Brad Tuttle

Hey kids, you know your parents aren't going to let you eat all of the candy hauled in on Halloween trick-or-treating rounds. So why not swap some of it for cash money?

The cash payoff isn’t the only reason kids might want to trade in candy soon after Halloween is over. Doing so also supports the troops overseas.

To participate in the annual program, called the Halloween Candy Buy Back, families should start by finding a participating nearby dentist’s office, via a search tool at the link or at the program’s Facebook page. There are thousands of participants around the country–in New Jersey, Ohio, California, and beyond. Chances are, there’s a poster up at your dentist’s office asking locals to join in its Candy Buy Back campaign.

While the particulars of each participating office may differ slightly, they generally all welcome unopened candy donations in the days right after Halloween, and they pay $1 per pound of candy dropped off, with a $5 maximum payout. Some also give treats or goodie bags for kids—toys, stickers, toothbrushes, sometimes pizza or local baked goods—as well as the chance to win iPods, gift cards, and other prizes. It softens the blow inherent in handing over the sweet and chocolatey fruits of one’s labor spent trick-or-treating.

The program was originally envisioned as a means to get massive quantities of Halloween candy “off the streets” and out of the bellies of America’s children, and the campaign truly caught fire when it partnered with Operation Gratitude, an organization that sends care packages to military veterans, new recruits, and most especially troops who are deployed overseas. Some 130+ million tons of candy has been collected over the years, and with the help of Halloween Candy Buy Back participants, Operation Gratitude was able to ship its one millionth care package last December.

As for the more mercenary kids out there—those who are trading candy in for cash at least as much as they are motivated to support the troops—they’re probably trying to figure out what candies weigh the most to maximize their payout.

Even as the paid-membership review service Angie's List has announced major plans for expansion and increased hiring, investors are bailing on the company.

On Wednesday, the stock price of Angie’s List dropped more than 5%, after a decline of as much as 20% a week ago. Overall, the price of Angie’s List stock is hovering near its 52-week low, and it has fallen nearly 60% over the past 12 months. Last week’s plunge stemmed largely from the release of disappointing third-quarter results. Even as the company decreased marketing expenses by 20% and increased membership revenue by 7%, a slowdown in paid memberships and the failure to meet profit revenue expectations have apparently spooked investors.

Angie’s List watchers have been on a particularly wild rollercoaster ride of late. Roughly one month ago, a report surfaced indicating that the company had hired investment bankers to explore the possibility of putting Angie’s List up for sale. Shares of the stock rose more than 20% on the news but were still down more than 50% compared to a year ago.

A couple weeks later, Angie’s List announced that it was adding 1,000 jobs and expanding its Indianapolis headquarters, leading some to believe there would be much brighter days ahead. One week after that, third-quarter results were released, leading many investors to bail—but also leading opportunistic value investors such as billionaire Ken Griffin, owner of the Citadel Investment Group, to go bullish on Angie’s List.

So what does the future have in hold for a paid membership review service such as Angie’s List? Well, to anyone under the age of 30, the idea of paying for reviews or online content of any sort is probably puzzling. But for nearly two decades, the online review service Angie’s List has built a loyal, paying membership of homeowners and renters who find real value in a network where real-life people can exchange honest, trustworthy recommendations about handymen, contractors, plumbers, electricians, clean-it crews, and other services they’ve used personally.

To these folks, the value proposition is simple: When you’re considering who to hire to do a $50,000 home renovation, forking over $20 or $40 for access to reviews on local contractors is a no-brainer. Indeed, according to the company’s second quarter 2014 results, paid memberships hit 2.8 million at the end of June, up from 2.2 million a year before and just 820,000 as recently as 2011.

So why does Angie’s List appear to be on the ropes?

An in-depth post by the Indianapolis Business Journal suggests why: Angie’s List, founded in 1995, has never turned a profit. A report released last October, for instance, showed the company had a net loss of $13.5 million for the third quarter of 2013, following a loss of $18.5 million for the same period a year prior.

Why hasn’t all its growth translated into profits? Much of it can be attributed to (presumably expensive) expansion into new markets; the service is now available in 253 areas of the country, compared with around 200 in 2012.

