I'm researching a story about how travelers are rethinking their plans as extreme heat, wildfire smoke and related weather events disrupt destinations that were once considered reliable. I want to look at how people decide whether to cancel, postpone or push ahead, and what they do to protect themselves when they go anyway.

I'd love to hear from anyone who faced this call. Did you cancel a trip because of a heat wave, wildfire smoke or a weather warning, and how did you make that decision? If you decided to go, what did you do to prepare, and did your insurance cover any of it? What do you wish you'd known before you left?

Has anyone had a refund problem with this company?

Has anyone taken a hot air balloon ride over the Serengeti recently?

Three airlines already decided for you.

A man bought his robot a ticket to Dallas on Southwest. The robot walked through the terminal, passengers took pictures, and within days Southwest had rewritten its rules to keep human-like and animal-like machines off its planes "regardless of size or purpose."

Delta followed on June 18. United on July 23. American Airlines hasn't said anything yet, though I expect it will.

All three point to lithium batteries, and that argument has merit. A full-size humanoid carries far more power than a laptop. The FAA already caps cabin batteries at 100 watt-hours without carrier approval and 160 with it, and any airline is free to enforce those numbers hard.

Here's what bothers me. The policies don't stop at watt-hours. Delta's covers anything built to imitate a human or animal in appearance, size, movement or behavior. United's internal guidance reportedly reaches machines that mimic how a person thinks and speaks. And every one of these carriers has declared in advance that such devices can't qualify as assistive equipment, which is a category federal law defines by what a device does for a passenger with a disability. Paro, the seal-shaped robot used in dementia and palliative care, is sold as a medical device.

Nobody has defined a toy, either. So a gate agent decides in real time whether your child's robot dog stays or goes while 40 people wait behind you.

Aviation has done the fast ban before. Laptops from certain airports, lighters, e-readers below 10,000 feet, shoes at the checkpoint. All of them came back.

I've laid out the rules, the precedents, the survey numbers and where I come down on it.

There's a poll at the end of the piece, and the comments are open. Tell me whether you'd take the seat next to a robot or whether you want that seat to stay human. I read every response, and the ones that change my mind are the ones I quote later.

Elliott ReportShould airlines ban robots?Southwest, Delta and United have barred humanoid robots from the cabin. The reason given is battery safety, but the rules describe what a machine looks like.

The Consumer Federation of America just asked the FTC and state attorneys general to investigate Speechify, one of the bigger AI voice-cloning platforms. The complaint says the company makes it easy to clone someone's voice from a few seconds of audio while doing almost nothing to confirm the person actually agreed to it.

It matters because impersonation scams are exploding. The FTC says consumers lost $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, close to three times what they lost in 2020, and older Americans are getting hit the hardest.

I want to hear from you. Has someone cloned your voice, or used a fake version of it to try to fool your family, your bank, or your coworkers? Maybe you got the call that sounded exactly like your kid or your mother, and something felt off.

Tell me what happened, how you caught it, and whether anyone, the platform, the FTC, or your state AG, did a thing about it. I'm collecting these for a future story, and Backchannel is the first place I'm asking.

consumerfed.orgArticle - Consumer Federation of America Urges FTC and State Attorneys General to Investigate Speechify Over AI Voice-Cloning Practices | Consumer Federation of AmericaCFA in partnership with students from UCLA Law School’s Information Policy Lab, filed a complaint with the FTC and Attorneys General of the United States alleging that Speechify, an AI voice-cloning platform, engages in unfair, deceptive, and abusive trade practices by making it remarkably easy for bad actors to create convincing voice impersonations with virtually no meaningful safeguards to prevent fraud.

Elliott ReportThis summer's biggest points swindleTravel sites want you to write Congress about credit card fees. Who pays for those campaigns, what the bill does, and whether your rewards are really at risk.

Travel sites spent this summer asking readers to write to Congress about credit card swipe fees. Not to lower them, but to keep the current Visa-Mastercard duopoly in place.

The petitions come with a prewritten letter and a warning that a bill before Congress will wipe out your points. Running alongside them are two lobbying campaigns, one from the banks' trade group and one funded by Airlines for America. The travel sites supply the readers.

