is likely to be safer than taking it to the beach. You could also leave your passport at the front desk of the hotel.

A hotel is generally safer than a beach, you can use a room safe or leave your passport with the front desk.

The hotel room safe is a good option most of the time.

Hotels can look after your passport at the front desk.#


Both Uber and Lyft apps allow you to enter both a "from" and "to" location that is nowhere near your current location.

Thus you can simple open the app, enter DTW as the pickup location, the location of your wedding as the destination, and it will give you a price for that journey.

This allows you to confirm that taking such a journey is feasible, and roughly how much it will cost - although obviously the cost can vary based on the time of day/traffic/etc.

Looking at the moment, Uber is quoting a little under $40 from DTW to Ann Arbor.

Also consider the Michigan Flyer https://www.michiganflyer.com/

A bus from DTW to Ann Arbor that goes 13x a day.

I'm not a local, but a while ago I worked at Ford and lived in Ann Arbor for a time,

so I did that commute every day.

Your main gotcha is going to be the state of

I-94 (and I-275 as an alternative route).

This can be very bad in rush hour.

If you're arriving in the evening after 7pm, you should usually be safe.

If you're getting a hotel for the weekend, consider that Ann Arbor is not a small area, and it has limited access to I-94 along the west side.

If you want to minimise costs from the airport, then staying somewhere in the south-east or east of the city should make your Uber cheaper.

Assuming of course that someone local can give you a ride to the wedding.

I write this answer from a Lyft going from Ann Arbor to DTW.

Booking this ride on Lyft cost $50, whereas it was $100 on Uber with surge pricing.

I’ve seen it as low as $35.

So yes, for convenience, Uber and Lyft definitely work.

But as other answers mention, there are better options for more like $13/trip.

Since you said you want personal experience, I have made this trip a few times via Uber while visiting Ann Arbor.

It should be reasonable, though my last trip was 2 years ago ($36 at ~8 AM).

There can be a large amount of traffic slow down in the morning on a weekday, as Graham's answer indicates.

The pickup time was a bit longer than I was used to, I think it took 10-15 minutes for the driver to arrive at the Airport.

I also took an Uber from the hotel to the wedding venue, it is a very common area for weddings

so the driver should be familiar with where to take you.

Rent a car for cheap.

I was just in Ann Arbor a few months ago.

My wife goes all the time.

If we are there for only a day, Uber makes sense for a one time round trip from the airport and back.

If you are there for more than one day, rent a car.

Unless you want to burden family members with schlepping you around, it’s more convenient for everyone.

Plus, Ann Arbor is a pretty nice area.

And, except for rush hour, the drive is easy.

It would be worth the $20-30/day or so as long as you do not have to pay for hotel parking.

We usually don’t.

Question: My family is going to a wedding in Ann Arbor. From a map, it looks like it's within reason to Lyft or Uber from the DTW airport. (Where "reasonable" means something like "under $50".) Does this make sense or are there any gotchas?  I know this can be calculated with the app (or various online price estimators), but I'd really love to hear from a local or someone else with personal experience.

Is Ann Arbor within reasonable Lyft/Uber range of DTW?

Uber and Lyft are both recommended. Lyft has been reported to be cheaper than Uber. Depending on times and surge pricing,  Uber may charge between $40 and $100 for this trip.

Uber and Lyft are both options, costing between $36 and $100 depending on surge pricing.

Uber and Lyft are both feasible options.

Prices can range between $36 and $100 on Lyft and Uber depending on surge pricing.


At what point should they not enforce it?

Half full?

Quarter full?

Can you imagine the arguments!

And then - when you are packing at home, most passengers don't know how full the plane might or might not be.

So it's a bit impractical.

Logically it's more sensible to enforce a limit, and then gate agents might just have an unofficial policy of some leniency where they see fit.

The weight of the luggage affects the fuel consumption, and the airline might very well adapt how much fuel the put on the plane to the number of passengers.

If they were to allow all the passengers to bring extra luggage, just because it fits, they would use extra fuel, and have to pay for that.

It's probably also easier to enforce the limit at all times, rather than taking countless discussions with passengers on whether slightly overweight luggage is acceptable on a particular flight (and people would start such discussions if the airline did loosen those rules).

travel.stackexchange.com/users/44187/Henrik supports the community

The main reason for the weight limit (and its enforcement) is that the airline wants you to pay for the extra weight.

It is a major income stream.

Once you pay the fee, the plane can easily fly with the extra weight.

Unless you bring an extra ton , it is just noise for the needed-gas calculation - they wouldn't add more gas just because a passenger brings an extra heavy carry-on (or is overweight himself).

I don't think these limits exist for one reason only.

Each airline analyses the pros and cons of their options and set a limit.

Besides the already mentioned reasons I am presenting a few other: The weight limit in carry-on luggage also relates to the maximum weight the overhead compartments can hold.

Although sturdy there are limits.

I could not find an official source mentioning this but found people mentioning this here and here .

Since flight attendants often help with those bags, it's possible that this limit is also a way of protecting the cabin crew.

Yet another reason to keep a limit is safety.

To avoid the baggage-retention-related incidents as explained here .

Your question is if the plane is almost empty.

Of course, the fact that the plane is almost empty is not known to anyone when packing.

To allow this the airline company would have to inform customers about the weight limit increase in a clear way beyond any doubt.

