IN JANUARY we offered some recommendations on spicing up airline food. But for many travellers, the cuisine found on arrival provides greater cause for concern. When China's National People's Congress considered banning the consumption of dogs and cats recently, it served as a reminder of how challenging culinary differences can be.

Within Gulliver's Asian patch, national cuisines vary greatly, delivering challenges too diverse for a single blog post. In China alone, visitors dining with local hosts can encounter squelchy cow's stomach, fried unfilleted frog or boiled pig's brains. By comparison, Japan seems a pushover: raw fish may not be to everybody's liking, despite sushi's international fan base, but the fragrances of Japanese food are generally palatable to foreigners. Yet, as such interlopers may soon discover, challenges do in fact lurk, together with strict culinary-cultural mores. Hence it is to Japan that Gulliver turns in this case study.

Most particularly, he will focus on natto, a food that has achieved infamy among Japan's foreign residents. With lacings of British understatement, the BBC recently described it as "a fermented soy bean dish that many consider an acquired taste." This is too kind: quietly offensive, its whiff recalls a long-neglected, moulding food scrap. Indeed, that is pretty much what it is. Whatever possessed some long-gone cook to wrap this sticky brown substance in rice and seaweed (a common eating method) and swallow it is a mystery that has given rise to legends.

Be this as it may, natto is the food with which, sooner or later, the foreign visitor is likely to have to deal. The natto challenge usually occurs once the sake is flowing. Socialising between colleagues and with clients is an integral part of doing business in Japan: salarymen boast that in Japan business is done by "nomunication", a compound (of the punning type beloved by Japanese) of "nomu" (to drink) and "communication". And in Japan it is a rule that alcohol should be accompanied by food of some description. In circumstances such as these your straight-laced day-time interlocutor can turn into a gleeful tormenter—leaning across the table to goad you with the suspect morsel: "Try this. Foreigners can't eat it, you know". All eyes will fall upon you as you sit awkwardly on the floor. Your room for manoeuvre is limited: it is poor form to refuse food in Japan.

The classic get-out in such predicaments is to take recourse in vague allergies, but (notwithstanding the feebleness of such an excuse) Gulliver would recommend simply that you get over your aversion. Boldly taking the offered item could impress Japanese acquaintances more than any PowerPoint presentation. You will appear both courteous and game-for-a-laugh—two qualities prized in Japan.

As with a presentation, preparation is everything. During a former stay in Japan, Gulliver stumbled on a cure for his natto phobia and similar "acquired tastes". It might be called "combine and consume". In one useful recipe, for example, natto is mixed with slimy white yamaimo (mountain potato), raw egg and wasabi until it forms a thick, frothy paste that is slopped over rice and eaten—preferably quickly. (Beware: yamaimo can produce itchiness around the lips.) Fortunately, this dish is common in Japanese bars and, after regular practice, Gulliver came to appreciate both the mush and its constituent parts.

He confesses, however, that he has yet to overcome his revulsion to shiokara (pickled sea urchin), but then no method is infallible. If any reader can offer a solution—or indeed other tips on how to avoid social discomfort inflicted by foreign foods—then please do share.

THERE should not be any debate over who is qualified to sit in airplane exit rows. If you are physically fit and able to lift the 35-45 lb (16-20 kg) plane door and manage your other responsibilities safely, you can sit in the exit row. Otherwise, please move along. Seven extra inches of legroom are nice, but you should be a far more concerned with your safety and that of your fellow passengers. Now for the controversy: via the New York Times' Joe Sharkey, we learn that Continental Airlines is considering charging you if you want to reserve a seat in an exit row. Mr Sharkey's readers were rightly upset when they heard about the plan:

I thought most readers would react with annoyance to hearing about still another airline fee. But instead, most expressed strong feelings about safety.

