BA overbooking - a bad experience
hummingbird
I flew back from Bangkok to London on BA0010 last week.
At Bangkok's new airport, I arrived 3.5 hrs before my flight and
joined an existing queue to check in.
About three hours before my flight, BA opened up one check-in counter
and asked for Qantas passengers to come forward for check-in. Since
this was a BA flight it puzzled me. Clearly something odd was going on
as BA passengers were not being checked-in at all.
One hour later it became apparent from a BA memo circulating along
the passenger queue that BA had overbooked this flight by 90 seats
and were asking for BA passengers to accept an alternative travel
package to London (overnight hotel in Bangkok, flight on China
Airlines to Hong Kong [3h40m] the following morning and a flight from
Hong Kong to London on BA the following evening - plus a card worth
£250 which BA claimed could be used to w/d the cash in *many ATMs*).
It was not until this fiasco unfolded that I realised my flight to
London had in fact started in Sydney/Australia and stopped in Bangkok
only to refuel and pick up additional passengers. Too bad my agent
(Expedia online) don't make this info available when booking as it
might have influenced which flight/airline I booked with. I am never
happy to board a flight which originated elsewhere.
It took me a total of three hours to get checked in and I was
subjected to severe pressure by check-in staff to take the alternative
package or to go on a Qantas 'standby' list. I explained this was
unacceptable to me.
I insisted that I wished to fly on the flight I booked and finally got
my boarding pass 25mins before scheduled flight departure, so had no
time to visit duty free since the boarding gate is 20min walk from the
check-in counter.
When I arrived at the boarding gate, there was a small delay before
boarding. Sadly, my seat assignment turned out to be next to a foreign
guy who was obviously too large and unable to limit himself to one
seat, so he overflowed into my seat space and that of the young woman
next to him. I spoke to the cabin bossman before take-off and asked if
I could be reseated but he said "unlikely" because the flight was 100%
full. This proved to be accurate - not a single empty seat to be seen.
We then sat in this BA 747-400 for two more hours before take-off
while 35 other passengers were processed through check-in/immigration
etc. According to the captain, they were late arrivals but we later
learned that these were people who had been bumped off the same
flight the previous night following its cancellation and had spent the
night/day in a Bangkok hotel while BA ran around like headless
chickens trying to find alternative seats for them to London. One of
these passengers was on my BA flight but his wife had been put on a
Qantas flight!
Unofficially, the previous night's flight was apparently cancelled as
it had developed technical problems soon after leaving Sydney and had
to put down in Bali, hence the number of Bangkok passengers stranded
and BA's attempts to roll-over the problem to my flight to avoid the
24hr disruption rule on compensation. I have no idea what happened to
the previous night's passengers who were dumped in Bali.
We were scheduled to take off at 00.10am but eventually got airborn
at 02.15am, arriving back at LHR at 07.30am instead of 05.50am local.
A total of 15 hours on the plane plus 3.5 hours to get checked-in.
Is this modern day air travel?
Bobs your uncle
interesting British Airways 'tactics' in there that were used to try and
stop him from ever starting Virgin Atlantic.
Stick to Qantas, give BA the flick I say!
"hummingbird" <RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:kvc5u2p2ll76bl7jm...@4ax.com...
Thur
> One hour later it became apparent from a BA memo circulating along
> the passenger queue that BA had overbooked this flight by 90 seats
> and were asking for BA passengers to accept an alternative travel
> package to London (overnight hotel in Bangkok, flight on China
> Airlines to Hong Kong [3h40m] the following morning and a flight from
> Hong Kong to London on BA the following evening - plus a card worth
[snip]
> We were scheduled to take off at 00.10am but eventually got airborn
> at 02.15am, arriving back at LHR at 07.30am instead of 05.50am local.
> A total of 15 hours on the plane plus 3.5 hours to get checked-in.
An obese guy sitting next to you can happen everywhere. Further, Ia delay of
1h40m is not that huge... The alternative offered for the overbooking isn't
that bad etiher; I think I would have taken it. I don't see what's the "bad
experience" at BA's fault here. You wrote you arrived 3h30m before scheduled
departure time to the check-in, so why you mention that again is beyond me.
Greetings,
-tada!
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
If you can't see the bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
these days: 3-4 hours to check-in, ineffective security checks, shoes
off at LHR, personal items in plastic bags, inadequate seating, flight
delays, damaged luggage, lost luggage etc etc.
Yes, I arrived 3.5hrs before my flight time but *not* to stand in
a queue waiting for BA to get their act together. I intended to look
around the new Bangkok airport before my flight.