Here's what those newsletters leave out: Many card-review sites earn a commission every time someone is approved for a card through their links, and that money traces back to the same fees the bill targets.

I went through the numbers both sides are quoting, including the $80 billion rewards figure that keeps turning up, and looked at where it started.

There is another Back Channel app in the Apple Store that is not from Chris Elliott.

Wanna know a secret about consumer journalism? Most of it starts behind the scenes.

It's in comments no editor will run, in tips that don't fit a column, in "call me, don't email me" conversations. ("Chris, you wouldn't BELIEVE what just happened to me!")

In other words, it happens in the Backchannel. And that, my friends, is where you are right now.

Here's what you'll find.

General — The main stage. Story teasers, hot takes, and the occasional argument about whether a cruise passenger deserves a lifetime ban for bad table manners.

Newsletters — Every Elliott Confidential post, landing here so you can comment without digging through your inbox.

Off the Record — Where we say the things that don't make it into print, because either the lawyers or my own better judgment said no.

On The Road — Dispatches from wherever you are this week. I travel 330-plus days a year, so this fills up fast. I'd love to get your trip reports, too!

Travel Tips — Actual, usable advice, not the "pack a scarf" variety.

Ask Elliott — Bring me your consumer problem. I've spent 30 years learning which phone number actually works.

Get Help — Where a complaint turns into a fix. Sometimes the company wins. I'll tell you that too.

Insiders Only — The stuff I'm not ready to publish anywhere else yet.

What you can expect from the moderators—and me:

• We focus on solutions, not problems.

• We won't sugarcoat anything. Life is too short!

• Nothing here is sponsored or paid for, so all the advice is genuine and given with only one purpose: to make you a smarter consumer.

If you've ever wanted to get behind the scenes at a consumer advocacy organization, or you need someone in your corner when a company stonewalls you, this is the place. Pull up a chair.

Elliott ReportFrom earthquake rubble to carbon zero: Here's how Christchurch is building a greener cityA machine named Oscar turns food scraps to fertilizer at a carbon zero convention center. Inside the rebuilt Christchurch and its quiet green revolution.

There's a machine named Oscar in the back of house at the Christchurch convention center in New Zealand. He's a gray industrial box about the size of a commercial dryer, and over a 30-hour cycle he dries hundreds of pounds of food scraps into a fertilizer that staff say looks like coffee grounds.

Oscar is one reason Te Pae Christchurch holds a Toitū carbon zero certification. The building also tore up the single-use plastic carpet routine that trade shows throw in a landfill after 48 hours and installed permanent carpeting across 35,000 square feet. It buys milk in kegs, which keeps about 2,500 bottles out of the trash every year.

None of this happened out of virtue. Christchurch lost roughly a third of its buildings in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes, and the rebuild gave it a rare chance to start over. What it built is a compact center designed for walking and biking, a library that runs on smart energy design, and a former residential red zone turning into wetlands and native forest.

Here's the part I expect an argument about. A visitor to Christchurch doesn't have to think about any of this. The infrastructure handles it. One expert I talked to called that the point. I'm not so sure. A traveler who never notices never changes a booking, and a city collecting credit for work nobody sees starts to look like marketing.

Read the commentary, then tell me where you land in the comments. Would a city's environmental record ever move your booking, or has it never once entered the decision?

Elliott ReportMy Furnished Finder subscription auto-renewed. Why can't I get a refund?She missed one reminder, got a $179 renewal charge, and canceled within hours. The answer was no. What your options are when a subscription renews itself.

Debbie McNulty listed her vacation home on Furnished Finder for three years. Not one booking came through in all that time. She paid the annual fee anyway.

This year she went back to short-term rentals and didn't need the listing. Furnished Finder sent a single reminder email the month before her membership renewed. She was coming off a two-week trip, her inbox was buried, and she missed it. Then a $179 charge landed on her card.

She contacted the company that same day, canceled, and asked for her money back. A representative sent her the standard line about nonrefundable fees.

This is where readers tend to split. One camp says she signed the agreement, she blew the deadline, and the company owes her nothing. The other says charging a customer for a full year of service she told you within hours she wouldn't use is a choice the company made, not a legal requirement.

