Airport CEO surprises passengers with zany security video

Moscow is a city that carries with it a whole host of associations — some good (soaring ballerinas at the Bolshoi, anyone?), some not so good (brutish oligarchs with flashy cars, maybe?), some merited, and some not. The tourism industry that works to bring travelers to and through the city is aware of its perception and is addressing these "myths" systematically in order to improve both the way Moscow is perceived and the actually tourism experience on the ground, according to Sergey Shpilko, chairman of the committee on tourism and the hotel industry in Moscow, whom I met with while visiting the Russian capital last month. Myth #1) Moscow is not safe. According to Shpilko, there were only 24 criminal reports filed by tourists in Moscow in 2010, and 39 filed in 2009. And while he admitted that the bombing at the Domodedovo airport in Moscow earlier this year in which dozens were killed raised concerns about the city's safety, he is hoping to get the word out about the other — safer — side of Moscow. Indeed, while visiting the city, often times wandering completely on my own, I never felt unsafe and the threat of Chechen rebels remained deep in the back of my mind, rarely surfacing. As for my personal safety, I just kept my bag zipped up and my tourist map folded up, and never felt uncomfortable. It's a big city, it's easy to blend. Myth #2) Moscow is expensive. Okay, now this is where Shpilko and I are going to have to agree to disagree a bit. He cited information that the average cost of a business-level hotel room in 2010 was 6,664 Russian rubles or about $230 (that's not really that inexpensive). He also noted that there are mainstream and budget operators that offer all-inclusive tours with $100 per diems. Okay, that's a little cheaper. But generally speaking, I didn't find Moscow or Russia in general to be cheap. It might not be as expensive as Western Europe or the United Kingdom where the currency exchange rates put the dollar at a disadvantage, but prices were often on par with New York. Myth #3) There's nothing to see in Moscow but the Kremlin or the Bolshoi Theatre. Shpilko said this was a myth about Moscow, and I don't know if people actually think this or not, but it probably goes without saying that this is far from true. The city is teeming with museums and galleries (new and old), churches and monasteries, and theatre and performance venues, not to mention endless shopping options and a whole host of hip bars and restaurants (check out the Red October or Krasny Oktyabr island across from the Kremlin). One could easily spend four or five days in Moscow without getting bored. Myth #4) Moscow is the economic capital of Russia and St. Petersburg is the cultural capital. This kind of goes with Myth #3, but this was something I was actually told by several people who had been to Russia and that I pretty much disagree with wholeheartedly. Well, yes, Moscow is the political and economic hub of the country, and yes, St. Petersburg is incredibly charming and full of cultural institutions and happenings. But, Moscow has its own charms and cultural offerings. And what's with people thinking Moscow is one big, ugly business center? I didn't get that at all. It's big, but the city is on par architecturally and culturally with many major European cities. At least in my opinion. Myth #5) Moscow's traffic is horrendous. This is no myth. Shpilko admitted it, I experienced it. There's no getting around it. According to Shpilko, plans are in place to address the issue, especially in the lead-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia and the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia. On the plus side, I got around very easily and with much delight on Moscow's metro system, which in addition to being efficient and clean, is home to numerous unbelievably beautiful stations (they put New York's subway stops to shame) worthy of touring as much for their design and decoration as a means to bypassing said nasty traffic. More from Budget Travel: Moscow Made Easier Russia's Hermitage opens a "wing" in Amsterdam Why your Russian river ship shouldn't sink

Not since Velcro has there been much innovation in how people tie their shoes. But since May, travelers looking to quickly slip in and out of their shoes at airport security have a new product to try: U-Laces. Ordinary shoes use 36-inch laces that crisscross through the eyelets, but U-Laces are a set of six pairs of tiny strips that run horizontally across your shoes, with a tie lace up at the top.What this means is that they "lock in and pop out" easily. Pulling off your shoes at a TSA checkpoint suddenly becomes quick. U-Laces come in a multitude of colors, sure to match your various pairs of shoes.The company's website tries to appeal to kids by showing rainbow-colored collections, but you can get your U-Laces all in the same, businesslike color, too. u-lace.com. MORE FROM BUDGET TRAVEL Electric bike rentals smooth out sightseeing 5 airport innovations worth praising Cruises: New website predicts when you should book

