As much as I detest Black Friday’s unbridled consumerism — the Wal-Mart riots, the gofers paid to stand in line — I have to admit that there will be some very good travel deals out there tomorrow though “Cyber Monday” (the latter being another contrived consumer opiate that — sigh — also offers some very solid savings). Thankfully, the best-of bargains listed below don’t require you to visit some hellish big-box store, and are all prime examples of the pre-holiday breaks that seem so popular with Canadians. (According to a recent Expedia Canada survey, 40 per cent of us have previously turned to travel to escape the holiday chaos.) And if you pay a gofer to book a trip for you, well, I guess I’m OK with that…    

The Marker Waterfront Resort: For 20 hours starting at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time) on Dec. 1, this upscale Key West hotel (pictured below) will offer 20 rooms for $20 (U.S.). Why? Because the place is celebrating it’s 20th anniversary. How? By calling 1-844-229-8312.

Kicking Horse: Until Dec. 1, this world-class ski resort near Golden, B.C. (pictured above), will offer free lift passes for two in December for any reservations made at the regular daily rate. Or book a three-night stay at Canmore's Solara Resort & Spa (pictured below) or the Grande Rockies Resort, and the third night is free through Dec. 23. Both offers are available through Bellstar Hotels & Resorts.  

HotelTonight: You may be able to snag a hotel room for just $7 if you book with this app tomorrow.

Expedia: Its mobile app will offer a $50 coupon off “Expedia rate” hotels tomorrow.

Shore Hotel: Use the “CYBER” code when booking an oceanview room on Dec. 1, and you’ll get 30 per cent off regular rates at this luxury property (pictured below) near the Santa Monica Pier.

Hotel Contessa: The same goes for this all-suite hotel (pictured below) on the banks of San Antonio's River Walk — book on Dec. 1 with the “CYBER2014” code and knock 30 per cent off the best available rate.

The latest edition of Bloomberg Businessweek's "Airport Frustration Index" tabs YYZ as the seventh most aggravating air hub in North America. New York Laguardia is (deservedly) No. 1, followed by Newark Liberty, Washington Dulles, Chicago O'Hare, New York JFK and L.A. International.

Each airport received a frustration score of 1-100 based on the time it takes to get there; how easy it is to clear security; the quality of terminals and restrooms; amenities; and how often flights take off on schedule. Pearson gets hammered on the average drive time to and from downtown, which the study found to be 75 minutes (that's around $80 in an airport limo), the third-longest commute in North America. The Union Pearson Express rail link (pictured), slated to open in the spring of 2015, aims to cut this to around 25 minutes, which should improve YYZ's score. The one-way fares, meanwhile, look like they will come in at around $30 from downtown, which is outrageous. (More on this when the fare is actually announced.)

All other factors, besides on-time departures, are consolidated in a "Time at the terminal" category, where YYZ ranks seventh-worst. This is a bit like comparing passport-renewal offices -- they are all horrible -- but this rating seems a little unfair. I've never thought Pearson to be especially unpleasant. Perhaps survey respondents were in foul moods after the wretched, expensive commute.

The good news for Pearson -- and for all the Canadian airports listed -- is that on-time departures are relatively solid. (As the survey rightly notes: "Ultimately, the thing everyone wants most from any airport is to leave it.") No Canuck hub is among the worst 25 in this area (Toronto was 26th, at 81 per cent), with Ottawa, Vancouver and Montreal Trudeau tied for the three best on-time departure rates (at 85 per cent).

"O Canada" update, anyone? "The True North strong and free (and relatively reliable when it comes to airport departures)..." Sing it with me!

If you somehow forgot about GIS Day this year -- you know, when users of geographic information systems demonstrate real-world applications that are making a difference in our society -- there's no need to panic. 

First, take a deep breath. Better? Good. Then visit the GIS Day website, which lists dozens of events across Canada. Example: There's an open house in Mississauga today where visitors can "share news and uses of GIS in various departments in the Regional Municipality of Halton." Dress code: Narwhale (pictured).