That's not surprising.  Mr Sharkey continues, warning that "flight attendants are left in a tricky spot, trying to determine with a quick look whether a passenger has the required physical abilities." That means doing the right thing is, as usual, up to travellers. If you think you might not meet the requirements for sitting in an exit row, don't. Meanwhile, lets hope that the airlines will do their part by not selling exit row seats. If someone has paid extra for an exit row seat, passenger and flight crew alike will have a powerful disincentive to overlook any physical shortcomings. It will take time and cost the airline money to reseat passengers who are deemed unfit for exit row duty. Creating those kinds of bizarre incentives is almost always a bad idea. Anyone have a different take?

THE news that a hotel in Chicago, the Elysian, which opened at the end of last year, has a “no-tipping policy” has created a smidgeon of media excitement—and much PR for the hotel.

The Elysian’s owner explained to USA Today that it was not compatible with the luxurious experience of his hotel for guests to have to worry about how much to tip various employees. Staff are not supposed to lose out financially, though, because the hotel tweaks their job descriptions, gets them to perform other tasks, and then pays them more.

So far, so sensible. The sooner we lose a tipping culture, the better, says Gulliver. The provision of good service should be part of a job spec, for which a salary is the only relevant reward.

But USA Today's piece goes on to reveal one of the flaws at the heart of such a policy: if customers insist on tipping, their money will be taken. And this detracts from what the Elysian is trying to do. A hotel with a genuine no-tipping policy would forbid staff from accepting tips altogether, and would tell guests as much. That might sound rather dictatorial, but if you allow some tipping, then all guests will worry that they have to tip in order to receive/reward good service. (And where's the luxury in that?) Remove all vestiges of tipping, though, and you start to break the link between service and individualised reward. And for that, Gulliver would be grateful.

THE latest in our set of city-focused guides for business travellers deals with Chicago. There's not too much that the visitor needs to remember. Hotdogs are never served with ketchup; there's no shame in bundling yourself up like a child to cope with the winter freeze; lunches can start as early as 11.45; and during pre-meeting small talk it's best to keep any thoughts about city corruption to yourself. 

THE Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is looking into a new way to manage the queues at airport security checks. By tracking the movement of the personal electronic devices that so many flyers carry in their pockets, it would be possible to calculate the average time taken to pass from the start of the security process to the end. Apparently around 10% of phones broadcast a unique serial number; when this is picked up by a receiver the phone can be located and its movement tracked.

The information would highlight problems in the security process. So if a passenger takes an hour to pass through, then an official might like to find out why. And if the data are made publicly available, in real time, other passengers needing to pass through security would be better able to decide when best to head there.

Cue outbursts of fury at the TSA’s temerity in attempting to track human movement. (Because if they can track our movement, they’ll doubtless be listening to our phone conversations and even moving our cheese.) I have another, lesser concern. Is it wise to encourage passengers to eradicate the “cushion” most of them build into their airport timings? I have a vision of passengers heading to the airport later than originally intended because the security queues are shown to be short, only to discover on arrival that a jam has built up in the intervening period. And then they struggle to catch their plane.

So: is this a useful idea that makes good use of freely available information? Or an Orwellian horror that we must fight against?

THE Cranky Flier blog has an interesting comparison between the ways British Airways (BA) and Air France respond to strikes by their crew. BA, currently stuttering through the last hours of a three-day walkout and preparing for a four-day effort starting next Saturday, is praised for the clarity of the information it has issued to passengers, for the daily updates from Willie Walsh, the CEO, and even for buying Google keywords such as “BA strike”. On the other hand Air France, whose crews are due to strike from March 28th-31st, is criticised for being less than communicative.

So how is Air France handling this? They aren’t. If you go to their website, you won’t even find a mention of the strike, at least not anywhere I’ve found.

LONG trips are almost never fun. But some are worse than others. The passengers of Virgin America Flight 404 suffered through an especially unpleasant ordeal last week. The New York Post reports:

Flight 404 had left LA at 7:10 a.m. (PST)—10:10 a.m. New York time—Saturday and was due to arrive at JFK at 3:30 p.m.

But because of 60-mph winds here, the plane was forced to circle JFK until it was finally diverted to Stewart Airport in Newburgh—90 miles north—for a 5:15 p.m. landing.