More to the point, Angie’s List has been forced to scale back the amount charged for each membership as Yelp, Google+ Local, TripAdvisor, and other user review sites have flourished with an open-to-everyone, completely free business model. The most recent Angie’s List report states that from 2010 onward, the average annual membership fee was just over $12, down from more than $36 a decade earlier.

And the amount members pay continues to drop. A Wall Street Journal post published a year ago detailed Angie’s List’s plans to cut membership fees in several key cities to around $10 annually. Today, it’s a cinch to head over to an online coupon site to find offers for 30% or 40% off, bringing the cost of a one-year subscription down as low as $5.39.

Meanwhile, the company recently agreed to pay a $2.8 million settlement to end a lawsuit alleging it had re-upped members without proper notice and at higher rates than subscribers were led to believe.

Perhaps an even bigger problem is that the trustworthiness of Angie’s List is increasingly being called into question. Critics point out that a growing portion of Angie’s List revenues come from service providers paying for advertising on the site—the same service providers that are supposed to be rated in non-biased fashion by members. “Almost 70 percent of the company’s revenues come from advertising purchased by the service providers being rated,” a 2013 Consumer Reports investigation explained.

CR called out in particular the practice of allowing advertisers with B or better ratings to be pushed to the top of search results as questionable at best. “We think the ability of A- and B-rated companies to buy their way to the top of the default search results skews the results… They get 12 times more profile views than companies that don’t buy ads.”

To be fair, many Angie’s List competitors also actively solicit the businesses reviewed on their sites as advertisers. Yelp is known to flood restaurants, doctors’ offices, and other small businesses with pleas to advertise on the site, to the point that one restaurant in the San Francisco area launched a bizarre “Hate Us on Yelp” campaign to undermine the user-review site. (Despite claims that it engages in what amounts to extortion, Yelp has repeatedly stated that advertising doesn’t affect a business’s ratings in any way.) Porch.com, an online network created to help homeowners find contractors and other home improvement services, launched a partnership referral system with Lowe’s this year. While businesses don’t pay to be listed, the website gives extra visibility to contractors that pay for a premium membership, such as making it easier to see their phone numbers in search results. (Full disclosure: Porch contributes articles on home improvement to Money.com.)

For the time being, Angie’s List seems to have figured out how low it must cut membership fees in order to keep subscriber numbers from falling. But the strategy hardly seems sustainable, especially if the perception that the service’s ratings aren’t trustworthy continues to spread. Convincing consumers it’s worthwhile to pay for a review-and-ratings service when there are free alternatives is tough enough. It’s borderline impossible to convince them that doing so is worth the money when there’s reason to question whether the ratings are entirely legitimate.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described how Porch.com enhances the visibility of contractors who pay for a premium profile on their site.

Lower fuel costs helped Spirit Airlines' stock soar this week, and may even mean cheaper flights for travelers. Just don't expect Spirit's fees to disappear anytime soon, or ever.

A sizable chunk of travelers hate Spirit Airlines and its cramped-seat, a la carte, fee-crazed business model. In a new MONEY poll, voters prefer the option of flying with snakes on a plane over flying on a Spirit plane. Yet investors sure are loving the company’s third quarter results, which were made public on Wednesday. Spirit’s adjusted net income for the quarter is up 28% year-over-year, while total operating revenue was up 14%. The results bumped the price of Spirit stock up more than 7% on Wednesday, and Morgan Stanley just named Spirit its top growth airline pick for investors.

What’s particularly interesting is that Spirit’s performance and its plans for expansion are likely to benefit non-investors as well. The airline’s sales pitch to travelers is based almost exclusively on the low prices of its “Bare Fare” flights, and analysts see the stars aligning that will allow Spirit to cut base fares even lower. It’s possible that this turn of events could even help out travelers who would never fly with Spirit Airlines—because other carriers may feel forced to scale back fares, or at least slow the pace of fare hikes, in order to compete with Spirit’s cheaper flights.

Only three weeks ago, Spirit stock dipped significantly because of fears that higher company costs—including tax payments and the hiring and training of more pilots—would be headwinds getting in the way of higher profit margins. Yet a Motley Fool post pointed out this week:

Looking ahead to Q4 and 2015, these cost headwinds are likely to turn into tailwinds due to 1) lower jet fuel prices; 2) faster growth; and 3) a shift toward larger, more efficient aircraft.