Crowne Plaza is testing out a new program that aims to give weary travelers a way to deal with snoring guests -- without resorting to earplugs. The "snore absorption room," as Crowne Plaza calls it, is designed to help minimize the snores inside and nearby a guest's room through the use of sound-proof walls, anti-snore bed wedges, sound-absorbing headboards, anti-snore pillows, white noise machines, and even "snore patrol" monitors roaming the hotel hallways. What does a snore patroller do? The monitors periodically stroll through the hotel's designated quiet areas with volume-measuring meters. If a monitor detects guests sawing wood or making other noises after a certain hour, the monitor will knock on the door and ask guests to keep it down. The need for a snore patrol seems like an indication that all the rooms' anti-snore technology doesn't work all that well. But a spokesperson for InterContinental, which owns Crowne Plaza, told ABC News that the rooms, which were being tested recently at select properties in Europe and the Middle East, are up to the task: The hi-tech rooms were extremely popular with guests throughout the initial trial period, the company said. "The room was fully booked throughout the trial week in many of the participating hotels across Europe. Some markets have even extended the service due to demand," said Caroline Counihan, a spokeswoman for the InterContinental Hotel Group. Be that as it may, it'd be nice to hear just how well actual guests slept. When announcing the new rooms, Crowne Plaza released info stating that half of UK couples complain that their vacations can be ruined due to a snoring partner. If these rooms really can help save one's vacation, then these are rooms that'll truly be in demand. Crowne Plaza says it could begin expanding the snore absorption concept to more hotels and regions soon after the trial periods are over and feedback is gathered and analyzed. MORE FROM BUDGET TRAVEL: What do you value most in a hotel? Would you skip hotel housekeeping for a $5 credit? Quiz: Name That Hotel Chain

When a traveler dies, their frequent flier miles face an uncertain fate. Most airlines officially won't allow transfers of mile balances from the deceased's account into a spouse's account. But exceptions are made in special circumstances and for especially loyal customers. Case in point: United and Continental, two airlines that have tended to take different positions about what happens to miles after a frequent filer passes away. Continental has been quiet about it, but has allowed the miles of deceased OnePass members to be transferred to another member with a OnePass account at no cost. A copy of the death certificate is needed along with a letter from the executor, according to USA Today and AirfareWatchdog. United, on the other hand, has a different policy. Its rules state that customers don't "own" their miles. Upon a member's death, his or her miles become property of the airline. In reality, though, United will allow a transfer to a heir if the heir shows polite persistence, pays a fee of at least $75, and provides adequate documentation, such as a copy of a page from the will stating the name of the beneficiary. A United spokesperson told me that this policy is one of the areas that the merger partners have not yet aligned between MileagePlus and OnePass programs. A decision on it will be part of the announcement this fall of the new MileagePlus rules and procedures that take effect January 1, 2012. In the meantime, one workaround is for heirs who have access to the deceased's username and passwords to pretend to be the deceased person and redeem miles for an award ticket issued in the survivor's name. In general this is against the rules of the airlines, but, putting ethics aside, it is unlikely the airline will ever know. Is it wrong to pretend to be the deceased person? On the one hand, the deceased certainly would have liked to see the miles he or she earned be put to use rather than vanish. On the other hand, it can be painful to continue to receive marketing materials addressed to the name of your lost loved one. And if the airline catches you, it may lock the account and deny you future access. For me, the most galling things is that frequent flier miles aren't considered a traveler's "property." Since when? That's absurd. A flier earned those miles, and he or she should be able to pass them along any way they want, as far as I'm concerned. The other indignity, I think, is having to pay a fee of $50 or more to transfer the miles. Surely the cost of processing an electronic transfer is not $50 or more. It's an insult to customers, who have done nothing to deserve a fee. What do you think? Feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment. MORE FROM BUDGET TRAVEL: Hipmunk: Finding "ecstasy" in affordable lodging 10 best affordable beachfront hotels How rental car companies undermine credit card insurance