There, the plane remained on the tarmac until close to midnight, passengers say. The airline said the wait was more like 4½ hours.

It got worse. After making the passengers sit on the tarmac for hours, Virgin loaded them onto buses and drove them to JFK. But while the buses were making the two-hour trip, the weather cleared up, and the plane actually beat its passengers back to New York. These folks just couldn't win. New York magazine has more about what happened as Flight 404 sat on the tarmac:

The food slowly began to run out on the plane. (Presumably, the alcohol was all chugged by hour six.) By the end of it, flight attendants were doling out the last remaining snacks (Pringles, of course), giving each person a measly four potato chips. To add insult to injury, there was only a half-cup of water per person to wash down those salty, delicious pieces of fat and chemicals.

Perhaps the most interesting part of this story was that one of the passengers, David Martin, posted frequent updates online throughout the incident. Live-blogging a customer service failure? That seems like a PR nightmare for Virgin, and another win for internet-savvy passengers. The threat of passengers complaining to online audiences in real time might help convince some airlines to take better care of their customers. In Virgin's defence, though, the weather was mostly at fault. The passengers of flight 404 were incredibly unlucky. (Virgin's CEO later apologized anyway and offered each passenger a $100 voucher.) Anyway, have you ever been on a seemingly cursed trip? Tell us about it in the comments.

IN CASE you haven't spotted them, these two stories from this week’s Economist might be of interest to business travellers.

"You can check out any time you like" delves into the world of hotel financing and explains why loans made to the hotel industry in recent years have become so troubled—because of a decline in revenue per available room and the overly generous nature of the original contracts.

And "Start your engines" looks at the aircraft manufacturers offering new competition to Airbus and Boeing, the dominant forces in the industry. In particular, single-aisle jets built in China and Russia, which are due to enter service in 2016, could provide serious competition to the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 if projections for their fuel consumption prove correct.

THE FACT that Continental Airlines has decided to start charging for in-flight meals on certain flights is not too surprising. A spokesman told CNN the rationale:

"Leisure markets don't produce the ticket revenue that can continue to support the complimentary food model. Markets that have a distinct emphasis on business travel produce better ticket revenue that can support a more inclusive product offering including complimentary food. We also take into account competitive factors, such as what other airlines are offering in these respective markets."

And it’s not so surprising that the airline should try to dress up this dash for cash as something for which passengers should be grateful:

"We are improving our economy meal service with a high-quality, industry-leading food-for-purchase program that is consistent with the strong brand image and high service standards for which our customers recognize us," said Jim Compton, executive vice president and chief marketing officer. "Our traditional free-food model has served us well for many years, but we need to change to reflect today's market and customer preferences."

And it's also not surprising that Continental should decide that it can ignore the tone of its self-congratulatory adverts (see here) when the business case demands. "While other airlines are taking things away," intoned one voice-over, "Continental still offers things like pillows, blankets and meals at meal times. In other words, everything you should expect from an airline." Other airlines "took" these items away in that they started charging for them. And now, Continental is to do the same. I guess it decided that passengers don't expect free food from their airlines anymore.

SCARCELY a week goes by without another glowing report about racy Chinese trains. China's plans to build a 16,000-mile high-speed-rail network have been generating a lot of attention of late, thanks in part to the fascination non-Chinese readers have with the speed of China's advances—a sentiment evident in comments on Gulliver's previous related posts. China is running the world's fastest commercial rail service, and is rapidly building its vastest network. Now, as if to further stoke the fires, comes news that the country's high-speed ambitions extend beyond its borders.

On Saturday officials said China would bid for high-speed rail contracts in America, in line with an agreement reached during Barack Obama's visit in November. More intriguingly, on Friday came confirmation that China had mooted a plan to construct a high-speed network spanning 17 countries. Reports suggest there would be three lines: one into South-East Asia; another west into Central Asia (Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are said have agreed); and a third stretching north through Russian gas fields and into eastern Europe, where it could link up to western European networks.