Airlines typically spend about 30% of their revenue on fuel. So when gas prices drop like they have been lately, it’s a huge deal for the airline industry. For the most part, airlines will simply pocket the fuel-cost savings rather than pass any of it along to travelers in the form of cheaper flight prices.

But there’s reason to believe that Spirit Airlines is different. After all, the airline’s main (only?) selling point is that the base price of flights is cheap, so it will lower fares to attract more customers whenever a price cut can be justified. In addition to lower fuel costs, Spirit is expanding rapidly (28 new routes added between August 2014 and April 2015), and has been getting more productivity out of planes and employees. All of which helps the company lower costs—and enables it to make its product more attractive to customers by lowering prices.

In a conference call with investors yesterday, Spirit CEO Ben Baldanza said that’s essentially what the airline plans on doing. “The customers we seek to attract overwhelmingly ranked total price as the most important variable when choosing an airline,” Baldanza said. As Spirit manages to keep the costs of fuel and other expenses low, “that’s a great thing for our model, and that means even lower fares for customers and a good thing for investors.”

And who knows? Spirit’s expansion and low-fare strategy may very well compel the larger airlines to compete more on flight prices as well. Now that fuel prices are shrinking and airlines are enjoying record-high profits, it certainly wouldn’t kill them to do so.

Basketball fans are showing their excitement—or lack thereof—for the start of the NBA regular season in the form of home opener tickets selling for a small fraction of face value.

The 2014-2015 NBA regular season commences on Tuesday, October 28, and clearly, fans in some markets are excited enough to see their teams back in action that they’re willing to pay top dollar for seats. Four of the top five most expensive NBA games this week, as rounded up by the ticket resale and research site TiqIQ, all currently have “get-in” prices starting over $100 and average ticket prices of $300+.

Tonight’s priciest game is, fittingly, the home opener of the NBA champion San Antonio Spurs, when there will be a ceremony for the team to receive its championship rings; as of Tuesday, the cheapest tickets were selling for just under $200 on the secondary market, according to StubHub. Overall, the most expensive home opener is, unsurprisingly, Thursday’s game in Cleveland, when the Cavaliers get to officially welcome back the return of prodigal son LeBron James, who is playing once again for his hometown team in regular season action. Earlier this week, TiqIQ data indicated that the average price for tickets to Thursday’s Knicks-Cavaliers game was $753, while as of Tuesday the cheapest seat offered at StubHub was around $900.

It’s a very different story, however, in some of the other NBA arenas around the country. Tickets for the home openers for no fewer than nine NBA teams (Dallas, Denver, Indiana, Memphis, Minnesota, New Orleans, Orlando, Utah, Washington) are going for around $15 or less, according to StubHub, while seats for Wednesday’s matchups of Philadelphia 76ers versus the Indiana Pacers and the Minnesota Timberwolves versus the Memphis Grizzlies are available for around $5. If fans are truly excited about the start of the season, they’re not demonstrating it with a willingness to pay good money to see the games in person.

There’s nothing new about NBA teams struggling to fill arenas, even when special ticket deals and secondary market resale sites cause prices to plunge. What’s noteworthy, however, is that the demand for tickets is so low for teams’ home opener games, when the season is (theoretically) filled with promise and when fan enthusiasm should presumably be high.

Fans are staying home for any number of reasons, including but not limited to: 1) the local team stinks; 2) the local team is not fun to watch; 3) the season is so long that the games don’t seem to matter; and 4) going to games is too much of a hassle and too expensive. Even when ticket prices are low, the cost of going to a game can be high, once parking, souvenirs, and a few $5 hot dogs and $7 beers are added in. Interestingly enough, parking passes for this week’s Indiana Pacers home opener were selling at a higher price than the cheapest tickets ($8.85 vs. $4.95), according to StubHub.

Yet the NBA doesn’t seem particularly concerned about its teams playing in arenas where broad swaths of seats are unfilled, nor about what it means in the grand scheme of things when fans are reluctant to part with a mere $5 to attend games. A big reason why that is so is because the league just signed a $24 billion contract allowing various TV networks to air its games. The new deal nearly triples broadcast revenues for the NBA. Look for broadcasts to focus squarely on the action on the court, with very few shots of the upper sections occupied by … nobody.