Even with the existing fixed limits, there are already tons of questions (as you can easily find in SE) about luggage weight.

This uncertainty would only bring extra costs in customer support and time loss when boarding customers.

Even if this was feasible in a practical manner, companies may be unable to predict how many passengers there will be for a given flight with enough anticipation.

If there is a delayed flight they might have to re-route customers filling what was previously an empty plane.

There is no reason for the airline to not enforce the rule, regardless of how full the plane is.

Customers will either pay to put their bag on the plane, or they will pack less.

Even if the plane is nearly empty, the airline has an opportunity to collect baggage fees, and they have no compelling reason to waive that opportunity.

Why would they refuse to take $25+ from anyone who wants to check their bag?

For one: to be safe.

There is an average passenger weight (which includes also carry on baggage).

This affect the configuration of the airplane, the required fuel, and the emergency fuel .

Because these calculations are done by maybe by dispatcher, but the pilot need to verify and input in the plane computer, one do not want that there was different opinion on the inserted numbers, and so maybe going on low fuel (and this means paperwork and possibly penalties, but for sure an expedite landing, so good for passengers).

Additionally carry on is checked on very last moment.

How do you know that airplane is half full?

If your estimates were wrong, it will take time to correct, and it could cause delay to the airline (or just denied boarding).

Maybe at last minute an other airline has to cancel a flight, so they will rebook many passengers on your flights (and this will take some time, do load new baggage and doing the new paperwork ),

but so now you have extra weight which was not accounted.

Let's also say: it easy money for airline, and so they enforce such rules, OTOH the average weight seems to be lower then modern passengers.

As many have said, it affects the weight of the plane, which other have said affects how much fuel the plane consumes, which of course costs the airline money.

However, one thing few, if any, have mentioned is the safety implications; if the plane is heavier and it needs to make an emergency landing, there are implications that are going to be needed, such as time and fuel dumped.

Additionally, there have been accidents on the smaller (turboprop) planes that have been attributed to excess weight on the plane ( here is an example ).

I'm not particularly sure how much this relates to the decision of airlines themselves to charge extra for extra baggage, but do keep this in mind.

Question: Why is there a weight limit for carry-on luggage on some airlines (e.g., 7 kg for China Airlines) that is enforced even when the plane is almost empty?

Why is there a weight limit for carry-on luggage on some airlines that is enforced even when the plane is almost empty?

A strict weight limit may be enforced for many reasons, including safety and protection of the cabin crew, weight limits of the overhead compartments and fuel consumption. The weight of luggage affects fuel consumption, and the airline may adapt the quantity of fuel on the plane to the number of passengers. However, the airline may simply want you to  pay  for the extra weight.

The weight limit exists for safety reasons, luggage weight affects fuel consumption and the rules financially benefit airlines.

Safety is a key concern, as attendants have to lift bags and the compartments can hold limited weight.

Luggage weight affects fuel consumption, which is a concern for airlines from a logistical and financial standpoint.

Airlines do not need to enforce this, but choose to for their revenue stream.


I will be travelling by car with my friend (only 1 friend).

With the current lockdown rules, will I be stopped and fined? From Coronavirus: Boris Johnson's address to the nation in full - BBC News

That is why people will only be allowed to leave their home for the following very limited purposes: Shopping for basic necessities, as infrequently as possible One form of exercise a day - for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household; Any medical need, to provide care or to help a vulnerable person; and Travelling to and from work, but only where this is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from home.

That's

all - these are the only reasons you should leave your home .

Since none of the above conditions are fullfilled, very likely.

What are the possible consequences?

A fine , the amount of which has not yet been announced .

The legislation can be viewed at:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 section 6: Restrictions on movement section 10: Fixed penalty notices "The Times" from 24th March suggest this will be from 30£ to 1000£ (third paragraph):

With the current lockdown rules, will I be stopped and fined?

What are the possible consequences?

If you're lucky, you will be stopped, fined, and sent home.

If you're unlucky: You get sick from COVID-19.

You pass on COVID-19 to (many) others, some of whom may die, and more who will have to go to a busy hospital.

You get fined or even have to go to jail (with the actual sentence possibly postponed until after the pandemic).

Currently (2020-03-24) no jail in the UK, but things might move fast; in other countries it's already possible

(e.g. in Germany it may be a Straftat to violate the rules in some cases rather than an Ordnungswidrigkeit

— I don't know how Straftat or Ordnungswidrigkeit best translate to the English language or UK law, but literally Straftat means something like "punishable act").

That doesn't seem to be the case in the UK currently (BBC reports fines), but who knows how quickly this may change if fines appear ineffective?

I am not a lawyer

but I would not assume it will remain with just fines if those are shown to be ineffective and the situation is worsening daily.

Do not endanger the lives of others.

Do not travel if you can avoid it.

For your information... story dated 22:56 24 March: Police have been stopping cars to make sure people are only making essential journeys.

It comes after Boris Johnson yesterday put the UK on lockdown, ordering Brits to remain in their homes unless they have a valid reason to go out.

He warned that police would issue fines to those found disobeying the new rules, and today officers have been on the streets making sure drivers do not flout them.

