Author: Chris Morran

Since they both were acquired by the same holding company last year, it’s been an inevitability that both Midwest Airlines and Frontier would eventually end up flying under the same brand, but it remained to be seen whether one would fold into the other or there would be a completely new name. That mystery ended this morning with Republic announcing that, as of today, Midwest will now be part of the Frontier family.

Speaking at a press conference this morning, an airline exec explained, “We’re going to have to have a consistent product offering brand promise for our customers if we’re going to reach our fullest potential.” And after consulting “tens of thousands of customers” and “4,500 employees,” they figured that the Frontier name demonstrated “greater growth potential.”

Of some consolation to fans of Midwest — their famous in-flight chocolate chip cookies will remain.

Midwest Airlines Will Adopt Frontier Name, Keep Chocolate Chip Cookies [Jaunted]

Brand Announcement Video [Qik]

As we mentioned yesterday in our completely unscientific taste test of the KFC Double Down, we were really just tagging along with our smarter sibling Consumer Reports as they gathered their team to pull some major science on the bacon-and-cheese-between-two-pieces-of-fried-chicken sandwich-ish type thing.

And so the CR testers piled into the van yesterday and drove to the local KFC, where they picked up several bags of the belly busting Double Downs — and tested them right away in the back of the van, so as to sample them right off the grill (or out of the microwave, or however KFC heats them up).

Unlike Consumerist’s instant-gratification “tastes good to mah belly” test, CR’s testers aren’t there to describe whether or not they personally enjoyed the sandwich, but to evaluate the various facets of the sandwich: Is the coating crispy? Is it real white meat or reformed? How fatty is the bacon?

By answering these questions, CR gives you the over-all picture of the Double Down and lets you decide whether or not it’s something you’d want to plunk down $4.99 on.

CR is also sending off a few Double Downs to the lab for a nutritional analysis — My guess, it will come back saying, “Ingredients = 100% table salt.”

Remember in Sept. 2008, when Washington Mutual went from being the sixth-largest bank in the U.S. to the biggest bank failure in U.S. history? Well, newly released documents show just how reckless and money-grubbing WaMu was in its final months — and how some employees were reaping huge rewards as the bank sunk into the quicksand.

In documents released by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, it becomes clear just how careless WaMu’s lending behavior had become during the height of the sub-prime mortgage boom.

Per the NY Times:

Loan officers received more money for originating higher-risk loans, and loan processors were rewarded for speed and volume, rather than quality… Loan officers and sales associates were paid even more if they overcharged borrowers through points or higher interest rates, or included stiff prepayment penalties in the loans they issued.

From its investigation into the WaMu fiasco, the Senate panel figures that Between 2000 and 2007, WaMu and its affiliate, Long Beach Mortgage Company, packaged and sold at least $77 billion in sub-prime mortgages.

“Using a toxic mix of high-risk lending, lax controls and compensation policies which rewarded quantity over quality, Washington Mutual flooded the market with shoddy loans that went bad,” says the Senate panel’s chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. “They built a conveyor belt that dumped toxic mortgage assets into the markets like a polluter dumping poison into a river… Down river, there was Wall Street, with its huge appetite for these mortgage-backed securities. They bottled that polluted water, slapped a label on it from the credit rating agencies that said it was safe drinking water, and sold it to investors.”

Today, seven former WaMu execs — including ex-CEO Kerry Killinger, who received a $15.3 million severance package in 2008 — are to testify before the subcommittee.

Memos Show Risky Lending at WaMu [NY Times]

One of the last bastions of ad-free Internet space is about to disappear. Twitter has confirmed that starting today, they are rolling out an official ad program they call “Promoted Tweets.”

According to Twitter, only about 2-10% of users will begin to see these sponsored tweets at the top of certain Twitter search results pages.

“Users will start to see tweets promoted by our partner advertisers called out at the top of some Twitter.com search results pages,” one Twitter biggie explained.

Among the companies to jump on the promoted tweet bandwagon: Best Buy, Starbucks and Virgin America.