I have an opinion. I also have the answer she eventually got, plus a look at what automatic renewal law does and doesn't cover now that the click-to-cancel rule has been thrown out.

Read the case, then tell me in the comments where you land. Is one reminder email enough notice before an annual charge?

Georgina Montalvan did what I tell everyone to do. She photographed her Turo rental in Los Angeles before she drove it, every panel and both bumpers, and she uploaded the images through the app.

So when the owner reported a scratched fender the day after she returned the car, she had proof. Turo reviewed her photos, agreed the damage predated her trip, and told her the claim was closed as normal wear and tear.

A week later Turo reopened it and charged her card $660. She never received an itemized bill. Then a second invoice landed for $1,678, this time for damage a repair shop found after taking the bumper apart. Turo sent her a photo of a hole she says she has never seen.

Here's where readers tend to split. Supplemental claims are a real practice in the collision repair business, and shops do find damage that photos miss. Plenty of renters would call that a legitimate bill. Others would say a platform that reviews your evidence and rules in your favor has closed the matter, and reversing itself a week later is indefensible no matter what a shop found later.

I have a view. I want to hear yours first.

Read her case, then leave a comment. Should a platform be allowed to reopen a claim it already closed? And do you photograph your rentals at pickup? Tell me whether that record has ever saved you, or been ignored.

Elliott ReportTuro charged me $2,338 for damage I didn't cause. Can I get a refund?She photographed the car at pickup and proved the scratch was already there. Turo dropped the claim, then reopened it. How to fight a rental damage charge.

Alison Palkhivala did what the contract asked her to do. She read the listing, clicked book, and paid for two nights in a Munich apartment during Oktoberfest.

What she didn't read closely was the arrival window: 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. Her flight from North America didn't land until 10.

She caught it three days out and messaged the host. Could someone leave a key in a lockbox? Could she come by later that afternoon? Could she skip the first night entirely and pick up the key the next morning at 7, inside the window, and pay for a night she'd never use?

The host canceled the booking and kept about $1,000.

Here's the part that will divide you. Booking.com's first answer was that the policy was printed on the page and she agreed to it. Which is true. She did. There's a case to be made that a traveler who books an international trip and doesn't check the arrival time has only herself to blame, and I've heard that argument from readers before.

There's also the question of what kind of business sets a window that a predictable share of long-haul guests can't hit, refuses every workaround, and then keeps the full payment with no room to clean and no utilities to run.

She started reading the property's reviews after the cancellation. What she found there changed how I think about polarized ratings.

https://www.elliott.org/advocacy/is-this-the-worst-check-in-policy-in-the-history-of-travel/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=is-this-the-worst-check-in-policy-in-the-history-of-travel So tell me where you land. Should a platform have to step in when a host's rule is technically disclosed but nearly impossible to follow? Do you check the arrival window before you book, or do you assume it works like a hotel? Leave a comment on the story and let's argue it out.

Elliott ReportIs this the worst check-in policy in the history of travel?A Munich rental set a two-hour morning check-in window. A traveler whose flight landed at 10 a.m. lost her room and $1,000. How to spot a check-in trap

For about ten years, the smartest advice in travel has been to live like a local. Rent an apartment in a residential neighborhood. Shop the local market. Skip the hotel and the tourist traps. Blend in.

I followed that advice for years. I'm on the road 350 days a year, and I'm writing this from a rental apartment in Auckland squeezed between a car repair shop and a Chinese grocery store. So much for authenticity.

Then I started paying attention to what this trend does to the neighborhoods we say we love. A traveler I spoke with watched his street in Lisbon lose its bakery and its barbershop, both replaced by boutique rentals and brunch spots built for visitors. He watched his host get into a shouting match with a neighbor over another guest's suitcase clattering down the cobblestones. He realized he wasn't a guest anymore. He was part of an invading force.

Researchers say short-term rentals pull thousands of homes off the market and push up rents for the people who actually live there. Which means the more we chase authentic local life, the fewer locals are left to make a place worth visiting.

My conclusion cuts against a decade of travel advice, and I know not everyone will agree. Some readers will say I'm blaming tourists for a housing problem with many other causes.