The four reasons you can now leave your home are: shopping for basic necessities, as infrequently as possible one form of exercise a day - for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household any medical need, to provide care or to help a vulnerable person travelling to and from work, but only where this is absolutely necessary and cannot be done from home Update 26 March: Police set up checkpoints to stop drivers during coronavirus pandemic

Since the question and most of the answers were written, what had been strong recommendations from the government have been turned into regulations with the force of law, in the form of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 .

Of relevance to this question: 6.—(1)

During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

There then follows a list of reasonable excuses, which includes things like shopping for food, exercise, seeking medical assistance, providing care or assistance, going to work if it's not practical to work from home, and the like.

A trip, presumably for leisure purposes - whether with members of your household, or with one friend, or on your own - is not on the list, so would not be allowed.

Anyone breaking the regulations can be fined.

The fines start at £60 (reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days), and then double for each subsequent fine, up to a maximum of £960.

The regulations (at least in their current form) expire on 26 September 2020.

The morally correct answer is obviously "don't do it".

On the other hand, there is little chance that anything or anyone will stop you, so long as you are following the general social distancing rules.

UK policing strategy is generally "consensual" so there are unlikely to be any random "stop and search" checkpoints on your trip.

There is no shortage of fuel in the UK.

In fact supermarkets have started a fuel price war, with price cuts of 20% or more.

Aside from the obvious infection risks, the biggest question to consider is what you plan to do during this trip, since only essential businesses (supermarkets, pharmacies, etc) are still open for business.

Don't expect to find any "tourist activities" still operating.

Question: There is a lockdown in the UK.  I'm a student living at Warwickshire. I planned a 2 day trip a long time ago to the south of England, and I will be travelling by car with my friend (only 1 friend).   With the current lockdown rules, will I be stopped and fined?  What are the possible consequences?   Update: I'm not going anywhere! Thanks for the answers!

Is travelling with 1 friend permitted in the UK now that the lockdown is enforced?

A trip, presumably for leisure purposes - whether with members of your household, or with one friend, or on your own - is not on the list, so would not be allowed.  If you're lucky, you will be stopped, fined, and sent home.

Trips are not permitted and fines are likely.


It's a cargo flight, after all.

Many/most passenger airplanes handle cargo business ordinarily .

(Amtrak who thinks it's an airline, took it to extremes; ordering hundreds of baggage cars specifically for freight, you had Amtrak trains with 25 baggage cars and 5 coaches.

Their freight railroad hosts told them to knock it off.)

However, the COVID-19 crisis has caused great shifts in the economy - largely ending the passenger business, but a veritable "gold rush" in the air freight business , particularly for emergency supplies that cannot wait for the slow container ship.

Your particular flight is from China, which as you know is where a tremendous amount of material is manufactured.

And it's to Europe, which is pretty much the worst case for container-ship shipping times (must either transit Panama, Suez, or best case, a double transload for a rail crossing of North America).

As such, the flight you mention is surely kept plenty busy by that traffic.

They can use almost the entire baggage hold for freight, and some airlines are pulling out seats so they can load cargo in the passenger area.

This is perfectly legitimate; in fact many airliners are made as "Combis" that either convert quickly, or have a cargo section aft of the passenger section.

travel.stackexchange.com/users/55372/Harper - Reinstate Monica

China Eastern airlines are used to haul face masks from China to Czech Republic.

Czech national radio website mentions China Eastern delivery from March.

I also found and an online newspaper article from 10th of April referring to China Eastern delivering face masks and Airbus 330–243 is specifically mentioned in that article.

Few countries have actually “closed” their borders.

The Czech restrictions seem to be among the most extensive, even after being relaxed somewhat , but do leave the possibility of travel for very limited reasons open.

In particular, the Czech Republic did not, to my knowledge, close their airports and interrupt all flights into the country (which some other countries did do).

As to why that particular flight did happen, it's difficult to know for certain.

There have been many discussion of nearly empty flights being operated for legal reasons (safeguarding slots and the like) but I am not sure that's a factor here.

Freight is certainly a strong contender and Covid-19 actually created some new demand in that area as protective equipment, reagents, etc.

are often sourced from outside Europe and especially China.

Finally, even if travel is limited to a handful of diplomats and experts, the occasional aid worker, and a few stranded nationals/residents trying to come back home, if you want to maintain safe distance inside a plane, it will fill up very quickly.

Some combination of: They can (i.e., flights are permitted by the Czech authorities); and There's money to be made now (from carrying either freight and/or passengers); and/or they want to keep their routes, and gates, and airport arrival and departure slots (which can all be at risk if they're not used); and/or they wish to pre-position their service to be already up and running as things loosen up in the transportation world.

The actual internal reasons and decision-making behind #2 are apt to be invisible to outsiders.

Czech Republic has been keeping their borders shut for more than a month now Incorrect.

A fair amount of nationals of over 30 countries can still enter Czech Republic (see https://www.iatatravelcentre.com/international-travel-document-news/1580226297.htm ( mirror ), e.g. people under age 18 or spouses of nationals of Czechia).

And there are over 1.4 billion people who can still enter China.

More generally there are still quite a few lines in operation (e.g. see this samchui.com

post ( mirror )), sometimes with reduced frequency.

Question: The Czech Republic has been keeping their borders shut for more than a month now and likewise China closed their borders to all foreigners back in March. However mysteriously there is a daily flight between Shanghai and Prague:  MU707 . What is the purpose of this flight and who is making use of it?  As pointed out by @Relaxed this is the only non-chartered non-cargo flight that landed in Prague airport today, so there must be something special about it.