If nothing else, it's worth noting that many, if not most, Canadians use GIS every day via the mapping apps and GPS devices that get us from the bathtub to Friendly Stranger. Plus, we don't have to fold paper maps anymore. I never did get the hang of that.

We should also be thankful for the entertainment GIS-related snafus provide. Last year, for instance, the Apple Maps app led motorists onto the runway at Alaska's Fairbanks International Airport. Instead of guiding them to the terminal, the app reportedly sent drivers toward the tarmac, and in a couple of cases they continued right into the path of planes.

Thankfully, no collisions or injuries were reported, and the entrance to the runway was barricaded. To be fair, the app wasn't completely at fault: The drivers reportedly continued through a gate and past several warning lights, signs and concrete markers. 

That's the problem: Map apps are so reliable, useful and accessible that we assume their directions are always accurate. And you know what happens when we ass-u-me.

In 2012, motorists heading for the Australian town of Mildura were instead directed by Apple's mapping software to Murray Sunset National Park, an arid, rugged reserve some 70 kilometres from the intended destination. According to news reports, at least six vehicles got stuck for as long as 24 hours in the park's muddy tracks, which are typically reserved for four-wheel-drive vehicles. One driver, local police noted, was too scared to leave his car after being terrorized by a snake, a goat and a fox. Crocodile Dundee he is not. 

Map apps may be dangerously off base at times, but they have a better record than GPS units. Tales of ill-advised GPS short-cuts and embarrassing misdirection abound, including:

• A van driver gets stuck on a Swiss mountain path and ends up being rescued by a team of mountaineers and a helicopter.
  
• Two American girls rent an SUV and drive it into a lake.
  
• A search and rescue team is dispatched to rescue 25 travellers who became hopelessly lost in the Utah wilderness and nearly drove their bus off a cliff.
  

So it seems some lessons are more valuable than learning to fold a paper map: One, immediately disregard digital directions if the front of your car is submerged in water. And two, narwhale outfits are on sale at Walmart until Friday.

The bad news: Mostly Amazing did not win the "Travel Blog Award" at last week's Ontario Tourism Awards Gala at Blue Mountain Resort. (It went to Colin Field, whose hunger-inducing post explored Henry’s, a restaurant in the middle of Georgian Bay's 30,000 Islands.)

The good news: I did win the "Travel Media Award" (pictured below) for a 2013 Toronto Star roundup of winter getaways across Ontario. (Cue fireworks and/or fanfare.) The key to victory: The story kicked off with a wiener dog (technically a dachshund-husky cross) pulling small children on a dogsled at Deerhurst Resort near Huntsville. In truth, the wiener dog really wanted to do the pulling, but the ropes kept getting tangled and...well...just read the article.  

The bad news: Chilli, the seven-year-old tubular canine in question (pictured above), was unable to join me at the awards. Her people informed me that she had a prior engagement with the Society of Canadian Hounds Now Involved in Tugging Stuff Around Lots (or SCHNITSAL).  

The good news:  In pessimistic anticipation of leaving the awards empty-handed, I hedged my bets by booking a visit to the Scandinave Spa Blue Mountain (pictured below). It is impossible to feel disappointment or stress while lazing in the bucolic complex's steamy pools, sauna and steam room. You might even feel a sense of healthy accomplishment when you plunge into one of the frigid pools that comprise Scandinave's wellness circuit of hot-cold-rest, which can be completed in a Muskoka chair-filled chill-out room or around smoldering outdoor fire pits. 

The bad news: Bringing fancy glass statuettes into the Scandinave pool complex is strictly prohibited, even if they are dangling from chunky gold necklaces. Just so you know...