It's quite likely that if I'd arrived - say - only two hours before my
flight, I'd have had no choice but to accept the BA offer as I'd have
been at the wrong end of a long queue.
Yes, obese people can appear anywhere it's true. But surely the point
is that if I have bought and paid for a complete seat, I should get
it - not 2/3rds of it - on a 13hr flight. Is it not time for airlines
to bite the bullet and insist that obese people buy two tickets?;
something which already happens in one or two US airlines afaik.
No, there was no way the BA offer was acceptable to me.
Firstly, I flew out to HK four weeks earlier and didn't want to go
back there (flight time 3h40m). Secondly, I needed to get home asap
as during my month long absence my father was taken into hostpital
and suffered two heart attacks.
True, a 1h40m delay into London was not too bad as you say, but that
ignores that BA had overbooked the flight, allocated me a seat next to
an obese person and kept us on board for two hours before take off.
...I'm grateful that BA managed to get my luggage on the right plane.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>You want to read Richard Branson's Autobiograpy Part One. It has some
>interesting British Airways 'tactics' in there that were used to try and
>stop him from ever starting Virgin Atlantic.
Yeah, I heard about some of those tricks at the time.
>Stick to Qantas, give BA the flick I say!
I suspect that my personal experience is not unique to BA these days.
I hear that overbooking flights is quite common in the US.
Tchiowa
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:38:58 +0100 'Thur'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> One hour later it became apparent from a BA memo circulating along
> >> the passenger queue that BA had overbooked this flight by 90 seats
> >> and were asking for BA passengers to accept an alternative travel
> >> package to London (overnight hotel in Bangkok, flight on China
> >> Airlines to Hong Kong [3h40m] the following morning and a flight from
> >> Hong Kong to London on BA the following evening - plus a card worth
> >> £250 which BA claimed could be used to w/d the cash in *many ATMs*.
> >[snip]
> >> We were scheduled to take off at 00.10am but eventually got airborn
> >> at 02.15am, arriving back at LHR at 07.30am instead of 05.50am local.
> >> A total of 15 hours on the plane plus 3.5 hours to get checked-in.
> >An obese guy sitting next to you can happen everywhere. Further, Ia delay of
> >1h40m is not that huge... The alternative offered for the overbooking isn't
> >that bad etiher; I think I would have taken it. I don't see what's the "bad
> >experience" at BA's fault here. You wrote you arrived 3h30m before scheduled
> >departure time to the check-in, so why you mention that again is beyond me.
>
> If you can't see the bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
> you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
> these days: 3-4 hours to check-in, ineffective security checks, shoes
> off at LHR, personal items in plastic bags, inadequate seating, flight
> delays, damaged luggage, lost luggage etc etc.
I disagree with you completely. Thur was right. For the record I fly
over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of
decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like. I would *not*
describe it as a nightmare. I think you've over-reacted.
There was a cancelled flight. That is going to create seating
problems. It's a reality in flying. It happens. Be prepared for it.
Some of your complaints are "off the board". Examples:
Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
comfort. So you get what you pay for.
As Thur points out, obese passengers are a fact of life. I sympathize
with you. Qantas should make people pay for 2 seats if they can't fit
into one.
Agent information: You complained that your "agent" (Expedia) didn't
give you enough information. Expedia is *not* a travel agency. People
use Expedia so they can save the cost of travel agents. You chose to
do that then complain because they didn't give you the service that
you chose not to pay for. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Flight delays: Come on. 1 1/2 hours on what amounts to a 24 hour
flight (roughly). 3 continents, 2 days. You don't think that's a bit
of an over-reaction?
Lost or damaged bags: In 3 million miles of air travel the worst
damage to my luggage was a couple of broken handles. In each case it
was cheap luggage. Never lost a bag. A couple of times there were
delays, but no losses.
Yes it does happen sometime. But considering the volume of luggage
it's pretty rare.
3-4 hours check-in: I just don't get that. It rarely takes me more
than 15 minutes. But I can see that some flights do get long lines at
check-in. No where near 3-4 hours, but an hour at least. However
that's in the Economy line. Again, this is a choice you made. You pay
for reduced service, you get reduced service, what is the complaint?
> Yes, I arrived 3.5hrs before my flight time but *not* to stand in
> a queue waiting for BA to get their act together.
Many airlines don't open their check-in counters more than 2 or 2 1/2
hours before flight time. So you did, in fact, ask for an extra hour
or more wait time.
In my opinion it's worth it. I always try to get to the airport early.
