среда, 5 августа 2015 г.

uFrontier Airlines Offering Packages That Bundle A La Carte Extras For One Pricer


4 4 4 9
  • Though Frontier Airlines might be known for unbundled flight fares, instead choosing to offer a la carte options like checked and carry-on bags and seats with more legroom as add-ons, the airline is jumping back into the bundling arena with a new option that charges a flat fee for certain extras.

    Frontier’s new package is called the “WORKS”, and charges anywhere between an additional $49 and $69 each way: Customers who choose this option will get the power to receive a full refund on tickets canceled 24 hours prior to departure; no change fees (usually $99 each change); seat selection power, including Stretch and Exit Row options; one carry-on bag (typically up to $60); one checked bag (runs up to $30 normally) and priority boarding.

    If there’s no room for your carry-on bag on the plane (which would be tough if you board in the first group as you should), there’s also a money-back guarantee.

    “There are a lot of people that love the unbundled model, but there are still a lot of people that don’t understand it,” Frontier Airlines president Barry Biffle told USAToday. “Instead of trying to tell everybody, ‘This is good for you, you’re saving money and the fare is cheaper than before,’ the new [bundled] package gives us the option of bringing back the works.”

    The a la carte options do add up, which makes the WORKS an attractive deal for people who want the little frills in a travel experience. As an example, a trip from New York’s LaGuardia Airport to Denver on Frontier with nonstop flights both ways between Sept. 18-20 costs a base fare of $268 (non-club price), but when the WORKS is added, it comes to $384. In that case, the per-way fee for extras would be $58.

    Going a la carte, choosing a Stretch seat each way ($90 roundtrip), a checked bag and a carry-on bag both ways ($110 total), a traveler’s fare would come to $418 for that same flight. And if something came up, that ticket wouldn’t be refundable, or change fees would be applied for any last-minute switches.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uVideo Shows Checkers Employee Wiping Burger Bun On Kitchen Floorr


4 4 4 9
  • A video showing what appears to be an employee at fast food chain Checkers dropping, then wiping, a burger bun on a kitchen floor is disgusting diners around the world this morning.

    The quick clip takes place at an unknown Checkers location, and appears to show the employee deliberately dropping the bun to the floor. She then, while laughing and being goaded on by the person shooting the footage, quickly rubs the bread around on the floor before picking it up and putting some fixings on it.

    We have no idea if this bun was actually served to a customer. It could have been a prank for the camera (like the Taco Bell taco-licker incident of 2013), or a joke (a sickening one) played on a fellow employee.

    Of course it doesn’t help that Checkers has thus far refused to release a statement or respond to the numerous comments from people on social media about the incident. We are reaching out to the company and will update if we hear back.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uWhy Didn’t Dept. Of Education Find Problems With Loan Servicer Fined $100M?r


4 4 4 9
  • Last May, investigations by the Department of Justice and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation into student loans servicing resulted in a $100 million fine against government-contracted servicer Navient for allegedly violating federal laws limiting the amount of interest that can be charged on servicemember student loans. Following those investigations, the Department of Education undertook a review that found its four servicers – including Navient – weren’t cheating military personnel. With such conflicting reports, members of Congress are now getting involved, calling for an investigation into the Dept. of Education’s review process.

    The group of senators sent a letter [PDF] to Inspector General Kathleen Tighe today raising concerns that the Dept. of Education’s probe into its student loans servicers’ compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) was riddled with problems.

    Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Patty Murray of Washington and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, say that their own analysis of the Department’s review “raises doubts regarding whether ED officials adequately reported the results of these review to the public.”

    The Dept. of Education’s review, which was released in May, found that less than 1% of servicemember files serviced by Navient, Great Lakes, Nelnet and American Education Services contained violations of SCRA, including a provision the limits the amount of interest on military personnel student loans to no more than 6%.

    Those findings were in contrast with the DOJ and FDIC investigation last year that found Navient charged higher interest rates on nearly 78,000 serviemember loans.

    The Dept. of Education’s review was based on a random sampling of about 600 borrowers across all four federally contracted servicers, the Washington Post reports.

    The senators contend that their own analysis of the review found the Department had only conducted detailed reviews of 14 cases where eligible borrowers requested and qualified for but were denied SCRA interest rate caps.

    “The small number of cases reviewed is quite extraordinary, considering the newly released data from a recent DOJ and FDIC investigation concluding that Navient along denied appropriate SCRA relief to more than 75,000 federal and private loan borrowers,” the senators say. “In other words, the Department of Education based its conclusion on an examination of a tiny fraction of relevant cases.”

    Additionally, the senators claim that the Dept. of Education’s review found at least one student loan servicer in error in almost 30% of the cases in which borrowers requested rate caps, finding that deserving borrowers were denied caps in 8% of reviewed cases.

    “Given the numerous problems identified with these reviews, and the deeply flawed descriptions that ED offices used to present their findings, we request that you conduct your own independent assessment of the adequacy and accuracy of the review process,” the senators write.

    A spokesperson for the Department of Education tells the Post that the Dept. shares the senators’ concerns regarding the treatment of servicemembers and that it will review the report.