You know that Seinfeld episode where George plays Trivial Pursuit with the Bubble Boy and insists that a misprint -- "the Moops" instead of "the Moors" -- is a correct answer? That's how I felt midway through my phone conversation with Air Transat's supervisor of seat-selection.

Five days after my open letter to the airline's after-sales team, we quickly established that:
1. Phone tag has no redeeming qualities.
2. Requiring me to email scanned copies of boarding passes was pointless and unnecessary. 
3. Customer relations personnel need to be more attentive to meeting the needs of families when aircraft are changed at the last minute...etc.

Yes, yes and yes. "But what about the refund?" I asked, reiterating the only point I have been trying to make: When a family pays to sit together, and the aircraft and seat layouts change -- making it impossible for the family to sit together -- the family should at least get their money back. Simple.

I know all about the refund runaround. We all do. It is customer relations' job to avoid giving money back. I get that. But when you pay for something, and you don't get that thing, well, the end result isn't debatable.

Apparently, however, these situations need to be looked at "on a case-by-case basis," the supervisor said, allowing that "we need to be better at applying our judgement."

"There's no judgement involved," I countered, again stating the obvious: Groups travelling together book seats together because they want to sit together. If they can't sit together, but paid to do so, they should get a refund. Automatically. It doesn't matter if the seat numbers are the same, as they were with us. It's the intent of the booking that must be honoured. 

"What would be ideal would be to advise you of the change in advance so we can make arrangements before you get to the airport," the supervisor continued.

"But that doesn't matter," I replied, pointing out that I wouldn't rebook a family flight at the last minute unless we were slated to dangle from a wing. "The Moops" indeed.

Gradually, however, we started making progress. "We will take more caution to analyze cases and listen to passengers based on their reasoning," the supervisor said, "instead of saying, 'Nope, you were rebooked as equivalent' -- meaning with the same seat number -- 'so you're not entitled to a refund.'"

It soon became clear that this was as far as I was going to get: Air Transat won't automatically grant refunds in cases like ours, but they won't automatically dismiss them either. 

Is that progress? It is if you believe this will actually happen. Just to be sure, please email me if Air Transat turns you down for a refund in a case like this, and I'll remind them of their pledge.

Nothing this year has stirred my heart quite like Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red, a temporary art installation by Paul Cummins and Tom Piper at the Tower of London.

I visited the Tower with my family in August, when less than half of its 10-hectare moat was filled with ceramic poppies. Today, Remembrance Day, marks the work’s culmination: Nearly 900,000 poppies overflow the moat, each commemorating a British and Commonwealth serviceman who died during the First World War, including nearly 66,000 Canadians and one of my great grandfathers.

My visit would have been emotional enough had I been there on my own. But with my wife and two young daughters at my side, Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red gave new meaning and perspective to the bravery of our fallen heroes. The installation is slated to remain in place for a few weeks, and I urge you to visit. After all, the poppies represent the sacrifices of the past, but also hope for the future, especially when they frame the face of a smiling child.

At 6:58 p.m., almost exactly three hours after Wednesday's open letter was published, Air Transat's response came via Twitter: "I'm sorry to read this, Adam. I've transferred your post to our Customer Relations. My colleagues will get in touch w/ you soon."
Customer Relations really did spring into action. The next morning, a very nice-sounding woman telephoned to apologize in a sincere, non-Rob Fordian way, and to assure me that my $80 would be refunded in the next few days. She read my post -- "all of it," she added wearily -- and said she understood my frustration. 
But she didn't seem to understand my post. I explained that I don't want my money back until the airline changes its ridiculous seat-selection refund policy. 
Transat may review the policy at the end of the year, she replied. 
"And I may start at quarterback for the New England Patriots next weekend," I thought. 
The only way to make any headway on the issue, it seems, is to go straight to the top. After all, I assume my towering journalistic stature, legendary handsomeness and tens and tens of readers prompted Transat's relatively speedy response.
Knowing that Tom and Gisele (pictured) are on Mars until next Sunday, we decided that Air Transat's director of seat-selection would have to do.
And that is where things stand. Stay tuned...