This week, the national average for a gallon of regular should hit $3, a low that hasn't been reached since 2010. That means consumers will have more money to spend during the holidays, right?

Not so fast.

Yes, gas prices have been plummeting in the U.S., bringing much-welcome relief to household budgets. Average prices around the country reached a new low for 2014 recently, and then just kept on falling, hitting a low not seen since 2010. As of Monday, according to AAA, the national average stood at $3.04 per gallon after falling 32 days in a row, making prices at the pump 25¢ cheaper compared to the same time one year ago. With prices falling roughly 1¢ per day (the average was down to $3.03 on Tuesday), we’re on pace to reach the all-important psychological mark of $3 per gallon by the end of this week.

But let’s step back. Is the $3 mark—and cheaper gas prices in general—really all that important for the economy as a whole?

A GasBuddy post crunched some numbers, and found that Americans are collectively saving $110 million per day on gas compared to what we spent a year ago. The timing of decreasing gas prices would seem to bode well for retailers, which are hoping that some of that money that’s not being spent on gas will be spent instead on holiday purchases in the weeks ahead. Data from the research firm Deloitte indicates that retail holiday sales will rise 4% to 5% this year, or perhaps even higher considering that the average household could spend $260 less on gas for 2014 as a whole.

Retail analyst Mary Epner told CNBC recently that cheaper gas prices could wind up giving a boost to a few categories of retail in particular:

“A drop in gas prices should be great for Ross Stores, Walmart, and dollar stores (for consumers who must live paycheck to paycheck),” she said. “This also helps low-cost teen retailers, as most teens have a finite amount of money and they will usually opt to put gas in their cars before buying other things.”

Overall, however, cheaper gas prices shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as a holiday season savior for retail. As a recent Fortune post pointed out, gas prices had already begun their downward trajectory in September, but the month was basically a dud in terms of consumer spending. The effect of cheaper gas on holiday spending is expected to be minimal as well. At the higher end of the income spectrum, shoppers aren’t going to alter holiday spending based on gas prices shifting by 10% or even 20%. For middle- and low-income earners, stagnant wages, weak hiring, and higher costs for housing and health care are likely to far outweigh any “savings” that come via cheaper gas prices.

What’s more, as a Bloomberg News story noted, today’s shoppers have grown so accustomed to huge discounts that they’re programmed to ignore all but the most dramatic price slashings and promotions. Add in that over the past few years, drivers have seen gas prices retreat, rise, then retreat and rise again, so there’s an appropriate level of skepticism concerning the idea that we could be paying less for gas for the long haul.

Few people will head promptly to the mall and splurge because the price of a gallon of gas drops by a few pennies. Nor should they.

Free candy may not be in the cards for kids in your neck of the woods on Friday night—for odd reasons ranging from polar bears to high school football.

Strange things are known to happen around Halloween, and this season is no exception. Here are a few weird reasons your child might not be trick-or-treating on October 31 this year:

Polar Bears
The community of Arviat, on the Hudson Bay in far northern Canada, has decided it’s too dangerous for children to go trick-or-treating door to door because of the increased presence of polar bears in the area in late autumn. Kids are welcomed to visit the community hall instead on Halloween for face painting and a haunted house. Before assuming that one Halloween costume must be particularly popular up there, take note that no one in the area dresses in polar bear outfits because patrols on watch are instructed to scare bears off with rubber bullets. “Nobody dresses up as seals” either, one local political leader explained, because they’re what polar bears hunt and eat.

Alleged Cop Killer
Trick or treating has also been cancelled due to safety concerns in Barrett Township, Pa. In this instance, it’s because of worries about Eric Frein, who is suspected of killing one police officer and wounding another in a September ambush, and who is believed to be hiding in the woods outside town.

High School Football
This year, October 31 falls on a Friday—the day of the week that’s dominated by high school football in many parts of the country. To avoid a conflict, communities all over states including Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New Mexico have rescheduled trick-or-treating to a day other than Friday. Most towns pushed up trick-or-treating to Thursday, October 30, but some have postponed it until Saturday—meaning trick-or-treating in November.

They’re Too Old
Apparently, the arrival of teens demanding candy at strangers’ doors was enough to scare communities around the U.S.—notably, several in and around Virginia Beach, Va.—to put an age limit on when kids are too old for trick-or-treating. In most cases, laws allow only children ages 12 and under to go door-to-door in costume begging for candy, and it’s a class four misdemeanor if you break the rules.