Does this impact how you think of Twitter?

Twitter set to make money through advertisements [Reuters]

It’s April 12, 2010. For those unaware, this date will be remembered in the annals of fast food and coronary surgery as the day that KFC unleashed its Double Down — once more, that’s the bacon-n-cheese sandwich that uses two pieces of fried chicken for bread — and Consumerist was there to do some tastin’.

Joined by fellow Consumerista Meghann Marco, I traveled north of NYC to Consumer Reports’ headquarters in Yonkers. CR is in the process of doing a proper, scientific taste test (more on that later) of the Double Down, but they were happy to let me and Megh tag along to do our own, utterly unscientific sampling.

My reactions — The Double Down is not for those who fear the following: salt, pepper, salt, greasy fingers, salt, salt and salt. Luckily, I kinda like salt. I ate the whole sandwich and barely noticed the bacon because the chicken was so overloaded with sodium. That being said, I wouldn’t shy away from having one of these again if I’m in the hunt for a fried chicken fix.

In terms of value, It’s a filling sandwich, so the $4.99 price tag didn’t seem exorbitant, though I can imagine a lot of people not finishing the sandwich, even if they enjoy the taste.

Megh’s reaction — She didn’t have much to say, as she wasn’t exactly jumping at the chance to sample the Double Down. Her facial reaction pretty much sums it up:

Maybe this is the real reason job fairs are being cancelled: A sheriff’s deputy in Colorado has been suspended after using his taser on 30 high school students at a job fair last week. And it wasn’t a case of overzealous policing; the students volunteered!

According to reports, the deputy has been suspended for one week with pay after demonstrating his taser on willing high school students at the job fair.

One student was treated at the hospital following the tasing, while others had burns of varying degrees.

Authorities are considering whether to file criminal charges, but we have to ask: If the kids volunteered, did the deputy do anything wrong? Or perhaps a job fair was not the most appropriate place to demo his stun gun?

Stunning: Cop tasers 30 students at job fair [Daily News]

Over on Rick Moser’s blog, he posted this photo of a billboard in NYC featuring a mammoth bed bug looming over a strip club, a souvenir shop and a pizza joint. Aside from it just being creepy-to-the-max, might this billboard not also be doing damage to the businesses below?

Would you buy a slice of pizza from a pizzeria underneath this billboard? Or get a lapdance at the “gentleman’s club”? And what about for the people who live and/or work inside that building? We don’t have answers to these questions, but we’d sure love to hear your answers.

Bed Bug Pizza [Rick Moser]

Consumerist reader Bill popped into his local KFC in Houston today and found that they were selling the already infamous Double Down — better known as bacon and cheese wedged between slabs of fried chicken. And, as often happens when confronted with fast food that looks good in ads, Bill was a little let down by what he found inside.

Says Bill, who snapped these side-by-side pics of both the fried and grilled versions of the sandwich, “The KFC Double Down ‘sandwich’ looked a lot better in the advertising photos… This is something I’ll only be buying once; they’re expensive! $4.99 each.”

Here’s the full-size version of the pic. Is it just me, or does the cheesy interior look like a fried egg? Hmmm… now there’s an idea.

Looks like California has won the legal lottery that is the Toyota recall, after a federal panel selected the Central District of California as the place to hear an amalgam of class-action lawsuits against the Japanese car maker.

A couple weeks after hearing from attorneys representing all parts of the U.S., the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled today that federal Judge James V. Selna in Santa Ana, CA, will be the one to hear the dozens of lawsuits filed against Toyota in the wake of their recent recalls for sudden unintended acceleration.

Now that the judge has been picked, it’s time for a flock of legal eagles to fight it out for lead attorney positions. Judge Selna will be the one to select which lawyers get that distinction.

Speaking of their decision to go with Selna, the Multidistrict panel said:

Judge Selna’s 28 years of private law practice at the very highest levels and in some of the most complex cases leaves him well prepared for a case of this magnitude.