This is heady stuff. Gulliver, however, won’t get too excited until the first track is laid. Technical difficulties aside, political obstacles could easily halt the scheme. Reports suggest that talks with other governments are at an early stage, but this hasn't stopped some in Beijing from talking of a completion date of 2025. China's central planners are accustomed to setting out a blueprint and completion targets, behind which other branches of the state fall in (when the incentives are right), but it isn't clear that foreign governments will be so susceptible. Just getting India, which is suspicious of any attempt by China to extend its sphere of influence, to allow Chinese-owned trains run on Chinese-built tracks (assuming that's the plan, which remains fuzzy) through its territory would be a major coup.

In some cases, China is offering to build the physical infrastructure in return for access to resources, state media report. But that may raise resistance in places like Russia, which sees resource-rich Central Asia as its sphere of influence. Question marks over the likelihood of foreign governments signing up for such a scheme only multiply when it is borne in mind that Tehran is one of the mooted stops.

Still, if the ticket price is right and there's money to be made, these problems may be surmountable. That raises the question of whether there is a market for a pan-Eurasian high-speed network. By way of market research, what do Gulliver's readers think—could you imagine using it?

GULLIVER readers who bring their bikes on business trips (apparently there are more of you than I once assumed) should be delighted to learn that Google Maps now offers a "bike there" option. As BoingBoing's Maggie Koerth-Baker has demonstrated, this is the feature that will prove particularly useful to you if you have ever planned a bike ride without remembering that there's a huge hill between you and your destination. Google will automatically route you around the most intimidating inclines, making for a smoother albeit less intense ride. The official Google Blog has more details:

We've also added information about bike trails, lanes and recommended roads directly onto the map. This can help you get a better sense of your route, or let you find trails nearby for a recreational ride. When you're zoomed into a city, click on the "More" button at the top of the map to turn on the "Bicycling” layer. You'll see three types of lines appear on the map:

Dark green indicates a dedicated bike-only trail;

Light green indicates a dedicated bike lane along a road;

Dashed green indicates roads that are designated as preferred for bicycling, but without dedicated lanes

There are a bunch of other cool things to explore about this new feature. You can learn about the way Google calculates the best routes by checking out this post on the company's LatLong blog, which is dedicated to Google Maps and Google Earth. And you can use Google's "Report a Problem" tool to, well, report problems with the routes the software plots for you. Anyway, have any of you had a chance to use the new feature? How did it work for you? What do you think? How upset are you non-Americans that (for now) this effort is focussed on the US?

CABIN CREW at British Airways will strike for a total of seven days before Easter, from March 20th to 22nd and from 27th to 30th. The analysts have already been out with their calculators, claiming the strikes, which have arisen because of disagreements over pay and staffing levels, could cost BA anywhere from £20m-30m a day. That's quite a sum for an airline that lost £292m in the six months to September 2009.

BA has prepared for the strikes by training other staff in the essential basics of cabin-crew roles and aims to offer a diminished service on the affected days. Passengers wondering how the strike might affect them can consult this guide from the Guardian.

Signs of rapprochement between BA and Unite, the trade union representing the cabin crew, are few: Willie Walsh, the head of BA, told the BBC that the sides were "not close at all" to reaching a deal. Both sides continue to make it clear how very ready they are for more talks. Mr Walsh says he is available 24 hours a day. Len McCluskey, Unite's assistant general secretary, says the union will meet anytime, anywhere. But claims of availability are of little use to aggravated passengers.

And even though Britain's flag carrier and its biggest union are butting heads to such destructive ends, the Labour government has been rather quiet. Gordon Brown urged the sides today to resume talks, and reminded them "of the danger and risk to the British economy of disruptive strikes going ahead". But those are not exactly the words of a prime minister involving himself in the dispute.

Ken Clarke, the Shadow Business Secretary, thinks he knows why. "There is no point in being naive," he said. "The fact is that Unite has given £11 million to Labour funds over the past four years."

In all, then, a rather shoddy, rather depressing affair that makes BA's future look ever bleaker. And I shudder to think what's happening to their sales figures.