Don't like surprises. But if you get there early plan on accepting the
fact that you are there early (!) and thus will have to kill some
time.
ant
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:30:39 GMT 'Bobs your uncle'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
> > Stick to Qantas, give BA the flick I say!
>
> I suspect that my personal experience is not unique to BA these days.
> I hear that overbooking flights is quite common in the US.
It is *very* common. Whenever I catch a US domestic connection, there's a
mild riot at the gate as anxious people line up hoping for a seat, or they
ask for volunteers to let their seats go. The compensation is miserable,
too. It is only worth taking if you live in the town as there's no offer of
accommodation or anything.
If they tried that in Australia, there'd be an explosion.
--
ant
Don't try to email me;
I'm borrowing the spammer du jour's addy
Jim Ley
>Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
>small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
>for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
>Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
>slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
>comfort. So you get what you pay for.
Especially as it was a BA long haul flight, so there was going to be
an Economy Plus seat available without paying the full Business class
fare.
Jim.
Sanja
"hummingbird" wrote in message
>A bad experience ...
(cut)
I've had a bad experience with Air China a month ago
Sanja
"Sanja" wrote in message
> I've had a bad experience with Air China a month ago
Oups ... I've clicked "send" unintentionaly.
Sorry guys. :-(
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>> >"hummingbird" wrotenews:kvc5u2p2ll76bl7jm...@4ax.com...
>> >> One hour later it became apparent from a BA memo circulating along
>> >> the passenger queue that BA had overbooked this flight by 90 seats
>> >> and were asking for BA passengers to accept an alternative travel
>> >> package to London (overnight hotel in Bangkok, flight on China
>> >> Airlines to Hong Kong [3h40m] the following morning and a flight from
>> >> Hong Kong to London on BA the following evening - plus a card worth
>> >> £250 which BA claimed could be used to w/d the cash in *many ATMs*.
>> >[snip]
>> >> We were scheduled to take off at 00.10am but eventually got airborn
>> >> at 02.15am, arriving back at LHR at 07.30am instead of 05.50am local.
>> >> A total of 15 hours on the plane plus 3.5 hours to get checked-in.
>> >An obese guy sitting next to you can happen everywhere. Further, Ia delay of
>> >1h40m is not that huge... The alternative offered for the overbooking isn't
>> >that bad etiher; I think I would have taken it. I don't see what's the "bad
>> >experience" at BA's fault here. You wrote you arrived 3h30m before scheduled
>> >departure time to the check-in, so why you mention that again is beyond me.
>>
>> If you can't see the bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
>> you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
>> these days: 3-4 hours to check-in, ineffective security checks, shoes
>> off at LHR, personal items in plastic bags, inadequate seating, flight
>> delays, damaged luggage, lost luggage etc etc.
>I disagree with you completely.
Too bad. The world is full of defeatists who accept anything that's
thrown at them. My original post was intended to generate some debate
about how the airlines run their business as much as to complain about
my recent experience with British Airways.
IMHO it's long overdue that governments need to introduce some sort
of passenger charter which defines the minimum standard of travel on
airlines. Currently, airlines are a law unto themselves and get away
with treating passengers like cash cows involved in a race to the
bottom in order to increase passenger numbers and profits.
>Thur was right.
Not so. His comments were more defeatism.
>For the record I fly
>over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of
>decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like.
Yippy for you. I have also done *a lot* of flying in my life but I
don't see what that's got to do with it.
>I would *not*
>describe it as a nightmare. I think you've over-reacted.
IYO. You have obviously missed the points of my original post.
>There was a cancelled flight.
I never said that - only that cancellation was touted unofficially.
British Airways in Bangkok made *no* mention of a cancelled flight.
Recall that their Bangkok memo only mentioned *overbooking*.
>That is going to create seating
>problems. It's a reality in flying. It happens. Be prepared for it.
I'm well aware that if there is a cancellation, it will cause some
disruption.
I'm usually interested to know what has caused the cancellation,
whether it's for genuine tech reasons or some commercial reason
(airlines sometimes cancel a flight for consolidation reasons).
I'm also interested in how the airline deal with the problem.
Again, recall that BA never mentioned cancellation, just overbooking.
>Some of your complaints are "off the board". Examples:
>
>Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
>small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
>for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
>Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
>slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
>comfort. So you get what you pay for.
Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.
The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
cost in Economy" as you say.
I would usually happily pay a premium on long haul flights for a
larger seat with more space but this isn't available on most airlines.
Business and first are way too expensive.