Why does China Eastern airlines still fly daily to Prague?

This is a cargo flight. Reasons for still flying include: flights are permitted by the Czech authorities; carrying either freight and/or passengers; keeping their routes,  gates, and airport arrival and departure slots (which can all be at risk if they're not used); and/or they wish to pre-position their service to be already up and running as things loosen up in the transportation world. Few countries have completely closed their borders.

Borders have only actually been closed in a small number of countries and cargo flights remain operational.

Flights are still operating for freight, such as face mask shipments.

Borders have only actually been closed in a few countries.


The big difference is the scale.

Disneyland (in California) was the first theme park Walt Disney built.

Originally consisting of one theme park and one hotel, though after Walt's death it was expanded into a resort with a second theme park, more hotels and some other attractions.

Disney world (in Florida) was a much bigger project, this time Walt Disney wanted to control not just the immediate theme park but the whole area surrounding it.

While sadly Walt died before the park was actually built the result was nevertheless a Disney-controlled resort with four theme parks, two water parks and loads of hotels and other attractions.

There are also a number of foreign (outside the US)

Disneylands.

As far as I can tell these are much closer in scale to the original Disneyland than they are to Disney World.

The difference is that Disneyland is in California and Disney World is in Florida.

Please see Disneyland and Disney World

I suppose the idea was that they would not be confused.

DISCLAIMER:

Read OP carefully.

Also, SE does not require every answer to be all-inclusive.

Reading your question carefully, I’m not sure you’re asking about the easy stuff like location, scale or features.

You seem to be asking a lot about the etymology : the word crafting.

Historically there are reasons** many country/state names end in “land”: Ireland, Scotland, England, Rhineland, Poland, etc.

The style has been used for fictional/created non-countries too: wonderland, playland, etc.

Disneyland is simply continuing that style.

Different deal with the Florida resort.

They wanted it named after Walt Disney, i.e. the full name.

Waltdisneyworld would be a very ugly word formation.

So they went with “Walt Disney World”.

And since others have covered the scale, features and location well, there is no point in re-treading their work; and SE rules do not encourage or require that.

** Some very smart people want me to delve into the etymology of that; but that’s not your question.

travel.stackexchange.com/users/55372/Harper - Reinstate Monica

Map from Wikipedia with the different names by location:

In the USA, Disneyland is the name of Disney's property in Anaheim, California.

Originally, Disneyland was a single theme park, and still is.

It has various versions around the world, but I imagine here we're talking about the Disneyland theme park in California.

Confusingly, since opening, Disney has also opened another theme park (Disney's California Adventure), a shopping area, and hotels around the original Disneyland park.

The overall resort here is called the Disneyland Resort.

Walt Disney World, on the other hand, is Disney's resort in Florida.

This is far, far larger than the Disneyland Resort and contains far more - more parks, hotels, shopping, and areas to expand into.

Walt Disney World contains the Magic Kingdom, Florida's version of the Disneyland theme park.

However, in my experience, a lot of people call this park "Disney World", which is where I believe a lot of confusion stems from.

Why Disneyland?

Most likely to play off Disney's fame (he was a prolific film and TV producer by then), as well as matching the motif of the park.

Remember, the parks have always focused on the Disney stories.

This is how Disneyland opened in 1955

Note how the various areas are named.

In particular Frontierland Adventureland Tomorrowland Fantasyland Notice a motif?

And to top it off, Walt Disney started a Disney anthology series that started in and around the park.

Walt Disney World Announced in 1966, Walt Disney would die that same year.

There's no reason why Disney called it "Disney World", but it's far less common to use "world" as a suffix.

But it was Roy Disney who named the whole resort after the man One of his first decisions was that the Disneyworld project would be officially renamed “Walt Disney World.”

Roy was insistent that people be reminded that this was Walt’s project.

Very few others in the company agreed with that choice because of marketing reasons.

In a meeting, someone referred to it as “Disneyworld” and Roy’s hand went to his glasses as he focused on the offending word: “I’m only going to say this one more time.

I want it called ‘Walt Disney World.’

Not Disneyworld, not Disneyland East, not anything else.

Walt Disney World.”

Question: You'd think this would be "easy to look up", but... no.  And what's with the inconsistent naming? Why isn't it "Disney Land" or "Disneyworld"?  I've numerous times consulted Wikipedia to try to straighten this out, but always come back even more confused than I was before.

What exactly was/is the difference between "Disney World" and "Disneyland"?

The difference is that  Disneyland  is in California and  Disney World  is in Florida.

Walt Disney World is in Florida and Disneyland is in California.


A cabin crewmember here.

The answer is: No, it is NOT allowed!

For various reasons, including: Security : We do not know what are you heating, is it a heat-activated bomb?

is it something that might make a lot of smoke?

etc.

Health : We cannot contaminate the ovens, we know the source of the food that is provided by the airlines, we do not know the source of your food.

Same ovens are used to heat the pilots' meals as well, we can't afford to have one of them having food poisoning in the middle of the flight?

The same goes for the refrigerators also.

Cabin crew do help passengers when it comes to babies' milk and so by providing hot water to heat up the bottle or a bag full of ice to cool things like medicines, but we shall never use the aircraft equipment to heat/cool any other food that is not provided by the airline.