Lottery sales have gone flat in several states, but not necessarily as a result of gamblers waking up to the fact that the house always wins.

Are people who had been accustomed to dropping a few bucks here and there on state lottery games experiencing “jackpot fatigue”? It sure looks that way, according to Stephen Martino, director of the Maryland State Lottery and Gaming Control Agency, who at a recent meeting noted an astonishing 41% dropoff in Powerball sales in the state last month, compared with September 2013. Paraphrasing Martino, the Baltimore Sun reported that “players may be becoming numb to soaring prize numbers,” and so they’re not buying lottery tickets at the blazing pace set in the past.

Maryland is not the only state where lottery sales are falling, flat, or just not measuring up to the projections offered by local gaming commissions. Sales of core lottery games declined in Ohio during the first half of 2014, for instance, while lottery sales in Kentucky are failing to measure up to what was drawn up in the state budget last spring. Meanwhile, once-torrid lottery sales have plateaued in Missouri, with profits for the fiscal 2014 year that are $21 million lower than the year prior. One expert told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the falloff in lottery sales in Missouri (and elsewhere) comes partly as a result of players getting bored with the games:

“It follows a life cycle like any product,” said Thomas Garrett, a University of Mississippi economist who studies lotteries. “You get this increase in sales. It peaks. People get used to it, and then you get this slowdown.”

In light of this concept, it makes sense that money spent at newer, up-and-coming video lottery terminals in states such as Ohio is rising, while traditional lottery games like instant tickets and Pick 3 and Pick 4 are on the decline. To boost sales and attract a new generation of lottery players, states are spending more on advertising and rolling out games that are sold in new ways (lottery ticket sales at gas station pumps and ATMs) and that are sold with themes favored by locals (college football teams, “Duck Dynasty”).

In addition to simple fatigue and a lack of excitement for the same old games, lottery sales have also been hurt by the spread of casinos, according to some research. This past summer, the Washington Post noted that lottery sales in Maryland had increased for 16 years in a row before casinos came to the state. And the recent opening of another casino in Maryland seems to have played some role in the September slump of Powerball tickets. “Those two industries [lottery and casinos] tend to be substitutes for each other,” one economist hired by Maryland to conduct a study on lottery sales explained to the Post.

At the same time, gambling industry supporters point out that while lottery sales in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania initially declined or went flat after casinos opened in the states, the drop was only a blip—and that sales are strong once again. The debate about how casinos impact lottery sales is raging in Massachusetts, where a Repeal the Casino campaign argues, among other things, “If the lottery takes the minimum expected hit of 10 percent from the introduction of casinos and slots, state lottery transferred as state aid to towns and cities will be reduced by about $90 million.” Casino supporters, on the other hand, say that such projections are based on outdated and flawed data, and that any effect of casinos on lottery sales is temporary.

Last week, the auto research site Edmunds.com was pressured by car dealerships to pull ads mocking the absurdity of haggling.

Edmunds.com is in the business of helping consumers who hate haggling. The site launched a Price Promise service in 2013, allowing drivers to go online and gather guaranteed final prices that will be honored by local car dealerships. This past summer, Edmunds took its anti-haggling campaign a step further by sponsoring a special Car Week that promised buyers upfront, haggle-free pricing on every vehicle on participating dealership lots.

Last week, Edmunds hit the anti-haggling theme once more, with the launch of a series of amusing online ads dubbed the “Absurdity of Haggling.” In the hidden-camera ads, a hired actor works the register at a supermarket and haggles over the price of milk, carrots, squash, and other groceries with unsuspecting customers. Understandably, the customers are confused and outraged when the “cashier” tosses out inflated prices ($9 for a quart of milk!) and resorts to classic car dealership maneuvers (“Let me call my manager…”) to get people to pay more than they should for groceries.

“You wouldn’t haggle for your groceries,” reads a line at the end of the ads, “so why do it when buying a car?”

Auto dealerships—which are partners with Edmunds.com and sell cars with the help of the site’s Price Promise tool—were not amused. Many found the ads insulting, and they pressured Edmunds to pull them. Edmunds didn’t put up much of a fight. “We are terminating the videos and getting back to working with our dealer partners to improve the car buying process for car shoppers around the country,” Edmunds President Seth Berkowitz said in a statement. “Some of our partners were deeply insulted, expressing that our attempt at humor reinforced outdated stereotypes. That was obviously never our intent.”