It is my opinion that airlines cram too many seats into their planes
to maximise numbers and profits.
Again, you seem to be missing the points of my original post which
are as much a criticism of many airlines as they are of BA ...seats
and the space around them is frankly not adequate, and certainly for
anybody who is slightly larger than average. This knocks onto other
passengers, as in my case.
It is *not* passengers who have created the current model of airline
seating, it is the airlines themselves chasing numbers and profits.
It's almost as though airlines are involved in a race to the bottom.
>As Thur points out, obese passengers are a fact of life. I sympathize
>with you. Qantas should make people pay for 2 seats if they can't fit
>into one.
Yes, obese people are a fact of life but it is the responsibility of
the airlines to deal with that issue. They *choose* not to and
instead dump the problem onto other passengers who end up not even
getting the small seat and tight space they have paid for.
That is unacceptable IMHO.
>Agent information: You complained that your "agent" (Expedia) didn't
>give you enough information.
I mentioned that it was "too bad" Expedia don't provide this
information. I have also mentioned it to Expedia directly via e-mail.
They may look into it to improve customer satisfaction.
>Expedia is *not* a travel agency. People
>use Expedia so they can save the cost of travel agents.
I never said Expedia were a *travel* agency.
I use Expedia because it's a convenient Internet based agent that I've
used many times before without a problem in terms of buying tickets.
>You chose to
>do that then complain because they didn't give you the service that
>you chose not to pay for. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
That is a rubbish distortion of my comments.
I simply said that it would be helpful if Expedia indicated on their
website where a flight originates from as it might affect a person's
choice when booking. Expedia already indicate where a flight is by
a partner airline. Adding the flight origin wouldn't be too difficult
but I suspect it's a piece of information that airlines try hard not
to reveal for commercial reasons.
>Flight delays: Come on. 1 1/2 hours on what amounts to a 24 hour
>flight (roughly). 3 continents, 2 days. You don't think that's a bit
>of an over-reaction?
Not at all ... and I don't know where you get the idea that it's
roughly a 24hr flight. Bangkok to London non-stop is about 13hrs
...unless you are sitting on the plane for an additional 2hrs before
take-off as I was.
If you study my original post, I did not complain about the arrival
delay but the various problems which preceded it.
>Lost or damaged bags: In 3 million miles of air travel the worst
>damage to my luggage was a couple of broken handles. In each case it
>was cheap luggage. Never lost a bag. A couple of times there were
>delays, but no losses.
Yippy for you. I have had bags slashed by box cutters, lost baggage,
delayed baggage and damaged baggage over the years. Recent fiascos at
London Heathrow T4 with BA baggage is testimony that airlines need to
upgrade their handling of passenger baggage.
>Yes it does happen sometime. But considering the volume of luggage
>it's pretty rare.
Agreed but that doesn't excuse the poor management which occurs.
>3-4 hours check-in: I just don't get that. It rarely takes me more
>than 15 minutes. But I can see that some flights do get long lines at
>check-in. No where near 3-4 hours, but an hour at least. However
>that's in the Economy line. Again, this is a choice you made. You pay
>for reduced service, you get reduced service, what is the complaint?
If you read my original post, you might notice that 3hrs to check-in
was caused by the fact that BA were not checking people in for reasons
which were not immediately apparent until they came out and revealed
that the flight had been overbooked. I agree that 3hrs is unusual but
I have rarely checked-in in 15mins as you describe. That sounds like
pure fantasy.
FYI - when I started that trip I flew from London to Hong Kong and
checked-in online with BA 24hrs before my flight as they encourage.
The BA website informed me to drop my check-in bag at the 'Fast Bag
Drop Off' counter. This looked like a great idea but when I arrived at
the airport, it was clear to me that there was no FBDO counter and I
had to queue at the regular counter. What time did I save? Nothing.
I queued for 45mins.
Also FYI - I checked-in at Phuket Thailand later for an internal
flight to Bangkok and it took me 20mins while I waited for *one*
female passenger to check-in and flaff around.
How you manage to check-in in 15mins for your flights is a mystery.
>> Yes, I arrived 3.5hrs before my flight time but *not* to stand in
>> a queue waiting for BA to get their act together.
>
>Many airlines don't open their check-in counters more than 2 or 2 1/2
>hours before flight time. So you did, in fact, ask for an extra hour
>or more wait time.
I ask for nothing except to be checked-in as quickly as possible.
In the UK we are told to arrive at least 3-4 hours before our flights
to go through security etc but it's clear to me that the real reason
is to stand in check-in queues.