There's a policy in the airline I work for that prohibits even the crewmembers from using the ovens/refrigerators to heat/cool their own food that they bring from outside the aircraft.

Some might say that they had a different experience and the crew helped them, yes it could happen when a crewmember decides to violate the rules to help a passenger based on his/her judgment, but that's not something to expect on every flight.

Factoids: there are various heating devices onboard airplanes, depending on the model and the airline, including Conventional ovens, steam ovens, microwave ovens, bun warmers, water heaters, steam wands, coffee makers, espresso machines, etc.

Airlines and manufacturers have really taken these flying machines to the next level.

They are unable to do so.

Most aircraft don't even have microwave ovens.

Not least, because of potential effects on avionics and sensors, not to mention power surge issues.

What they use for hot meal service is elaborate ovens made to heat many meals at once, provided they are packaged a particular way from the food supplier.

The oven doesn't lend itself to general use for single meals.

There is also hot water spigot service for tea, which is how they heat a baby bottle.

This might help with the ramen, but will get you nowhere with microwave fare such as burgers, pizza etc.

travel.stackexchange.com/users/55372/Harper - Reinstate Monica

Cold food, such as a salad or cold sandwich, is likely to be easiest to bring on a plane.

Reheating something, e.g. a burger, is very unlikely.

However, there is one way you can got hot food without asking the attendant for anything special.

Pick instant soup, oatmeal, or indeed ramen, that can be prepared by adding hot, not necessarily boiling, water and waiting a specified time.

During hot drinks service, when they are serving coffee etc, ask for one or two cups of hot water and use that to reconstitute your food.

They serve tea as a cup of hot water and a tea bag, so the cart will have it.

British Airways will heat up milk for babies for you.

You can certainly ask, but considering airlines are even reluctant to heat up the food they're serving to you, it would be a hard sell to ask them to heat up your personal food.

Bring a salad or just wait until you land.

A few planes didn't have warming stoves or on the off chance that they did, they were stuck loaded with the dinner embeds that should have been warmed for the feast to be served inflight.

Which implies there was no capacity to do as such.

Likewise, if the flight is just so long, full with drink administration to do, at that point supper, at that point bar administration, at that point tidy up…

.there basically isn't time as the entire thing is completely organized and planned to fit impeccably inside time boundaries.

Question: Normally, you get a meal or two depending on the length of your flight. However, let's say that you also brought your own food with you (maybe a burger or ramen). Are you allowed to ask the crew to heat it up for you? If so, what's the best way to do that?

Will the cabin crew heat your own food up?

Reheating a passenger's food, such as a burger, is either not allowed or very unlikely.

It is unlikely, if not impossible, that you will be able to do this.

This is not possible.
You are unlikely to be able to do this.


United allows cabin crew to sell "upgrades" to Economy Plus (not technically an upgrade, since Economy Plus is still the economy class, just with more legroom) from their handheld devices.

Source :

If passengers want to upgrade to economy plus during boarding, for example, Bingochea can easily accommodate the request using a proprietary app on his handheld device called Link.

The devices they use take credit cards, same way they sell food and drinks.

I'm not sure whether they can do real upgrades to other cabin classes though.

The other day Lufthansa was selling Premium Economy upgrades after the door was closed.

The price was ridiculous, though, and no one went for it.

Edelweiss allows you to upgrade from Economy to Business after boarding the plane.

At least for short-haul flights, subject to seat availability.

Payment can be done through credit card or debit card.

This even works, if catering does not allow for the +1 on the manifest, which it normally does.

I don't know if it would work on long-haul flights, since I never found myself in that situation.

Couldn't find the official confirmation on this.

But I've done it a couple of times for flights between ZRH and CTA, where buying P/Z/C/D tickets 2-3

hrs beforehand was not possible anymore.

Or if I wanted to upgrade a fellow traveler to fly with me.

In the past other airlines allowed me to pay a fixed fee on board to upgrade, but I haven't really flown with most of them in quite a while.

Air France/KLM allows upgrades on board by speaking to a flight attendant: UPGRADE LAST MINUTE ON BOARD

You can even upgrade your cabin after boarding, subject to availability.

Eligible airlines: Air France and KLM marketed and operated flights Available payment methods: Miles or just cash

How to request: on board

Scoot (Singapore Airlines' low-cost subsidiary) used to offer paid in-flight upgrades , but this was suspended in June 2020 due to the COVID pandemic.

Question: You can always request an upgrade to a higher class before you board, you can use your miles or pay and get your ticket upgraded to business/premium class then you will be issued a new boarding pass.  However, are there any airlines that provide that  after  boarding? like you call a flight attendant, request an upgrade, pay for it somehow, and then get upgraded on-spot?  Please note, I am talking about  paid  upgrades.

Are there airlines that offer upgrades on-board?

Upgrades are sometimes available after boarding on some airlines, either for economy seats with increased legroom or cabin upgrades.  Examples include United, Lufthansa, Edelweiss, Air France/KLM, and Scoot. Some upgrade offerings may have been suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some airlines only offer changes to premium economy services, though others allow you to upgrade when boarding or even after you've boarded.

Certain airlines offer changes to premium Economy services, though it is questionable whether these qualify as real upgrades.