Though Edmunds pulled the ads, you can still find them online, like here:

It’s not surprising that car dealerships didn’t like these ads. (“Truth Hurts!” one online commenter noted. “Hits too close to home,” said another.) What is pretty amazing, however, is that some dealerships were insulted by the mere idea that haggling actually takes place during the car-buying transaction. “Negotiating prices on cars has always been expected by the consumer, and having it referred to as ‘haggling’ by a company that I am a customer of is insulting,” said Jeff Wyler, CEO of the Wyler group of dealerships, according to AdAge.

Right. Let that set in. We’re supposed to believe that there’s a big difference between “negotiating prices” and “haggling.” This despite the fact that these terms are routinely used interchangeably. What’s more, we’re supposed to believe that such (non-haggling) price negotiations take place only because that’s what the customer expects. This despite surveys like one published this past summer (by Edmunds) showing that 83% of consumers would prefer to avoid haggling over car prices.

Obviously, consumers believe that car dealerships engage in haggling—and the vast majority of us hate that’s it’s part of the process. So while dealerships find the Edmunds ads insulting, there’s something else that’s being insulted here as well: customers’ intelligence.

A low-fare airline called WOW just introduced new routes between the U.S. and Europe, with fares that are cheaper than what passengers are used to paying just for taxes and fees on transatlantic flights.

WOW Air is a small, low-cost carrier based in Iceland that just made a power move that could disrupt the lucrative—some say absurdly overpriced—transatlantic flight market in a big way. This week, the airline’s U.S. site went live, advertising specials as low as $99 each way, taxes and fees included, on routes between the U.S. and Europe.

Initial transatlantic service connects capital city Reykjavik to Boston-Logan and Baltimore-Washington (BWI) airports. Flights to and from Boston launch in March 2015, and BWI follows in June. WOW offers service from Reykavik-Keflavik onward to London (Gatwick) and Copenhagen as well, so passengers aren’t limited to visiting Iceland.

As of Friday, the lowest fare advertised on the site was for flights from Boston to Reykjavik. Availability is limited at the cheapest prices, but we were able to (theoretically) book a round trip in April 2015 for $246 ($99 going, $147 on the return), all taxes and fees included. For the sake of comparison, a round trip on Icelandair with the same route and dates was running $675 at last check.

Earlier this week the travel blog Jaunted was able to secure an April flight on WOW from Boston to Copenhagen (by way of Reykjavik) for $99, but it looks like such insanely cheap fares are already sold out. Even so, without too much hassle we were able to find flights next spring on the route that are bargains compared to the competition. For instance, you could conceivably book a round trip Boston-Copenhagen flight in May for around $450—roughly half the price of what you’d find for the same itinerary at any major travel search engine.

WOW’s fares from Washington (BWI) to Reykjavik start at $146 each way, while flights from BWI to London are currently being advertised from $195. Even if the cheapest fares sell out quickly, the (higher-priced) seats on WOW that are still available are likely to be much less expensive than flights with major airlines.

As you’d guess, WOW customers don’t get many extras with the rock-bottom prices they’re paying. Passengers must pay for both checked and carryon luggage, and services like food, beverages, and extra legroom are available only to customers who pay above and beyond the base ticket price.

WOW’s venture into the transatlantic market comes a little over a year after another northern European upstart, Norwegian Air, emerged on the scene with sub-$500 flights between the U.S. and Europe. The world’s largest airlines seem to have successfully thwarted Norwegian Air’s plans to expand its transatlantic presence, but the carrier is still flying a handful of U.S.-Europe routes and is still advertising fares far cheaper than any of the industry’s big players—as low as $169 each way between New York-JFK and Oslo and $189 for nonstop flights all the way from Oakland, Calif., to Stockholm, Sweden.

Like WOW, Norwegian Air lists fares with all mandatory taxes and fees included. That—as well as the long-awaited rise of low-cost competitors on transatlantic flights in general—is music to budget travelers’ ears.

Read next: The Secret to Getting a Ridiculously Cheap Thanksgiving Flight