>In my opinion it's worth it. I always try to get to the airport early.
>Don't like surprises. But if you get there early plan on accepting the
>fact that you are there early (!) and thus will have to kill some
>time.
It was my intention to arrive at Bangkok airport early so I had time
to look around at the new Suvarnabhumi airport after check-in. Sadly,
this extra time was spent in a BA queue and sitting on a plane for
2hrs before take-off.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>hummingbird wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:30:39 GMT 'Bobs your uncle'
>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>> > Stick to Qantas, give BA the flick I say!
>>
>> I suspect that my personal experience is not unique to BA these days.
>> I hear that overbooking flights is quite common in the US.
>
>It is *very* common. Whenever I catch a US domestic connection, there's a
>mild riot at the gate as anxious people line up hoping for a seat, or they
>ask for volunteers to let their seats go. The compensation is miserable,
>too. It is only worth taking if you live in the town as there's no offer of
>accommodation or anything.
Thanks for that info. It's further evidence that airlines are running
their business to suit themselves, not in the customer interests.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
I was not offered a seat of that description when booking.
The only airline I know who offer that to Asia is Eva.
Jim Ley
I think in future, you should definately get yourself a travel agent
as you don't appear to be able to sort out travel yourself without the
problems you've described. BA0010 definately has a World Traveller
Plus cabin and a travel agent would've found it (quite how you managed
to not find it is a surprise to me)
Jim.
Jim Ley
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.
>The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
>first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
>cost in Economy" as you say.
Yes they do "World Traveller Plus" and it's available on BA0010, just
do a search on the BA website, your incompetence in finding this is a
good illustration of why many of the problems you found were down to
your mistake in not getting a travel agent when not capable of doing
the research yourself.
http://www.britishairways.com/travel/pop_cabininfo/public/en_gb
Jim.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:19:49 +0000, hummingbird
><RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:06:36 GMT 'Jim Ley'
>>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>>
>>>On 26 Feb 2007 16:52:42 -0800, "Tchiowa" <tchi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
>>>>small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
>>>>for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
>>>>Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
>>>>slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
>>>>comfort. So you get what you pay for.
>>>
>>>Especially as it was a BA long haul flight, so there was going to be
>>>an Economy Plus seat available without paying the full Business class
>>>fare.
>>
>>I was not offered a seat of that description when booking.
>>The only airline I know who offer that to Asia is Eva.
>I think in future, you should definately get yourself a travel agent
>as you don't appear to be able to sort out travel yourself without the
>problems you've described.
Rotfl.
>BA0010 definately has a World Traveller
>Plus cabin and a travel agent would've found it (quite how you managed
>to not find it is a surprise to me)
My ticket was already classified as World Traveller and I saw no seats
in the main cabin which were not ordinary economy or business class.
IOW nothing in between.
Any other bright ideas?
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:16:00 +0000, hummingbird
><RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.
>>The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
>>first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
>>cost in Economy" as you say.
>
>Yes they do "World Traveller Plus" and it's available on BA0010, just
>do a search on the BA website, your incompetence in finding this is a
>good illustration of why many of the problems you found were down to
>your mistake in not getting a travel agent when not capable of doing
>the research yourself.
You are obviously a joker. Further comment is largely unnecessary.
>http://www.britishairways.com/travel/pop_cabininfo/public/en_gb
Recall that I booked through Expedia.
Here's what that link says:
"Premier Economy
A quiet, separate economy cabin that offers an extra 7" leg room,
greater seat recline and your own seatback video screen and in-seat
laptop power. World Traveller Plus offers extra space at an economy
price."
My seat already had its own seatback video screen and in-seat laptop
power. I made no criticism of inadequate leg room or greater seat
recline.
Jim Ley
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>BA0010 definately has a World Traveller
>>Plus cabin and a travel agent would've found it (quite how you managed
>>to not find it is a surprise to me)
>
>My ticket was already classified as World Traveller and I saw no seats
>in the main cabin which were not ordinary economy or business class.
>IOW nothing in between.
WOLRD TRAVELLER _PLUS_ - you failed to do the research about the seats
available to you, you cocked up, use a travel agent in future, or get
better at searching yourself.
Jim.
Mike Hunt
That is possibly becaused you used Expedia.
BA have E+ seats
Mike Hunt
>
> My ticket was already classified as World Traveller and I saw no seats
> in the main cabin which were not ordinary economy or business class.
> IOW nothing in between.
WT and WT PLUS are NOT the same thing, hence the "PLUS".
Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Ask GWB about WMDs.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:00:26 +0000, hummingbird
You seem to have a comprehension problem Jim.