Numerous airlines offer upgrades upon and even after boarding.


Baking Soda and Lemon should be on the top of your list.

There are different solutions to use based the situation.

I have found the following site useful for a more natural and safe way to clean food and stuff around the house, http://eartheasy.com/live_nontoxic_solutions.htm

In addition to Baking Soda and Lemon, as @Colby mentioned, I'd add that Vinegar will clean most everything; it is non-toxic and cheap.

I've found it to be very effective for getting rid of molds and musty smells.

If you get Vinegar on your food, who cares, right?

You could still eat it, unless you don't like the taste.

I'm in the cleanliness is over-hyped in our culture camp, so I probably have a different outlook than you.

But, I wash surfaces mostly with just water and a cloth.

If there's grease to cut or I want to damage microorganisms, I'll wipe down with vinegar.

I don't even use baking soda for surfaces -- just for burned pans and such.

This mild sanitation protocol works well even in my kitchen which is deeply saturated with microorganisms due to years of various, constant fermentations.

You'd be surprised how much you can achieve with a piece of cotton, clean water and much patience.

While camping, we're cleaning all pots with water and a piece of grass or leaves.

It requires more time than using detergents and hot water, but it is possible.

Fats don't dissolve in water, so you can use a bit of alcohol for them.

Home-made , of course :)

If you want commercial products check out Good Guide , they rank products based on ingredient hazards and larger environmental impact.

They have an extremely large database and rank things from cleaners to food to makeup.

Question: I'm wondering what kind of products I can use that are not dangerous to keep kitchen surfaces clean and safe.     Should I get different products for different types surfaces (e.g. granite top vs. wooden cutting board)?    Should I get different products for different types of foods (e.g. meats vs. vegetables)?

What non-toxic products can I use to keep my kitchen counters clean and safe?

Various solutions may be used depending on the situation. Baking soda and lemon are at the top of the list, although vinegar or clean water and a cotton cloth are also recommended.

It depends on the situation, but you could use items such as baking soda, lemon, vinegar, cotton and clean water.

Possible solutions will depend on the situation.

Baking soda, lemon and vinegar are useful.


A starter material isn't technically necessary, though a good amount of some sort of neutral, non-food based material (such as leaves, dirt, etc) will help to keep it from smelling like rotten food.

Otherwise, the natural flora and fauna will breakdown the foods over time, as long as a reasonable nitrogen ratio is maintained.

A starter isn't a requirement, but it can certainly help.

A shovel from a long-standing site of decomposition will work.

Manure works really well in a compost pile that includes food scraps, as it provides thermophillic bacteria that like the stuff we eat.

Include plenty of fine carbonaceous material such as sawdust, to maintain the carbon-nitrogen balance.

Build the compost pile big so it can get hot.

My compost hits 130 degF.

It's more important to worry about a good balance of materials ("greens" and "browns" so that you have about a 30:1 C:N ratio) than it is to worry about a starter colony.

In terms of what to use: you can use existing compost, well-rotted animal manures, or healthy soil from your garden.

All of these things will have the microbe families that you want in your compost pile.

A dead mouse in the compost will attract the right kind of microbes.

It's not essential, but it will speed up the process initially if you use a good mix.

Personally I don't bother, but I don't really mind when the compost comes and am happy to wait.

If you could do with the compost sooner rather than later, then chuck a load of rich soil or existing composting material in there to get it started - they contain a lot of the necessary bacteria which should thrive on their new found food.

Question: When starting a compost pile from scratch for kitchen food scraps, do I need some kind of starter material?  For example, should I take any material from an established composting pile to seed it with appropriate biological agents?  If needed, is such starter sold in any stores?

Does a compost pile for food scraps need some kind of starter material?

A starter material isn't technically necessary, although it might help and speed up the process. A good amount of some sort of neutral, non-food based material (such as leaves, dirt, etc) will help to keep it from smelling like rotten food.  It's more important to worry about a good balance of materials ("greens" and "browns") than it is to worry about a starter colony.

A starter can help but is not essential. A balance of green and brown is very useful for composting.

A starter is not essential, though it is helpful.

A balance of green and browns is more important than a starter.


There's a growing market for reclaimed/salvaged building materials.

Check out Planet Reuse or http://www.build.recycle.net/ , or there are probably similar local organizations in your area.

I believe Habitat for Humanity tries to use reclaimed material as well; you might look into donating yours.

If you're talking DIY projects, I'd say your imagination is the only limit there!

It's a little hard to say more without knowing more specifics about what kind of materials and project.

(As a start, I've seen some pretty neat projects using old trim to make picture/mirror frames, or shelves.)

Obviously, the most effective way to avoid generating a lot of waste is not to do the remodeling project, or to do only a small part of it that gets you the most value.

Construction generates a lot of waste !

Drywall & plaster can be broken up and used as a soil amendment.

The older trim and lumber , the better that wood will be.

If you have any old growth, wood, you could reuse it in your project.

You might even look at exposing the wood as part of the beauty of the new room.

Old carpet can be hard to reuse.

It's usually pretty nasty.

Google had a few suggestions, like insulating your compost pile.

Carpet is also hard to recycle, but your municipality may have a carpet recycling option.

If you are in a large city, drywall can be recycled into drywall.

Check with your local agency.