    Still, she says that the data used for the review had a different standard than the Justice Department’s investigation based on regulations and contractual requirements for student loan servicers.

    Following the Navient settlement, the Post reports the Dept. of Education did make changes, streamlining the process for servicemembers to adjust interest rates when they were called to active duty. So far, it says more than 141,000 members of the military have benefited from the changes.

    Elizabeth Warren wants the Education Dept.’s ‘flawed’ review of student loan contractors investigated [The Washington Post]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uU.S. Companies Must Reveal How Much CEOs Earn Compared To Workersr


4 4 4 9
  • Five years ago, the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to come up with rules requiring American companies to calculate and report the ratio between a CEO’s pay and that of the company’s typical employee. After repeated delays and claims from big business that the math was too complicated, the SEC has finally voted to approve these rules.

    Section 953(b) of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [PDF] adds a requirement that companies disclose “the median of the annual total compensation of
    all employees of the issuer, except the chief executive officer (or any equivalent position) of the issuer; the annual total compensation of the chief executive officer… and the ratio of the amount.”

    But the act provides no explanation of exactly how this ratio is to be calculated, resulting in years of delays as lawmakers, consumer and investor advocates, regulators, and big business groups debated the feasibility and utility of this information.

    After receiving hundreds of thousands of comments from the public on this issue, the SEC finally voted to approve the rule and provide details on how it addresses concerns raised about the complexity and costs associated with the requirement.

    Rather than prescribe a specific format for companies to calculate the CEO-worker pay ratio, the SEC has built in flexibility that gives employers the ability to use any “reasonable method” that “works best for their own facts and circumstances.”

    Thus, a company with many thousands of employees spread around the nation can use sampling and estimates to calculate its ratio. However, businesses must describe and detail their methodologies for obtaining their final figures.

    Additionally, rather than requiring companies to run the numbers every year, they will only be made to disclose the ratio every three years — except in cases where there have been significant changes to employee numbers or pay structure.

    Companies with non-U.S. employees get a bit of a reprieve. Those with a small number of workers outside the country may not have to include their income. Likewise, those companies who claim that disclosing foreign employees’ earnings will violate foreign nation’s privacy laws may not have to include this pay in their ratios.

    One area in which the final rule is not giving flexibility to companies is the definition of “employee.” Rather than simply calculating full-time workers, the ratio must also include part-time and seasonal staff.

    As expected, the vote on the pay ratio rule was divide along party lines, with the Commission’s two conservative commissioners voting against the version presented today.

    Commissioner Michael Gallagher has long been critical of the pay-ratio rule, calling it “maybe the most useless of all our Dodd-Frank mandates” which warranted the “caboose treatment,” referring to the years-long delay in approving the rule.

    Gallagher questioned the usefulness of the rule, which is presented as being beneficial to investors who can use it to determine whether CEOs are being paid properly. Instead, he joined those opponents who believe the rule’s purpose is simply to embarrass and shame companies.

    That said, Gallagher today acknowledged that Section 953(b) is the law of the land and that it’s the SEC’s job to draft the rule. However, he said the only way in which he would have supported such a rule was if it only applied to the pay for full-time employees in the U.S.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uPoll: Americans Want Eleanor Roosevelt’s Face On New $10 Billr


4 4 4 9
  • Although we won’t find out which historic woman the U.S. Treasury Department will choose for a new $10 bill until later this year, a new poll says Americans already know who they want sharing face time with Alexander Hamilton: The nation’s longest-serving first lady, as well as an activist, diplomat and politician, Eleanor Roosevelt.

    While the Treasury is currently seeking input from citizens on who should grace the new bills, slated for release in 2020, a new poll from McClatchy-Marist says 27% of registered voters who participated chose Roosevelt.

    Other contenders included abolitionist Harriet Tubman (who was also the top suggestion in a previous campaign for a $20 bill featuring a woman) with 20% of the vote, Native American guide Sacagawea with 13%, pilot Amelia Earhart and suffragette Susan B. Anthony, each with 11% of the vote. Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female justice of the Supreme Court, received 4% — but even if she was the top choice, the Treasury has stipulated that no living woman can appear on the redesigned $10 bill.

    “They had a lot to do with building this country, as much as the men did. And still do,” said one man from Georgia who took the poll.

    The new bill will mark the first time in more than 100 years that a female face has appeared on paper currency in the U.S.: previously, Martha Washington and Pocahontas both appeared on bills in the 1800s, while Anthony and Sacagawea have been featured on the $1 coin in the past.

    The Treasury chose 2020 for the release of the new bill, to mark the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uWhat Can You Do If Your Mobile Carrier Sends You An Update That Breaks Your Phone?r


4 4 4 9
  • When you buy a new phone or tablet, you’re not just buying it as-is in its current state. Software is dynamic, and constantly updated. In a sense, then, you’re also making a bet that your device will keep working into the future, after countless rounds of mandatory system updates. And usually, it does! But every once in a while, something goes wrong. And for that small handful of consumers, that’s where the real trouble begins.

    Phones can be subject to a lot of failure. We load them up with a thousand competing apps, we stuff them with photos and videos and files, we carry them in our pockets and bags with us everywhere, and at a certain point it becomes inevitable that something, somewhere, will go wrong.

