My initial post on "Trouble in Hawaiian Paradise" might have painted an unrealistic picture of my island home. I think it's worth clarifying the real picture versus what my idealistic traveler self sees in Hawaii. So, being "real" for a moment, I must admit that Hawaii, just like other expensive and desirable travel destinations on the globe, certainly feels the effects of a decline in tourism. One particular Gadling reader brought specific issues to my attention that I'd like to discuss in greater detail in order to illustrate Hawaii's predicament more accurately and clearly.

Newer, more exotic, less expensive destinations are changing the landscape of options for travelers. These new destinations (like Laos, Slovenia, and Mongolia) have changed people's approach to travel. In most cases, it is not only more cost effective but also better to go elsewhere. Hawaii has always been expensive. That has not changed. What has is that tourists who don't necessarily want or have to come to Hawaii choose other destinations with similar climate, like Mexico and Costa Rica. These places are certainly more affordable, but the cultural experience is quite different. Many travelers will still pay the extra cost so they can experience "Hawaii." Others will not.

Let's say you've weighed that piece of packed luggage at home. You've checked the weight several times. You are satisfied that the weight is not over what the airline will allow for no extra charge. You know that you have a terrific scale that doesn't lie.

Feeling confident in the weight that you are now hoisting onto the scale at the airline check-in counter, your eyes bug out because your luggage is two pounds over. "How can that be?" you ask the person who is getting ready to write you up the bill for overweight baggage.

If you are at an American Airlines ticket counter at JFK, the difference between your luggage weight at home and your luggage weight at the airport may be caused by the scale at JFK. According to this NY Post article, the American Airlines' scales are sometimes not calibrated correctly. In one instance, a check of scales at both La Guardia and JFK found that 102 scales out of 810 were not accurate.

When a scale is not accurate, it's supposed to be taken out of commission until it is fixed. Although airlines aim to comply with this rule, sometimes faulty scales are still used. For example, of the 120 that were not working correctly, 10 were still being used a couple days later.

From what I gather after reading the article, the scale problem is mainly with American Airlines. The airlines does claim to spend mega bucks on scale calibration.

If you see a red sticker on a scale that says 'condemned' and the scale is still being used, let the Department of Consumer Affairs know about it. With American Airlines charging the heftiest fee for overweight baggage, one pound can make a difference.

[The photo by Todd Huffman is of a scale at the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan. I wonder how accurate this one is? Maybe American should look into it.]

Obesity on airlines is becoming a big issue. Just a couple weeks ago a flight attendant was ruled too fat to fly, and of course the overweight passenger debate is always one that flares up people's opinions. There are two schools of thought. The first is from the view of the passenger stuck next to an overweight one who takes up more than their fair share of space; a lot of people believe that they should have to pay for a second seat. But the second opinion comes from overweight passengers themselves, who believe that they have a right to more space.

According to Reuters, today the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the direction of the latter, declaring that obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada. The original decision had been made by the Canadian Transportation Authority, who claimed that people that are "functionally disabled by obesity" deserve to have two seats for one fare. The Canadian airlines went to appeal, but the high court declined to hear it, meaning that the decision now stands.

Do you think the official decision is a fair one?

For me to get home for Thanksgiving, I'm lucky enough to only have to take Amtrak. Even though train stations are popping at the seams with travelers during the November holiday weekend, airports are even worse. And this year is no different.

As a matter of fact, during this year's Thanksgiving and Christmas travel periods, airlines will operate about 2,500 to 3,000 fewer domestic flights than compared with the same periods in previous years. That means that one way or another, you're probably going to be affected. To visualize just how your travel plans might be impacted, USA Today's travel blog Today in the Sky has put together an interactive graphic to show how flight cutbacks by airlines could affect your travel choices.

The graphic can be used to find flight changes for select days from every domestic airport with flights to the following seven hubs: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Denver, Houston (Bush) and Minneapolis-St. Paul. The map is dotted with red and green squares to signify fewer or more flights to the hub, making it pretty simple to see what routes are going to be more problematic. But if you're lucky, you'll find that your particular route has that great green box, meaning that you'll actually be able to take advantage of more flights to get you home for the holidays.

To check out the graphic for yourself, click here.

An Australian man named Anthony White recently won a settlement in a discrimination suit against an Irish car rental company.

White brought suit against Irish Car Rentals Limited for the company's policy of levying a surcharge of €25 on drivers above the age of 70 and refusing to rent cars to customers older than 75.

Two years ago, White, who is in his mid-70s, tried to rent a car at Dublin's airport and was hit with the fee, and then was told the next time he'd be visiting the country he would not be able to rent a car because he'd be over 75.

White took his case to Ireland's Equality Tribunal, who this week finally ruled in his favor that such a policy amounted to age discrimination.