The grey stuff in drywall is mostly gypsum -- Calcium magnesium sulfate.

Yes it can be used as a soil amendment if you have neutral or acidic soils.

Read up before you do it.

It rototils reasonably easily.

Wood: See above. Carpet.

Works great upside down as weed barrier cloth.

Cut in widths to fit the aisles in your garden, use around trees.

Decorate with wood chips if you want.

You could try to pass on whatever you don't want to other people, free-of-charge, via the Freecycle Network .

The Wikipedia article provides an overview of that organization.

Junk to useful: Plastic barrels: Take a vertical slice off of one side, leaving an opening about 16" Adjust as needed.

Good bad weather generator cover.

Would also make a good barbecue cover.

Plastic pails:

I scrounge them by the thousand, wash them

put 12 1" holes in the sides as use them for nursery pots.

Carpet:

Lay upside down in the garden for mud free paths.

Roll up and store dry overwinter will double their life.

Wood scraps:

We have a company in industrial centre that collects all the 2x4 and 2x6 off cuts from several truss companies, a millwork company, and three mobile home/camp unit makers.

They chip and shred them and sell it as horse bedding.

Pallets:

Lean against each other in pairs, and tie one edge with baling twine.

Instant snow fence.

Assemble 9 as and extended E or 8 in a swastica

and you have a 4 bin composter.

Sawdust, wood chips.

Wood pellet heating.

Question: I am remodeling a room in my house and have a bunch of material that may end up in the garbage.  I would be throwing away carpet, plaster and planks, trim and etc.  I would like to not throw this stuff away if there is any clever/ helpful use for it.    Does anyone have any ideas on if I can reuse this stuff in/on any other project/activities?

What reuses are there for surplus building materials?

There's a growing market for reclaimed/salvaged building materials. Surplus materials can also be passed on through the Freecycle network. One way to avoid generating a lot of waste is to simply do the most important part of a remodelling project.

There is a growing market for building materials, which can be recycled or re-used via Freecycle schemes. Waste can be minimised by limiting building projects to the essential.

There is a growing market for building materials, you can also Freecycle them. Materials such as drywall can be recycled.

You can avoid generating waste by minimising building projects to the essential.


I would like to know if it is possible to recycle plastic at home by melting and molding.

Yes it is possible.

One guy makes chairs out of melted plastic .

There are several guides on melting plastic that show up when you search google for it.

This one, on ehow shows how to melt plastic in a toaster oven.

Basically, wash the bottles, cut 'em into small manageable chunks and pop them in a metal container and into the oven at 350F.

It should take a few minutes for the plastic to melt.

As for molding them, I found a few guides - Molding plastics at home

How to produce small plastic parts at home A list of molding projects on a crafts site But remember, melting plastics will produce fumes which can be harmful if inhaled.

Make sure to melt them in a well ventilated area.

And if you're doing it in a room, it would be nice to have an exhaust fan in there.

Also, check out this guide on what the different rating numbers on the bottom of plastic bottles mean, specifically, what kinds of plastic a number refers to and whether or not it is safe to melt that plastic.

To contribute to the options offered by Elssar's answer, here is an interesting thing I read about just a few days ago: Filabot is a project of compact 3D printer that directly recycles plastic objects at home to create new shapes.

It was launched for funding on the 19th of December 2011 on Kickstarter and tripled its goal by the 23rd of January 2012.

Here is the homepage of the project: http://filabot.com/

They apparently shipped the devices to at least some of the project backers during 2013.

Even when melted/burned in a place with lots of ventilation, plastics can produce many toxic chemicals.

These are then breathed in or attach themselves to soil, where they can stay for years and years.

Therefore, I really wouldn't suggest trying to reuse plastics at home by melting or heating them, as the health implications can be really dangerous and damaging in the long run.

It depends on the plastic you're using.

Plastics often come in the thermoplastic and thermosetting categories.

If the plastic is a thermosetting plastic then it is not able to melted (Most, if not all thermosetting plastics burn rather than melt).

However, a thermoplastic plastic can be melted and remoulded as much as you want (quality of plastic is likely to degrade after each phase melting and remoulding however).

Depending on the type of reshaping you are interested in, you can do basic crafts with the right kind of plastic by simply using a hairblower to heat them up and bending them into shape.

Question: I would like to know if it is possible to recycle plastic at home by melting and molding.  Is it at all possible? What technique or technology do I need? Can it be done with any plastic? Are there health hazards associated to this activity?

Can I recycle plastics at home by melting and molding?

This is possible but it depends on the plastics. There may be health implications to melting or heating plastics. Basic crafts can involve heating the right kind of plastic with a hairdryer and bending the plastic into shape.

Much depends on the type of plastic and reshaping, though this may or may not be possible due to safety reasons.

This is not recommended for safety reasons.

The feasibility depends on the type of plastic and reshaping.


Make up a batch of bone sauce and apply it to your tree trunks: The first pot is buried in moist soil leaving an inch or two above ground.

The second, upper, pot if filled with bones and a screen goes between the two pots.

Clay seals the pots.

A small fire is burned on top of the pots for about two hours.

Then the wood is pulled away and the pots are covered with dirt.

Let the pots cool overnight.

Carefully clean all of the dirt off so that no dirt ends up in the bone sauce / salve.

Grow plants that deer don't like.