For now, all the class action suits — ranging from injury to claims of loss in resale value — are being pooled together, mainly because, in spite of their differing allegations, they all rely on the same evidence. Judge Selna can decide whether to keep the suits pooled or split them up into smaller lawsuits.

As for Toyota, they had actually requested California’s Central District when expressing their desires to the judge in March. The location is near their U.S. HQ in Torrance, CA, and the West Coast locale means shorter and less expensive flights for Toyota executives and attorneys flying in and out from Japan during the coming months.

Here’s the panel’s explanation:

Toyota maintains its United States corporate headquarters within this district, and relevant documents and witnesses are likely located there. Far more actions are pending there than in any other district.

California Court to Hear Toyota Suits [WSJ]

NHTSA, fresh off its $16 million smackdown on Toyota is now investigating the company that booted Toyota from Consumerist’s Worst Company In America tournament — General Motor — for possible brake failure issues in millions of the company’s trucks and SUVs.

According to an announcement from NHTSA, the defect involves potential brake line rupture in Chevy and GMC C/K series pickups and SUVs for model years 1999 through 2003. That is a total of around 6 million vehicles.

NHTSA says is has received 110 complaints, which include 3 crashes, regarding an alleged loss of braking effectiveness.

In their words now:

The complaints allege the loss of braking effectiveness due to brake line rupture because of corrosion. In 37 of these complaints, the brake line failure was confirmed by a dealer inspection.

FYI, right now GM is losing to Anthem BCBS in the Sweet 16 of Worst Company In America.

GM Probed By U.S. for Brake Flaws in 6 Million Trucks [BusinessWeek]

Imagine that you’re a homeowner who has managed to stay current on all your mortgage payments. And then you find out that the bank has not only foreclosed on your house, but they’ve also sold it at auction. That’s exactly what happened to to a couple in Georgia.

The husband says he was outside working on his truck, minding his own business, when a fella approached him with paperwork, saying, “Hi I just bought this house.”

Yep, someone at Bank of America screwed the pooch big time on this one, somehow listing the couple’s $500,000 home with no delinquent payments as a foreclosed property, which was subsequently auctioned off on the steps of the county courthouse. And it all happened without the homeowners knowing anything about it.

When they initially contacted BofA about the kerfuffle, the bank confirmed that the mortgage payments were current, but would not admit that a mistake had been made.

“They sold my house overnight and they need to fix this fast,” said the wife.

Here’s what the braintrust at BofA has to say:

It appears that a mistake has been made in this case. We are working diligently to research and rectify the situation as quickly as possible. We apologize to the Achaibar family for this unfortunate mistake.

As for them, the couple is just happy to not be out on the street: “Thank God it was a nice person who bought our house or he probably would have put us out.”

Metro Family Nearly Loses Home in Error [MyFoxAtlanta.com]

Flailing video vendor Blockbuster, which has gone so far as to gamble all its Canadian assets to sidestep the bankruptcy train, also has another potential trick up its sleeve — video games by mail.

Consumerist reader Emily forwarded us an e-mail she recently received from Blockbuster where the company says it wants her feedback on adding video games to its current movies-by-mail program:

In addition to sending your favorite movies by mail, Blockbuster is considering giving Total Access members like you the ability to rent video games by mail for no additional charge. You would be able to choose from over 3,000 different games, including many popular new releases. All you’d have to do is add them to your Queue, and we would send them to you just like we do your favorite movies! Please take a moment to complete the following short survey so we can gauge your interest.

Emily also points out that, if Blockbuster were to go through with the plan to offer games at no extra charge, she’d be able to ditch her $20/month subscription to GameFly.

As for whether or not this is something Netflix would get involved in, I talked to Steve Swasey, VP Corp. Communications for Netflix and he made it pretty clear that they’re not even thinking about the video game market:

Sez Steve:

Video games are a different economic model than movies and TV episodes, on which Netflix concentrates to provide the greatest convenience, selection and value to consumers… Movies are perennial. A great movie from 1972 is still a great movie but who wants to play Madden ’95?

