Editorial Standards, Corrections, and Disclosures

Last updated: July 13, 2026

View from the Wing covers airlines, hotels, loyalty programs, credit cards and the business of travel. Ive published the site since 2002, combining reporting, analysis, commentary and personal experience. Those aren’t all the same thing, and I try to make clear which is which.

This page explains who is responsible for the site, how I report and review things, how I handle errors and conflicts, and what readers should expect from the comments.

Ownership and editorial responsibility

View from the Wing is independently owned and published by Miles and Points Consulting LLC. I’m Gary Leff, the site’s founder, editor and primary writer. This site is principally me: I make the editorial decisions and take responsibility for what appears under my byline. You can read more about my background on the About page.

View from the Wing participates in the BoardingArea network, which provides advertising, hosting and other site services. BoardingArea, advertisers and affiliate partners do not assign, review or approve my coverage.

Occasional contributions from other writers are flagged. Views expressed here are those of the named author, not an employer, advertiser, bank, airline, hotel company, loyalty program or other organization with which the author may be associated.

Editorial standards

I try to get the facts right, explain why they matter and distinguish what is confirmed from what is alleged, inferred or simply my opinion. Publishing quickly is often important in news, but speed doesn’t excuse inaccuracy.

  • Facts and opinion: Posts often include both reporting and analysis. Opinions are mine; factual claims are still subject to the same sourcing and correction standards.
  • Headlines: A headline should make a reader want to know more, but it should fairly describe the substance of the story. It shouldn’t manufacture a conclusion the reporting doesn’t support.
  • Independence: Companies and public relations representatives may provide information, access or an opportunity to respond. They don’t receive editorial control.
  • Conflicts: I disclose a material personal, professional or financial relationship when a reasonable reader might consider it relevant to the coverage.
  • Privacy and harm: Public interest reporting sometimes requires identifying people or publishing uncomfortable facts. I weigh that interest against foreseeable harm, especially when a story involves children, victims, medical information or private individuals unexpectedly pulled into a public controversy.
  • Original work: Material from another publication, creator or researcher is credited or linked. Quotes and distinctive reporting aren’t passed off as my own.

Sources and attribution

I prefer primary sources: government and court records, regulatory filings, company documents, published program terms, direct statements, original video or audio, and people with first-hand knowledge. I share or link those materials when they’re public and useful to the reader.

When another publication, blog or researcher breaks a story or contributes meaningful original reporting, I credit and link it. A link doesn’t mean I agree with everything at the destination.

Posts from Reddit, X, Facebook, Instagram and other platforms can show what someone publicly said or documented. They don’t, standing alone, prove every underlying claim. I seek corroboration when the distinction matters and label allegations, rumors and unverified accounts accordingly.

I may use an unnamed source when I know the person’s identity, the source is in a position to know the information, and there is a legitimate reason not to publish the name. I explain the basis for relying on that source when doing so won’t reveal the person.

For a serious disputed allegation about an identifiable person or company, I seek a response when practical. A subject doesn’t have a veto over publication, and news may be published before a response arrives. If a meaningful response comes later, I’ll update the story.

Reviews, rankings and valuations

Travel reviews reflect the product experienced on a particular date: a specific flight, aircraft, lounge, hotel, room or service encounter. Products and employees vary, and a review shouldn’t pretend that one stay or flight proves what every customer will receive.

I consider the things that determine whether a travel product delivers what it promises: price, comfort, reliability, service, benefits, restrictions and the realistic alternatives. When status, points, an upgrade, a certificate or another benefit materially affected the experience, I explain that.

Credit card and loyalty program coverage relies on current published terms, practical user experience and, where useful, confirmation from the company. Offers and rules change. Readers should verify the current terms before applying, transferring points or making a purchase.

Points valuations, rankings and recommendations necessarily involve judgment. I explain the assumptions that matter rather than presenting a personal valuation as a universal cash value. A product that is right for a frequent business traveler may be wrong for someone with different spending, travel patterns or tolerance for complexity.