They didn't touch my garlic last spring, but they ate everything else...

it's rumored that planting garlic around trees might keep them away

, I don't know how well this works if there's a lot of feeding pressure.

Grow lots of plants that deer do

like as a distraction to keep them from the stuff you want for yourself.

Grow "deer resistant" plants.

Elderberries are supposed to tolerate being munched just about to the ground -- the roots will send up new canes.

Get a dog; you'll still need a fence to keep the dog contained, but the requirements for a dog-proof fence are easier to meet than the requirements for a deer-proof fence.

See also questions where this has come up on gardening.

SE:

What is the best way to keep deer away?

What is the best way to prevent animals from eating my garden without a fence?

What is the best way to keep deer away?

I think the bottom line answer from that last question is this: You will also find suggestions to use bars of soap, human hair, dogs or getting a hunting licence.

These will work for some deer, some of the time

but if you want a solution for all of the deer, all of the time you need a fence.

I'm not suburban, but I have a lot of deer pressure, and the only thing that works for me is a fence (and it has to be a good fence).

(I haven't tried the bone sauce yet.)

Surely the most natural solution would be for the human population to reduce the deer population by eating them.

Nature's solution to an overpopulation problem would be predators or disease.

Introducing a wolf or two to the area would help cull the herd a little.

I'm less comfortable with the suggestion of spreading a deer-soecific disease, as it has a much higher likelihood of losing control.

Toby suggested planting some fast growing non-delicious species around the perimeter, perhaps crabapple.

That way, the deer will stick to those instead of eating your food.

I put up an electric fence.

The deer wire is about 3 foot off the ground.

I take a piece a tinfoil

the size of my hand put a dab of peanut butter on it and fold it over, in half.

The deer are attracted to it, by smell, must touch it, get stung, then leave and never come back again.

I do not know why it works

but it has for me for several years

and I see deer in my garden during the winter when the fence is down.

Question: The old problem of the deer moving into the city.  My neighborhood is overrun.  So far the best solution I've seen to keep them at bay is fences or hedges.  The true permaculture solution would be to simply grow enough that the deer can eat their fill and there's still plenty for you.  But that's not tenable when you're working on a suburban lot and with deer population densities 10x what is found in the wild.  So, short of fences or hedges, anyone got any ideas?

What is a permaculture solution for dealing with deer in a suburban environment?

Suggestions for keeping deer at bay include an electric fence, applying bone sauce to tree trunks, growing plants that deer don't like, such as crab apples) or "der-resistant" plants. Others suggest introducing predators, such as wolves, or eating the deer.

Possible solutions include bone sauce, plants, population control measures and electric fences.

Applying bone sauce to trees and growing plants that deer don't like are effective solutions.

Population control measures can be considered.

A physical perimeter such as an electric fence could work.


Generally this comes from having an excess of "greens" rather than "browns" in the bin, and potentially too much moisture also.

When this has happened to me I generally put a generous amount of shredded newspaper / junk mail in, and try to let it dry out as much as possible - the fruit flies will then tend to up and leave.

It's probably also worth noting that the flies aren't an inherent problem to the compost per-se, they're just rather unpleasant.

You can make a trap to catch the existing fruit flies with an empty jar, a small plastic sandwich or zip close baggie with square corners, a rubber band and some wine or beer.

Pour a small amount of beer in the bottom of the jar.

Snip off a tiny bit of the corner of the bag, making a small hole.

Push the corner of the bag a few inches down into jar, making a funnel shape, and pull the rest of the bag over edge of the jar.

Put a rubber band around the the rim of the jar sealing the edge of the bag.

The fruit flies crawl in through the funnel, then can't get back out.

I seen similar versions of a fruit fly trap where you punch small holes through the lid of the with a nail.

I will make this brief:Search for fruit fly lifespan.

An associated article shows an experiment of the effects of sweeteners on fruit flies done by a 6th grader.

He found that Truvia killed fruit flies.

So I tried Truvia in my worm bin and it works!

AND the worms are not harmed.

You should try it and if it works for you, spread the word: No more fruit flies in worm bins.

Steven Goddard

The combination of 4 things worked for me: stop over-feeding and let the compost dry if too wet vacuum the flies

daily cover all the food scraps and put a layer of dry newspaper shred on top of the compost have a trap near the compost to catch some of the flies (yellow container with water + dish soap + sugar works for me, as yellow color and sugar attract flies and dish soap makes them drown)

This method instantly improves your compost situation, but it may take weeks to get rid of all the flies, as your compost probably has some eggs.

You could use some food grade DE on your compost pile this will help dry it out and will most certainly kill all the fruit flies.

sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/1443/Get rid of flies

Question: My worm composting bin is infested with fruit flies. What can be done to get rid of the flies?

How to get rid of fruit fly infestation in worm composting bin?

Fruit flies can be controlled by adding a generous amount of shredded newspaper, stopping overfeeding the compost and letting it dry out as much as possible - the fruit flies will then tend to up and leave.  Food grade DE will help to dry it out and remove fruit flies. Truvia also works. Fruit flies can also be trapped using a jar, a zip-close bag and some wine or beer.

Using a jar trap, shredded paper, Truvia and letting your compost dry out can all address the problem.

Shredded paper, Truvia, letting the compost dry out are viable solutions.

You can fashion a trap for fruit flies using an empty jar.