Hot on the heels of Blockbuster’s announcement of a deal with Fox and Sony that would allow it to offer new titles for rent and streaming on the day of DVD release, comes news of what appears to be another bad deal for Netflix subscribers — They’ll now have to wait 28 days for new releases from Fox and Universal.

So, if you wanted to see… I dunno, Avatar… when it hits DVD on April 22, you’re going to have to buy it or go to Blockbuster. Or wait until at least May 20 if you’re a Netflix subscriber.

This is essentially the same deal Netflix made with Warner Bros. earlier this year — a move which has gotten them sued by at least one customer — and the spin is basically the same, that Netflix will get better pricing on Fox and Universal titles and have access to more of the studios’ libraries for their streaming service.

I’ve reached out to Netflix for comment on this and will update if/when I hear back.

Netflix inks movie rental deal with U.S. studios [Reuters]

Thanks to Klay for the tip!

An Arizona man (not Consumerist’s Phil Villareal, in case you were wondering) is under arrest after he discharged a handgun at his local Walmart. And no, he wasn’t robbing the place; he was just nervously fidgeting with his firearm.

The 29-year-old dude walked into the El Mirage, AZ, Walmart around 1 a.m. early Thursday morning, where witnesses say he began to fumble with his holstered semi-automatic pistol.

According to police, an employee in the electronics section notified the store manager because she believed the suspect could be a robber after she saw him remove his gun from the holster.

But it wasn’t until he attemped to pay for a video game at the store’s front register that the armed dude got into real trouble.

From AZcentral:

He removed the gun from the holster again, causing the magazine to come loose and fall to the floor. [The suspect] re-inserted the magazine and continued manipulating the gun when it fired, sending one round into the ceiling.

Oops.

No one was hurt and the trigger-happy fella as arrested without incident and booked on six counts of endangerment and firing a weapon within city limits.

Man arrested after his gun goes off inside El Mirage Walmart [AZCentral]

If you found yourself getting all riled up by Spirit Airlines’ announcement on Tuesday that they are now charging for carry-on bags, you were not alone. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has taken aim the move, calling it “outrageous” and “ridiculous.”

In an interview over on travel writer Christopher Elliot’s blog, LaHood makes his feelings clear on the matter. He also references Ryanair’s decision to use pay toilets.

Take it Ray:

I think it’s a bit outrageous that an airline is going to charge someone to carry on a bag and put it in the overhead. And I’ve told our people to try and figure out a way to mitigate that. I think it’s ridiculous… I don’t think they care about their customers. That’s what I think. And I think when you charge somebody to use the bathroom, you don’t care about your customers. I mean, it’s pretty clear.

Secretary LaHood also took issue with Spirit’s other announcement — that some flights will only cost a penny… Well, that is until you pay up to $45/bag for your carry-on. He says the DOT is “gonna hold the airline’s feet to the fire” on the matter of disclosing accurate airfare.

Check out the entire interview over at Elliott.org

We have a hunch that your feelings on the iPhone are going to be a big factor in how you vote in this battle. On one hand, there’s the mobile carrier who has a monopoly on the iPhone. On the other hand, there’s the company that is raking in the money through its iPhone app store monopoly. What’s a fanboy to do?

Which company has you thinking that a Blackberry might not be such a bad idea?

This is a post in our Worst Company In America 2010 series. The companies competing for this honor were chosen by you, the readers. Keep track of all the goings on at consumerist.com/tag/worst-company-in-america. Print the bracket, here.

Between their irritating ads and misleading name, FreeCreditReport.com has been a target of Consumerist’s derision for years. And now the “service,” which was never free to begin with, will actually cost you a dollar to use.

Now, when you go the site’s homepage you’re told, “Check your Report for $1 and get your Score Free! Plus, we’ll donate your dollar to charity.”

Aside from the Random CapitalizatioN in the first sentence, it doesn’t explain why they’re charging $1 for something you can get for free elsewhere. So in addition to signing up (perhaps unwittingly) for a 7-day free trial of Experian’s credit monitoring service that will cost you $14.95/month if you don’t cancel, you’ve now donated $1 to an unnamed charity.