An older post may accurately describe the product as it existed when published. The publication and update dates should help inform readers regarding current relevance.

Complimentary travel, gifts and industry access

I sometimes receive invitations to industry events, press briefings, product previews or travel experiences. An airline, hotel, card issuer or other company may offer transportation, accommodation, admission, food or another benefit at no charge or at a reduced rate. Sometimes it is impractical to participate in the event without accepting something of value. Not only do I disclose that in the relevant post, but I do charitable giving to offset the value of anything I recent. Accepting an invitation doesn’t promise coverage, let alone favorable coverage.

Advertising and affiliate links

View from the Wing earns revenue from display advertising and affiliate links. Some links, particularly links to credit cards and other travel products, may generate compensation when a reader clicks, applies, is approved or completes another qualifying action.

Compensation supports the site but doesn’t buy a favorable conclusion or the right to approve coverage. Advertisers and banks don’t write my opinions, analyses or evaluations. Sponsored content, if it is ever published, will be clearly labeled.

More detail appears in the site’s Advertiser and Editorial Disclosure.

Use of artificial intelligence

I may use artificial-intelligence tools to help locate research leads, organize information, summarize documents, transcribe audio or video, translate material, analyze data, check copy, or undertake other tasks.

AI output isn’t a source. While I’ve been accused on ‘being an AI’ for my volume of output or knowledge, this site represents my own views and understanding not the output of an AI. I am responsible for what is published.

Corrections and updates

If I get a material fact wrong, I want to correct it promptly and clearly.

  • Minor spelling, punctuation, formatting and broken-link fixes may be made without a correction note.
  • A material factual correction receives a note explaining what was wrong and what changed.
  • When an article is accurate as published but later developments materially change the story, I may add an update identifying the new information.
  • If the central premise of a story is false, I’ll correct or retract it prominently. Ordinarily the original URL will remain available with an explanation rather than disappearing without one.

A disagreement over emphasis, analysis or opinion isn’t a factual error, but I’ll consider the evidence and offer amendment when warranted.

To request a correction, email gary@viewfromthewing.com with the article URL, the exact statement at issue and any supporting documentation. Please put ‘Correction’ in the subject line.

Comment policy

Comments are for discussing the post. Disagreement, criticism and strong arguments are welcome. A comment doesn’t need to agree with me or with other readers to remain on the site.

Comments may be held for moderation, removed or closed when they contain:

  • Spam, commercial promotion or deceptive links;
  • Threats, targeted harassment, slurs or dehumanizing abuse;
  • Personal information, doxxing or attempts to identify someone whose identity was reasonably withheld;
  • Unsupported accusations of criminal conduct, fraud, sexual misconduct or a medical or psychiatric condition involving an identifiable person;
  • Impersonation or materially deceptive claims about the commenter’s identity;
  • Sexually explicit, gratuitously graphic or illegal material;
  • Repeated off-topic arguments, flooding or substantially duplicate comments; or
  • Automated or mass-produced comments that don’t contribute meaningfully to the discussion.

I generally remove a problematic comment rather than rewriting what the commenter said, although I may clearly redact private information or repair formatting. Repeat abuse may result in future comments being blocked.

On stories involving minors, sexual misconduct, medical or mental-health crises, private individuals, active litigation or criminal proceedings, race, religion, nationality or another unusually sensitive subject, I may require advance moderation or disable comments entirely. That isn’t meant to prevent criticism. It is meant to avoid foreseeable doxxing, unsupported accusations and pile-ons where an open comment section is unlikely to add useful information.

Comments reflect the views of their authors. Their appearance doesn’t mean that I, an advertiser or any company mentioned in the article endorses them. I can’t promise to review or respond to every comment. Concerns about a comment can be sent to gary@viewfromthewing.com.

Contact me

For corrections, news tips, requests for comment, responses to coverage or other editorial matters, email gary@viewfromthewing.com. If information is confidential or especially sensitive, ask about an appropriate secure channel before sending the underlying material through ordinary email.