1. I repeat: I saw no seats on my BA flight which were not ordinary
World Traveller size or Business Class. I looked throughout the whole
cabin during our two our wait before take-off to see if there was an
alternative that I could move to. Further, it was not extra legroom or
a better reclining seat that I wanted ...just the space I had bought
and paid for. Is that unreasonable?
2. I repeat: when I booked my flight I was not offered such a seat.
3. I repeat: it is my personal view that economy seats are simply not
wide enough for people who are slightly larger than small-to-medium.
They don't have to be obese.
The passenger next to me encroaching on my space was not actually
obese as ano poster said but just a little larger than medium build.
Seat size is the root of the problem which airlines need to address.
Why you think a travel agent would do better than me is a mystery.
Are you in the travel agency business suffering from a downturn in
customers perhaps?
My travel plans in Asia went like clockwork ...four flights and three
hotels booked in HK, Phuket and Bangkok by myself. Not one hitch
except BA at Bangkok airport when I returned.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
Rotfl. I'm aware of the difference thanks.
I repeat: I saw no seats anywhere in the whole cabin which were not
ordinary economy or business class seats. That is sufficient evidence
to me that they did not exist ...unless you want to convince me that
they are located in the lavatory, on the roof or in the luggage hold.
I repeat: when I booked my flight I was not offered a WT Plus seat
option and since it only appears to provide extra legroom I wouldn't
have been interested anyway. What I want is extra *width*.
>Ask GWB about WMDs.
If you want to claim that WMDs really do exist in Iraq, be my guest.
Many people live in denial all their lives.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>hummingbird wrote:
I have no idea what E+ seats are.
Jim Ley
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>You seem to have a comprehension problem Jim.
Unless you were on a very different aircraft than normally flies the
route, there were World Traveller Plus seats, just because you didn't
see them, doesn't mean they weren't there - you weren't able to find
the booking class on the web either.
>2. I repeat: when I booked my flight I was not offered such a seat.
You weren't "offered" anything, you chose to use an execution only
service where you choose what to buy - expedia, not a travel agent,
hence my advice in future to use a travel agent.
>Why you think a travel agent would do better than me is a mystery.
Because you were too incompetent to find the seats available on a
flight, and are under the mistaken belief that there were only one
provider with economy plus serving asia.
Jim.
Tchiowa
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:16:13 GMT 'Jim Ley'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:00:26 +0000, hummingbird
> ><RHBIYDTNP...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> >>>BA0010 definately has a World Traveller
> >>>Plus cabin and a travel agent would've found it (quite how you managed
> >>>to not find it is a surprise to me)
> >>My ticket was already classified as World Traveller and I saw no seats
> >>in the main cabin which were not ordinary economy or business class.
> >>IOW nothing in between.
> >WOLRD TRAVELLER _PLUS_ - you failed to do the research about the seats
> >available to you, you cocked up, use a travel agent in future, or get
> >better at searching yourself.
>
> You seem to have a comprehension problem Jim.
>
> 1. I repeat: I saw no seats on my BA flight which were not ordinary
> World Traveller size or Business Class. I looked throughout the whole
> cabin during our two our wait before take-off to see if there was an
> alternative that I could move to.
I thought you told us that you asked the FA and was told that the
flight was 100% booked?
> Further, it was not extra legroom or
> a better reclining seat that I wanted ...just the space I had bought
> and paid for. Is that unreasonable?
>
> 2. I repeat: when I booked my flight I was not offered such a seat.
To me this is the core of what Jim and I (others?) are trying to tell
you.
Expedia is *NOT* a travel agency. A travel agent would (or should)
have told about other options. You chose a cheaper route and used an
on-line booking service. If you are not familiar enough with all the
intricacies of International travel then you're better off using a
travel agent. Not having access to information about other classes of
service is purely *your* fault. You chose economy travel booking
assistance. You got what you paid for.
> 3. I repeat: it is my personal view that economy seats are simply not
> wide enough for people who are slightly larger than small-to-medium.
<snip>
> Seat size is the root of the problem which airlines need to address.
And you are correct in that. But as I told you and has been widely
discussed, this is a decision made by the passengers. Airlines have
tried slightly wider seats in Coach with slightly more legroom and a
slightly higher price to cover that. Passengers voted with their
wallets not to have that.
> Why you think a travel agent would do better than me is a mystery.
I think the answer is obvious given your complaints and that fact that
some of them could have been avoided had you used a travel agency.