So I want to hear from you. When you travel, do you book the apartment in the residential neighborhood or the hotel in the visitor district, and what drives that choice? Do short-term rentals harm the places we visit, or is that blame misplaced? Read the commentary and leave a comment. I'm reading every one.

https://www.elliott.org/on-travel/why-you-should-be-a-tourist-not-a-local-this-summer/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=why-you-should-be-a-tourist-not-a-local-this-summer

Elliott ReportWhy you should be a tourist, not a local, this summerTravel advice says live like a local. Research says it pushes residents out and raises rents. Why being an honest tourist may be the more ethical way to go.

Remember when a $99 fare turned into $180 by the time you reached checkout? A rule adopted in 2011 put a stop to that. It requires airlines to show you the full price of a ticket, taxes and fees included, and to make that total the most prominent number in any ad. The airlines sued to kill it and lost.

Now the Department of Transportation wants to bring the old days back. It has proposed letting airlines display a low base fare as prominently as the real total, and it's weighing a full repeal that would let carriers advertise fares that leave out taxes and fees entirely. One aviation journalist showed the DOT a $314 flight to London where the base fare was $31 and a carrier-imposed fee made up most of the rest. Picture that number in an ad.

Supporters call the current rule too prescriptive and say it may run into the First Amendment. Consumer advocates say a price you can't actually buy at is not a price. Meanwhile Europe is moving the other way, requiring airlines to show more of the true cost before booking even starts.

The comment period closes July 31, so this one is time-sensitive. Read the piece, then tell us where you land in the comments. Should the total price always be the most prominent number in a fare ad, or is that government overreach?

https://www.elliott.org/blog/airlines-want-to-hide-the-real-price-of-your-ticket-should-the-government-let-them/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=airlines-want-to-hide-the-real-price-of-your-ticket-should-the-government-let-them

Elliott ReportAirlines want to hide the real price of your ticket. Should the government let them?The DOT wants to loosen the rule guaranteeing the airfare you see is the fare you pay. What each proposal would change, and how to comment before July 31.

A woman on a Carnival cruise was filmed scraping dry skin off her bare foot at a dining table, then using the same hand to keep eating. In a follow-up clip, she reached for a fork to scratch. The video went viral, and the reaction split fast.

Here's what got me. Cruise conduct codes spell out bans for violence, drugs, theft and fraud. A public-health risk in a shared dining room barely appears. A passenger who throws a punch can draw a lifetime ban across an entire fleet. A passenger who exposes hundreds of people in a buffet line to a fungal infection often draws a shrug and a laughing emoji.

So should cruise lines start banning passengers for bad hygiene? It sounds reasonable until you ask who gets to decide. A messy eater? A crying baby? A passenger with a visible skin condition? And once you're flagged, there's almost no appeal.

I laid out who ends up on the Do Not Sail list, what the cruise lines say, and where I think the line belongs. Read it, then tell me in the comments: should she have been banned, and who do you trust to draw that line?

https://www.elliott.org/forum/should-cruise-lines-ban-more-passengers/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=should-cruise-lines-ban-more-passengers

Elliott ReportShould cruise lines ban more passengers?A viral video exposed a gap in cruise conduct codes. Who lands on a Do Not Sail list, why there is no appeal, and whether the lines need more power or less.

The shrimp at the resort buffet looked fine. It sat on a bed of ice, it was pink and chilled, and I felt fine after I ate it. Six hours later I was on my knees in the hotel bathroom, and the trip was over.

Here's the part the travel industry would rather you didn't think about. Your food safety depends on the cold chain, the temperature-controlled path that keeps everything cold from farm to fork. Record heat this summer is colliding with a travel system already in meltdown, delayed flights, understaffed hotels, tarmac waits, and that chain is breaking. The doctors and chefs I interviewed say the bacteria that move in are ones you can't see, smell, or taste. So the "fresh" potato salad, the airport fried rice under the heat lamp since 10 a.m., the turkey wrap on your delayed flight, all of it deserves a second look.

I'll be blunt. Blind faith in the buffet is a shortcut to the emergency room, and I don't think hotels and airlines are being straight with us about how often the cold chain fails.

Read the commentary and then tell me: do you change how you eat when you travel in summer, or do you eat whatever looks good and hope for the best? Add your comment at the end of the story.

https://www.elliott.org/safe-travels/how-an-airport-sandwich-could-destroy-your-next-vacation/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=how-an-airport-sandwich-could-destroy-your-next-vacation

Elliott ReportHow an airport sandwich could destroy your next vacationRecord heat and travel chaos can snap the cold chain that keeps your food safe. Where foodborne illness hides on the road, from the buffet to the mini-fridge

Somebody logged into a reader's PayPal account and bought $1,855 worth of Knicks-Bulls tickets. He never saw the game, never touched the tickets, never made the purchase. When he told PayPal and Amex the charges were fraud, both companies looked at their records and told him he was wrong. You made these, they said. Case closed.

Here's the part that should worry all of us. A computer decided he was lying, and no human at either company ever looked at his claim. He knew he didn't buy those tickets, but he was up against a system that had already made up its mind. Anyone who has ever had a card or an account is one stolen login away from the same fight.

I want to know what you think. Should a company be allowed to deny a fraud dispute based on an automated review alone, with no person ever looking at it? And who should eat the loss when a thief uses your real login, you or the company whose system waved the charge through? Read the story, then leave a comment and tell me where you land.

https://www.elliott.org/problem-solved/i-have-two-fraudulent-charges-on-my-paypal-account-what-should-i-do/

Elliott ReportI have two fraudulent charges on my PayPal account. What should I do?  Two fraudulent ticket charges hit a reader's PayPal and Amex, and both fraud disputes were denied. How to fight back when a computer rejects a real claim.

Aeromexico moved a mother's connection to the next day, leaving her with an eight-hour overnight layover in Mexico City and a newborn to look after. She asked for her $1,360 back. The airline said no and cited a "subject to change" clause. Her case comes down to whether that holds up when the airline is the one that rewrote the schedule. https://www.elliott.org/the-troubleshooter/aeromexico-rescheduled-my-flight-and-expected-me-to-sleep-in-an-airport-with-a-newborn-can-i-get-a-refund/

Elliott ReportAeromexico rescheduled my flight and expected me to sleep in an airport with a newborn. Can I get a refund?Aeromexico moved a mother's connection overnight, then denied her refund. What federal rules say about significant schedule changes and how to claim your money.

A reader named Elizabeth bid $500 for a business-class upgrade on Swiss. The airline accepted her offer, took her money, and gave her the better seat. Then her plans changed, she rebooked her flight, and the upgrade simply vanished. When she asked for the $500 back, Swiss said no. Nonrefundable, the agents told her. Case closed.

Here's the part that got under my skin. Elizabeth had a screenshot of the exact terms she agreed to when she paid, and those terms said she was owed a full refund if her fare allowed a rebooking. Her fare did. But every agent she reached kept quoting a different rule from the airline's FAQ, insisting the money was gone. One of them even told her the document she provided didn't count.

So who's right? The contract a customer agrees to at checkout, or the FAQ an airline can quietly rewrite any day of the week? Swiss picked the answer that kept her $500.

I have a lot to say about how this one played out, but I want to hear from you first. Have you ever bid on an upgrade and then lost it after changing your flight? Read the story and tell me in the comments whether you think Swiss had any business keeping her money.

https://www.elliott.org/advocacy/i-paid-500-for-an-upgrade-on-swiss-then-the-airline-kept-it/

Elliott ReportI paid $500 for an upgrade on Swiss, then the airline kept itA traveler bid $500 for a Swiss upgrade, rebooked her flight, and was told the upgrade was gone. How bid upgrades work and how to fight a nonrefundable denial.

More travelers are being tagged as no-shows for flights they never actually missed. One flier had a boarding pass proving he flew and still lost his ticket home. Another paid $572 for a new ticket after her airline got it wrong. Honest error, or a quiet revenue stream? I looked at the case for both. https://www.elliott.org/on-travel/travel-companies-say-their-customers-are-no-shows-but-are-they/?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=travel-companies-say-their-customers-are-no-shows-but-are-they

Elliott ReportTravel companies say their customers are no-shows—but are they?More travelers are wrongly labeled no-shows and lose money for it. Honest error or quiet revenue stream? Plus how to keep it from happening to you.