Dear Air Transat after-sales team,

Thank you for your latest correspondence regarding Customer File No. 4846625. After all the other correspondence, which required me to scan and email copies of boarding passes, compose several other messages, and wait on hold for around 45 minutes, I was relieved to see the “Refund request for advanced seat selection” subject line appear in my inbox this morning.

As I explained to a customer service representative (pictured at left) more than three weeks ago, I paid $80 for your seat-selection service so my two daughters, aged 4 and 7, could sit with their parents — both their parents — on your Aug. 4 overnight flight from Toronto to Paris.

Your website clearly indicated that the aircraft involved, an Airbus330-300, featured a 2-4-2 seat configuration — that is, two seats on the outside of each aisle and four together in the middle. Indeed, we departed on Aug. 4 specifically because the aircraft allowed us to sit together.

Imagine our surprise when, upon boarding the plane, we discovered that its replacement, an Airbus 330-200, featured a 3-3-3 layout.

Granted, we did have the same seat numbers we had purchased, but the aisle now separated one of us from the rest. My wife and I tried to switch seats so we could both sit next to one daughter, but we were told this wasn’t possible. We couldn’t very well put a small child in an aisle seat all by herself, so my wife, bless her, sat between the kids in the middle section while I flew solo on the other side of the aisle.

Do you know what it’s like taking a red-eye flight with two small children in aisle seats on either side of you? My wife didn’t sleep a wink, what with beverage carts and passengers bumping our kids’ outstretched extremities. My flight was no picnic, but suffice it to say that the experience ranks just below childbirth on the list of spousal sacrifices I can never repay.

If nothing else, I’ll definitely buy her something nice with the seat-selection refund, despite the fact that I just received this:

Good day,

We acknowledge receipt of your refund request for the following seat selection. Unfortunately no refund can be processed in the file because equivalent seats were given after the aircraft substitution. Originally you booked row 9 on Airbus330-300 where the configuration is 2x4x2 and you selected 4 seats in the middle section before the wings, after the aircraft change we assigned equivalent seats on Airbus 330-200 where the configuration is different and we do not have a row 9 complete, the configuration is 3x3x3, we assigned row16 the middle section and aisle across before the wings as well. Please see below our Terms and Conditions:

"Subject to operational requirements, it may be necessary to change the aircraft type operating your flight. Should this occur, we will try to match your seat request on the substituted aircraft. This, however, cannot be guaranteed. Air Transat will then assign you an equivalent seat. If we cannot assign you an equivalent seat, we will contact you to ask about your seating preferences. In the event that we are unable to assign you an equivalent seat, you may be entitled to a refund…”

Thank you for telling me what I already know about the flight. I also know the definition of “equivalent”: “Corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function.”

It’s pretty obvious that being separated from the rest of my family is not "equivalent" to sitting with them (especially in effect or function). This is not open to interpretation – it is a fact.

The thing is, we weren't the only family affected by the aircraft switch. Another foursome, with an infant no less, had paid to have access to the bassinet at the front of the coach cabin, which the new aircraft lacked. Thankfully, the mother was moved to a window seat to make nursing easier, but I have to wonder: Were they denied a refund too? Maybe they gave up when faced with the shocking run-around I'm experiencing. If that is the case, shame on you.

You know what? I don’t want my money back any more. I don’t want you to read this, and think, “This Adam Bisby is incredibly gifted, handsome and eloquent, and he’s got tens and tens of readers, so we had better give him his money back tout suite.”

It’s not about the $80 any more. What I want is for you to change your ridiculous terms and conditions. Do the right thing here, and I will accept my hard-earned $80 — along with one of those self-inflating life vests I’ve always wanted — and hand it straight to the woman who really deserves it (and plenty more besides).

Sincerely,

Adam “Customer File No. 4846625” Bisby