Tchiowa
> On 26 Feb 2007 16:52:42 -0800 'Tchiowa'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
> >> If you can't see the bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
> >> you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
> >> these days: 3-4 hours to check-in, ineffective security checks, shoes
> >> off at LHR, personal items in plastic bags, inadequate seating, flight
> >> delays, damaged luggage, lost luggage etc etc.
> >
> >I disagree with you completely.
>
> Too bad. The world is full of defeatists who accept anything that's
> thrown at them. My original post was intended to generate some debate
> about how the airlines run their business as much as to complain about
> my recent experience with British Airways.
There is a difference between being a defeatist and complaining
because the world doesn't work the way you want it to. The world was
not designed to make everything happen exactly the way you want it to.
Understanding that is part of "growing up".
Regardless of your intention behind your original post, it came off as
rather an immature whining session. Several people have tried to
explain reality to you in this thread and you won't listen to any of
us.
> IMHO it's long overdue that governments need to introduce some sort
> of passenger charter which defines the minimum standard of travel on
> airlines. Currently, airlines are a law unto themselves and get away
> with treating passengers like cash cows involved in a race to the
> bottom in order to increase passenger numbers and profits.
No need for government intervention. The free market will take care of
itself. And despite what you want, it is the free market that is
demanding smaller, cheaper seats.
> >Thur was right.
>
> Not so. His comments were more defeatism.
No. His comments are realism.
> >For the record I fly
> >over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of
> >decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like.
>
> Yippy for you. I have also done *a lot* of flying in my life but I
> don't see what that's got to do with it.
You had made a comment to another poster about him not having much
experience in flying. I pre-empted that claim.
> >I would *not*
> >describe it as a nightmare. I think you've over-reacted.
>
> IYO. You have obviously missed the points of my original post.
>
> >There was a cancelled flight.
>
> I never said that - only that cancellation was touted unofficially.
> British Airways in Bangkok made *no* mention of a cancelled flight.
> Recall that their Bangkok memo only mentioned *overbooking*.
You said that there was a cancelled flight from the previous day which
exacerbated the overbooking situation.
> >That is going to create seating
> >problems. It's a reality in flying. It happens. Be prepared for it.
>
> I'm well aware that if there is a cancellation, it will cause some
> disruption.
> I'm usually interested to know what has caused the cancellation,
> whether it's for genuine tech reasons or some commercial reason
> (airlines sometimes cancel a flight for consolidation reasons).
> I'm also interested in how the airline deal with the problem.
And how would that knowledge have affected your seat assignment or any
of the other complaints that you have?
> >Some of your complaints are "off the board". Examples:
>
> >Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
> >small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
> >for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
> >Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
> >slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
> >comfort. So you get what you pay for.
>
> Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.
Of course you did. You booked Economy. Are you telling me that BA
doesn't have Business or First?
> The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
> first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
> cost in Economy" as you say.
Read what I said. The customers have spoken that they won't pay for
more space so the airlines don't offer it.
> I would usually happily pay a premium on long haul flights for a
> larger seat with more space but this isn't available on most airlines.
> Business and first are way too expensive.
As they are for most people. But that is still a choice you make. You
put money as your first consideration ahead of service then complain
because of the choice you made.
> It is my opinion that airlines cram too many seats into their planes
> to maximise numbers and profits.
Of course they do. And, again, if passengers were willing to pay a bit
more for less seats on the plane the airlines would offer them. But
they don't so the airlines don't. You are a "victim" of the free
market.
> It is *not* passengers who have created the current model of airline
> seating, it is the airlines themselves chasing numbers and profits.
As driven by passenger demand.
> >Agent information: You complained that your "agent" (Expedia) didn't
> >give you enough information.
>
> I mentioned that it was "too bad" Expedia don't provide this
> information. I have also mentioned it to Expedia directly via e-mail.
> They may look into it to improve customer satisfaction.
>
> >Expedia is *not* a travel agency. People
> >use Expedia so they can save the cost of travel agents.
>
> I never said Expedia were a *travel* agency.
> I use Expedia because it's a convenient Internet based agent that I've
> used many times before without a problem in terms of buying tickets.
It's not an "agent" either. It's a site that sells tickets. You want
proper travel advice, use a travel agent.
Again, you made your choice and put money first before service. Then
you complain about the service.
> >You chose to
> >do that then complain because they didn't give you the service that
> >you chose not to pay for. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>
> That is a rubbish distortion of my comments.
It's a fairly exact analysis of what happened.