    Physical damage is no fun, but at least is pretty straightforward. If you drop your phone in the toilet, run it over with your bike, or find your dog working those incisors on the screen, that’s on you. Every company sells an extended warranty option — basically, an insurance gamble. If you make it to upgrade time without incident, extended warranties are a waste. But if you skip one and have trouble, the penalty is paying out of pocket for a new device. So it goes.

    But what about the damage outside of your control?

    Nearly all devices are subject to system updates that your wireless carrier or device manufacturer pushes to you over the air. You can usually delay on installing them, but you can’t generally put it off forever. In general, those updates patch security flaws or improve and update functionality.

    Sometimes, though, they break things instead. Readers write to us every so often with complaints about system updates disrupting major functions of their devices. Rarely, an update even bricks a device entirely, and someone is left with an expensive electronic paperweight. And so, readers have asked us, is there anything to be done other than dumping a few hundred dollars into a replacement for a broken item that was someone else’s fault?

    The problem is lopsided, and affects Android users most heavily. Apple’s control-freak attitude toward every single element of the iOS chain is an advantage when it comes to pushing updates or fixes: everyone gets them, and you know where there’s an Apple Store near you to go to if it doesn’t work. They’re the ones responsible for a problem, and because they go to such lengths to operate a standard, uniform platform, major problems are more rare.

    But the Android picture is more complicated. Users have three layers above them. There’s Google, who makes the core operating system; the device manufacturer, who makes the phone and may add an additional layer of Android modifications; and the wireless carrier (who, again, may add more software to the phone).

    Among those three, it is the carrier who has responsibility for pushing updates to the end user — and who, in theory, needs to shoulder responsibility if those updates go awry.

    We’ve seen some big examples of that responsibility recently. Samsung had a patch available within a few days when researchers announced a keyboard vulnerability that left 600 million Galaxy device owners vulnerable. Google also had an update ready within a few days for a security flaw that affected nearly a billion Android users. But neither Google nor Samsung is responsible for sending those updates out wirelessly to owners. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint (among others) are, and they do it (or don’t) in their own time and in their own ways.

    So if an over-the-air (OTA) update from your carrier does have an adverse effect on your phone, what can you do? It depends on what kind of device you’ve got and how old it is.

    If your device is wi-fi only, and does not go through a wireless carrier, you will need to contact the manufacturer directly. Google can’t replace or repair your tablet, but the manufacturer might. If your tablet is less than a year old, it’s still under warranty and customer service should be mostly amenable.

    If it’s more than a year old, you might need to push gently. One reader wrote to Consumerist about a 2013 Asus Nexus 7 tablet that bricked after the Android 5 update this year; after “a polite email to Asus,” he told us, he escalated within customer service and was able to have his tablet repaired as if still under warranty.

    If your mobile/3G/4G/LTE device is under a year old, it’s still under warranty. Although the warranty usually specifies physical defects, customer service for your carrier — either by phone or in a store — should be able to help you. The major carriers have their warranty and replacement programs, plus applicable customer service numbers, on their websites. Here’s the info for AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

    If your device is over a year old, unfortunately, you may be up a proverbial creek. The policies for almost every device and every carrier we checked stipulate a one-year warranty very clearly, after which you are basically on your own. (There are a very small handful of products with two-year warranties.)

    We asked all four national carriers to clarify their policies about how they would help a customer if an update they pushed were to brick a device more than 12 months old. Neither AT&T, Sprint, nor Verizon provided responses.

    T-Mobile, however, did. They told Consumerist that they work very closely with device manufacturers to develop and test updates before rolling them out to make sure that such cases are rare. They added that if an OTA update they pushed caused device performance issues, they would work closely with the customer to replace the device under the terms of the original purchase warranty.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uIowa Taco Bell Closed For Decontamination Due To Meth Lab In Utility Roomr


4 4 4 9
  • At least one Taco Bell employee may have been planning to cook more than Quesaritos inside the restaurant, according to local police in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Police say that two men were responsible for the “active meth-making ingredients” found in a utility room at the restaurant, but don’t know for sure whether the men actually cooked any methamphetamine in their makeshift lab.

    What do you do when a restaurant is found to be the site of a potential meth lab? Taco Bell will first have an outside company that does specialized cleanups remove any traces of hazardous chemicals from the building. After that, the local health department will have to perform its own inspection before the restaurant is allowed to re-open to the public.

    How contaminated a building is by a meth lab depends on how long manufacturing had been going on, and how much of various components were in the building. The chemicals used in drug manufacture can stick around in building materials like floor and ceiling tiles. Police are trying to figure out how long the men could have been set up in the utility room, and how much meth, if any, they could have made.

    Police don’t think that customers or employees at this Taco Bell were ever in danger, but are investigating the situation. The health department will not allow the restaurant to reopen unless they’re sure that customers and employees will be safe and that nothing is contaminated.

    The two men were arrested and charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. One of them (police won’t identify which man) was an employee of the restaurant, and has been fired.

    Health officials: No timeline on when Taco Bell will reopen after possible meth lab found [KWWL]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist