How travelers can complain effectively with social media

Large bottles of liquids are banned from planes. So you have to pack your wine in your checked luggage. Your bottle might accidentally break in mid-flight. That would ruin your clothes. (And your wine!) Here are some strategies for packing your wine safely that you may not have thought of. The D-I-Y option: Wrap your bottle in newspaper, then in two plastic bags. Obviously, the plastic bags are meant to contain any leaks. Less obviously, the newspaper will contain broken glass, which might pierce the plastic bag and let the wine spill. Pack strategically: Wrap a thick layer of clothing around the neck of the bottle until it is has a diameter as wide as the base of the bottle. Wrap everything with more clothing, and place it a few inches from the corner walls of your luggage. The fancy, secure option: Drop by your local specialty wine shop, and ask if it sells a carrier. (It's probably made from an artificial fabric that looks like fleece.) This material will act as a shock absorber for your bottles. Use the same packing method as described above, only use this high-tech fabric instead of newspaper. (The instructions on the packaging of the product may not say you can use it in this way, but don't worry about that.) A $5 fix. Southwest sells a handy wine and spirits carrier for $5 a bottle/unit at its airline counters. You don't have to be flying Southwest to buy the carrier, of course. Just drop by a Southwest check-in desk at an airport terminal. Slip your wine inside, and then put the case inside your checked bag, where it'll serve as a buffer zone. ADDITIONAL TIPS: Don't worry too much about temperature fluctuations. The plane's hold is below cabin temperature, and most wines can handle a few hours of cold. One possible exception: Champagne. Stuff your bag full. You want so many belongings in there that nothing can move around. "Hard shell" luggage is rarely necessary. It's heavier and more expensive than soft-sided luggage, and it doesn't add much practical protection to your wine bottles. Carrying several bottles of wine? Consider checking separately an eight-gallon size Rubbermaid Action Packer, for sale from REI and other stores for about $24 Carrying a crate of wine? Try this wine shipping method from Gadling. What are a your best strategies for packing wine bottles? Post a comment below! MORE FROM BUDGET TRAVEL Napa's Top Secrets Four Emerging U.S. Wine Regions Ultimate Packing Smackdown

On Tuesday, Sept. 14, France went down in the history books as the first European country to ban veils that cover the face—namely, the burka that's worn by some Muslim women. This inflammable decision was won in a 246 to 1 vote by the French senate, with the government stating that the head-to-toe covering is "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil." (CNN World) This new law will be enforced starting in the spring with a $190 dollar fine or a mandatory citizenship course, and a year in jail or $19,000 dollar fine if someone forces a woman to wear the traditional clothing. Even though the majority of French citizens agree with this ban, France just can't ignore the fact that the reaction around the world is mixed. The ban is supported by European countries like Germany, Britain, Spain, and the Netherlands, but two out of three Americans disagree with the law and clearly it hasn't been well-received in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, a flurry of terrorist threats followed the announcement. Now the question is, will tourism be affected? We're currently seeing this in Arizona, where about $90 million dollars have now been lost due to meetings and conventions being canceled by businesses protesting that state's strict immigration law. And how about when a nation's human rights are threatened, like in Tibet (now the Tibet Autonomous Region) or Burma (now Myanmar)? Every traveler has the responsibility to consider their ethical beliefs about political protest at least once, and there are arguments for both sides of the issue. For instance, after the Dalai Lama and his government were exiled from Tibet, they still encouraged foreigners to visit their conquered land to act as witnesses to the oppression and inform others upon their return. But others argue that travelers will need to comply with the conquering regime in order to travel in Tibet, so visitors will be providing legitimacy to the occupying Chinese, and any money spent will eventually end up in the pockets of the Chinese enterprises that have headquarters outside of Tibet. Another option for travelers that are torn between the desire to see Tibetans, but are concerned about sponsoring the oppression, is to visit one of the adopted cities of the exiled—like Dharamsala in northern India, which is the current home of the Dalai Lama and is surrounded by Buddhist temples and beautiful views of snow-capped mountains. So what's your take: Would you boycott a state or country out of political protest, and if so, what would it take?

A friend once asked whether a particular Asian airline was worth flying. Her favorite travel site had turned up several carriers flying to her destination at reasonable prices. But she hadn't flown one of them before. "What's the top site for airline reviews?" she asked. Sadly, no one site rates airlines the way TripAdvisor comprehensively rates hotels. I did my best to help my friend make a decision. But her question continued to gnaw at me. Is there a way to figure out if an unfamiliar airline is safe…and if it's comfortable? I turned to America's top expert on airlines, Brett Snyder of The Cranky Flier blog and The Cranky Concierge travel service. He had some super tips: I guess it depends on your definition of "quality." I would say that the first thing you'll want to do is make sure it's safe. You can look up accident information at aviation-safety.net, which is put together by the Flight Safety Foundation. Also, even if you aren't traveling in Europe, you can look at the European Union's airline blacklist. [See BT's earlier post on "196 airlines you should avoid"] This highlights airlines that aren't allowed to fly within the EU, but they might be flying elsewhere. If you're looking at flying an airline on that list, you might want to think twice. Once you're satisfied with the safety side of things, then you can start looking at other features. On-time performance is an important one, and you can look that up for many airlines at FlightStats.com. Here you can look up on time performance for the past 60 days for many flights, but if you're traveling on a very small or remote airline, it might not show up here if the airline doesn't actually have flight status information available. (That's not as rare as you'd hope.) There is a site called Skytrax which strangely enough is at www.airlinequality.com and not skytrax.com. Here airlines are ranked on quality and reviews are left by travelers so you can get an idea of what you're flight might be like. But this isn't perfect. The ratings aren't necessarily going to line up with what you want. I mean, Air New Zealand and Air Berlin are both four star airlines but the experiences are quite different. So you'll want to make sure you read the reviews. Lastly, you can resort to the old standby—just Google the airline. If there's something bad out there, it'll probably pop up in a Google search. Using all these tools, you should be able to build a pretty good picture of what an airline is likely to deliver. MORE FROM BUDGET TRAVEL 196 airlines you should avoid See our readers' picks for favorite and least favorite airline in our 2010 Reader's Choice Poll The least liked airline in America? (40+ comments)

Imagine that you were able to travel from New York to London in just 54 minutes…by train. As amazing as that sounds, talented engineers are saying that it's not impossible to design a magnetically levitated train that would zip at supersonic speeds through a floating tunnel 150 to 300 feet below the Atlantic. Yes, it would require an exorbitant amount of money (up to $50 million dollars per mile), and of course there are the safety concerns (traveling at supersonic speeds of 4,000-plus mph can create a sonic boom that would wreak havoc on the structure). But according to Frank Davidson, a former MIT researcher, "A transatlantic tunnel will be done. We just have to be as interested in it as we are in getting to the Moon." (Popular Science) Now let's get back to our current technology. Trains are getting faster and covering more distance, which we saw on Friday, Oct. 15, when Switzerland bumped out Japan for the world's longest rail tunnel. Called the Gotthard, this new 35-mile tunnel took 14 years and $10.1 billion dollars (or $1,300 for every man, woman, and child in Switzerland) to cut under the Swiss Alps. After reaching completion by the end of 2016, the Gotthard will carry passengers and freight at speeds of up to 155 mph, and slash one-and-a-half hours off travel time between Zürich and Milan. With this recent engineering feat, and countries like China nearly doubling their high-speed electric train service by 2012, it begs the question of whether this is the future of travel? According to President Obama, it is. At the beginning of this year, he announced that the U.S. Department of Transportation will be awarding $8 billion to develop America's first nationwide program of high-speed passenger rail service. Currently there's only one true high-speed line, and that's Amtrak's Acela Express, but after making numerous stops at bottlenecked areas, the Acela averages lower speeds and is sometimes no faster than a local commuter train. But Amtrak's looking to revamp its service, and announced plans in September to add a Next-Generation High-Speed Rail line in the Northeast. This will cost a whopping $117 billion over the next 30 years, but will give passengers the option of traveling between Boston and D.C. in only three hours at 220 mph. This all sounds great—and should help cut emissions, ease traffic, and add positions to the job market—but it's yet to be seen whether Amtrak will receive the support it needs from Congress. Plus, critics of rail travel are saying that a major overhaul of the country's railroad infrastructure is still needed before becoming serious about adding service (since some areas haven't been upgraded in nearly a century). So what's your take: Is it about time that rail travel in America catches up with the rest of the world, or could the dollar be better spent elsewhere? And, what are your thoughts about a transatlantic tunnel? SEE MORE FROM BUDGET TRAVEL: Check out the highest train in the world! See America's most scenic train rides.