And it gets better — that $1 donation isn’t actually a donation, at least not from you.
Explains the FAQ at FreeCreditReport:

The $1 fee that you’re charged to see your report is an actual fee and not itself a donation. We are taking the fee and as a gesture of goodwill, donating to charitable causes on your behalf. Because of this, no receipt is provided for tax purposes. Also, because it’s a fee we have to charge applicable sales taxes.

So… You have to pay a $1 fee, and possibly sales tax, that Experian then gets to write off on their own books as a charitable donation?

What a bargain!

I’m going to leave it to our kith and kin at Consumer Reports to have the last word:

You probably don’t need credit monitoring if you order the truly free credit reports from AnnualCreditReport.com. Ordering one report from each of the three credit bureaus every 4 months should give you enough information without the need for a credit monitoring service’s monthly fees.

“Free” credit report now costs $1 [Consumer Reports]

When you were a teenager, how many times did you wish you could have called the cops on your parents for being too nosy? It may be too late for you to slap some juris prudence on your folks, but a trailblazing teen in Arkansas has filed harassment charges — criminal, not civil — against his mom for hassling him on Facebook.

According to the teen’s complaint, which has been approved by prosecutors, his mother: “Hacked my Facebook and changed my password. She also changed the password to my e-mail so I could not change it. She posted things that involve slander and personal facts about my life.”

The mother, who does not have custody of the 16-year-old, she was just doing her due diligence as a parent.

Reports CBS News:

Her son forgot to log off of his Facebook page one day while using her computer so she took the opportunity to do a little snooping. New says the boy had written that he had gone to Hot Springs one night and drove 95 mph on the way home because he was upset with a girl. Several other posts on his site also bothered her, but she refused to elaborate.

While the prosecutor wouldn’t go into detail on the specific case, he did describe the state’s legal definition of “harassment” as when, “a person commits the offense if he engages in conduct or repeatedly commits acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person.”

The mom is scheduled to make her first court appearance on May 12.

Facebook Family Feud: Mom Snoops Online, Son Charges Harassment, So They’ll See Each Other in Court [CBS News]

Responding to concerns from Congress, the FDA announced today that they are in the process of reviewing how consumers use triclosan, an antibacterial agent used in soap and many other products. And while the FDA says it doesn’t have enough info to tell people not to use soaps containing triclosan, it also doesn’t see any evidence that adding triclosan to soap makes any difference.

Reads a statement posted on the FDA’s site:

At this time, the agency does not have evidence that triclosan in antibacterial soaps and body washes provides any benefit over washing with regular soap and water.

In January, Rep. Edward J. Markey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, sent a letter to the FDA asking them to look into triclosan:

Despite the fact that this chemical is found in everything from soaps to socks, there are many troubling questions about triclosan’s effectiveness and potentially harmful effects, especially for children

While they complete their look into triclosan, the FDA has also posted a document of things you should know about the antibacterial and fun facts about triclosan like:

* It was first registered as a pesticide in 1969
* Triclosan is incorporated in conveyor belts, fire hoses, dye bath vats, or ice-making equipment as an antimicrobial pesticide.

Our more scholarly siblings over at Consumer Reports recently sat down for an interview with David Vladeck, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. And while Mr. Vladeck had all sorts of important things to say about scams, frauds and various sorts of hoodwinkery, the most important thing is that he likes us… he really likes us.

When asked if he reads Consumerist, Mr. Vladeck replied:

I certainly look at The Consumerist, not just for complaints but also to spot trends.

That’s right… we’re not just here to help you complain — We’re also trendsetters!

In all seriousness, you should check out the entire interview with Mr. Vladeck over at the CR blog.

And if you’re a Consumerist reader who also happens to be a highly placed government official — or perhaps a titan of industry that follows us religiously — don’t be afraid to let your Consumerist flag fly!