Irish Car Rentals Ltd. changed its policy, and now says it will make case-by-case decisions on older drivers that involve assessing their age, health, driving record and insurance coverage.

Would you pay a little extra if given the chance to avoid sitting next to a screaming baby on an airplane?

One Canadian carrier is betting you just might.

Travel guru Chris Elliott has a report on a questionnaire recently sent out by WestJet in which the carrier asks customers whether they'd consider an extra $10 charge for a number of additional "services," including sitting away from parents traveling with small babies or small children.

There are other amenities about which WestJet is trying to take the temperature of its customers: The carrier asks if you'd pay $10 for priority boarding; priority disembarking; in-flight Internet access; in-seat power; and guaranteed overhead bin space. You could probably make a case for any of these.

Sillier amenities include $10 for a freshly-laundered pillow and blanket set that you can take with you (like you really need to be lugging around linen!) or a premium meal service (has airline food every been that good?).

I would really get behind the avoid-crying-babies fee. Restaurants should think of a similar service charge.

What strange things have been found on planes?

Click the image to read the bizarre story...

Hidden fees are ta reality of air travel. Fuel surcharges have finally dropped, but not gone away. then there are airport taxes, insurance charges and administrative costs. The small nation of Singapore is trying to crack down on undisclosed costs by forcing advertising to include a full disclosure of costs and fees. Eleanor Wong, chairwoman of the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS), said that a "media advisory" announced last year did not lead to the kind of full price disclosure that she had hoped. So more stringent measures had to be taken.

"The idea is that these are non-negotiable add-ons and should be treated as an integral part of the fare. With the practice of adding fuel and other surcharges becoming prevalent, we thought it would be useful to issue a specific clarification that would apply to the general principles of fair advertising specifically to the travel industry."

To enforce this new law, ads that do not fully disclose prices will be suspended. For once, Singapore's authoritarian bureaucracy might have actually done something useful.

[Via TTG Asia]

Mayor Bloomberg's office has urged, urged, urged people in New York City to use cloth grocery bags for a long time now. They've cajoled. They've pleaded. His office has set up plastic bag recycling receptacles at various supermarkets around the city in an effort to make the city folk more environmentally conscience.

But people just love, love, love those plastic bags. They just can't stop using them. Now, there's another plan in the pipeline. You can use those handy sacks of thin plastic, but it might cost you. If the plan goes in the direction Bloomberg would like, people who want their groceries sacked in plastic will pay 6-cents per bag at check-out.

This very European move-- the New York Times article cites many European countries as having similar measures, would generate income for the city. The $16 million would come in handy each year when it comes to doling out the budget.

Some say that 6-cents won't make much difference in people's sack habits and the fee should be much higher. How much higher? When people in Ireland had to fork over 33-cents for a plastic bag starting in 2003, plastic sack use dropped by 94-percent.

Bloomberg thinks 6-cents is a good place to start. Seattle is considering similar measures and Los Angeles and Dallas have also studied ways to get people to stop using plastic like there's no tomorrow.

Perhaps if eco-friendly shopping bags became more of a status symbol, and using plastic became so low brow that people who used them would be so embarrassed they'd feel compelled to duck their heads as to not be noticed, people's habits would change.

At any rate, if you're visiting New York City and duck into a deli for a snack, consider forgoing the bag. Bloomberg will thank you.

After you head to the polls to vote on Tuesday, stop in a Krispe Kreme donut place, a Starbucks or a Ben and Jerry's ice-cream for a free thanks for voting treat.

As blogger Beth Pinsker wrote on WalletPop, Krispe Kreme doesn't care who you voted for, but that you voted. If you show up wearing your "I Voted" sticker you'll get a special star-shaped donut with red, white and blue sprinkles. Some Krispe Kreme places may be handing out the traditional round donut, but with the patriotic sprinkles. This offer is only good on Tuesday, and only one donut per customer.

Starbucks is offering a thank you for voting cup of coffee. I found that out when I was looking up the John McCain/Sarah Palin, aka, Tina Fey video from Saturday Night Live. Here's a link to the Starbucks ad that is using the election as a way to get people to make the world a better place. I guess coffee helps. It helps me. To get your free tall size cup, go to a Starbucks on the 4th and say you voted.

Ben and Jerry's is giving out free scoops of ice-cream from 5 to 8 p.m. on the 4th. The free scoops, one scoop per customer are to celebrate democracy. From what I can tell, you don't need to have voted.

The search function on Flickr flat out stinks. But imagine if you can categorize all the photos into a geographic collage, recreating real-life in 3D. Microsoft managed to do that with Photosynth, in which they stitched together photos from different users of the same building into a sort of souped-up diorama.

This is version 2, and you won't believe your eyes (but here's proof, in painfully academic prose, otherwise).