> >Flight delays: Come on. 1 1/2 hours on what amounts to a 24 hour
> >flight (roughly). 3 continents, 2 days. You don't think that's a bit
> >of an over-reaction?
>
> Not at all ... and I don't know where you get the idea that it's
> roughly a 24hr flight. Bangkok to London non-stop is about 13hrs
> ...unless you are sitting on the plane for an additional 2hrs before
> take-off as I was.
I thought it was Sydney-Bangkok-London which is around 24 hours
including layovers. You were just on part of the flight.
> >> Yes, I arrived 3.5hrs before my flight time but *not* to stand in
> >> a queue waiting for BA to get their act together.
>
> >Many airlines don't open their check-in counters more than 2 or 2 1/2
> >hours before flight time. So you did, in fact, ask for an extra hour
> >or more wait time.
>
> I ask for nothing except to be checked-in as quickly as possible.
> In the UK we are told to arrive at least 3-4 hours before our flights
> to go through security etc but it's clear to me that the real reason
> is to stand in check-in queues.
I see. It's a world wide conspiracy to make you stand in a line.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:02:12 +0000, hummingbird
><RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>You seem to have a comprehension problem Jim.
>
>Unless you were on a very different aircraft than normally flies the
>route, there were World Traveller Plus seats, just because you didn't
>see them, doesn't mean they weren't there - you weren't able to find
>the booking class on the web either.
I don't understand your point. I have already said that I saw no seats
other than economy and business classes and I walked the whole length
of the cabin before we took off ...*and* I wouldn't have been
interested in paying extra for a seat which gave me more legroom
anyway.
What I believe is most inadequate is the *width* of seats.
They are only suitable for people who are of small-to-medium build.
Anybody who is slightly wider than either of these tends to overflow
into the adjacent seats as I previously explained.
This is what happened to me on that BA flight. Got it yet?
I also don't understand your comment "you weren't able to find the
booking class on the web either". I didn't even look for such a thing.
>>2. I repeat: when I booked my flight I was not offered such a seat.
>
>You weren't "offered" anything, you chose to use an execution only
>service where you choose what to buy - expedia, not a travel agent,
>hence my advice in future to use a travel agent.
Nonsense.
Legally speaking, anything Expedia sells on its websites is an offer.
The Expedia website 'offers' a set of classes when booking flights.
FYI it appears in a drop down window.
The only options 'offered' to me were economy, business and first.
Got it yet?
It may be the case that high street travel agents have additional
options which Expedia don't offer ..I dunno. But I repeat: I would
not be interested in paying extra for a seat with more legroom.
What I believe is inadequate is the *width* of seats and the only
alternative to this is to buy business or first at massively higher
cost...and I'm sure the airlines know this very well. As I alluded
to earlier, airlines do not fit out their planes in the interests of
their passengers but in the interests of their own business bottom
line. The result is that Economy passengers are herded like cattle
and this encourages some of them to upgrade at much higher cost.
Do you understand how business works?
>>Why you think a travel agent would do better than me is a mystery.
>
>Because you were too incompetent to find the seats available on a
>flight, and are under the mistaken belief that there were only one
>provider with economy plus serving asia.
Insults will not get you very far with me Jim.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Feb 28, 6:02 am, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:16:13 GMT 'Jim Ley'
>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>>
>> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:00:26 +0000, hummingbird
>> ><RHBIYDTNP...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>> >>>BA0010 definately has a World Traveller
>> >>>Plus cabin and a travel agent would've found it (quite how you managed
>> >>>to not find it is a surprise to me)
>> >>My ticket was already classified as World Traveller and I saw no seats
>> >>in the main cabin which were not ordinary economy or business class.
>> >>IOW nothing in between.
>> >WOLRD TRAVELLER _PLUS_ - you failed to do the research about the seats
>> >available to you, you cocked up, use a travel agent in future, or get
>> >better at searching yourself.
>>
>> You seem to have a comprehension problem Jim.
>>
>> 1. I repeat: I saw no seats on my BA flight which were not ordinary
>> World Traveller size or Business Class. I looked throughout the whole
>> cabin during our two our wait before take-off to see if there was an
>> alternative that I could move to.
>
>I thought you told us that you asked the FA and was told that the
>flight was 100% booked?
Correct. I walked the cabin *before* speaking to the FA.
If you read my various posts you will spot the sequence of actions.
Your point is?
>> Further, it was not extra legroom or
>> a better reclining seat that I wanted ...just the space I had bought
>> and paid for. Is that unreasonable?
>>
>> 2. I repeat: when I booked my flight I was not offered such a seat.
>
>To me this is the core of what Jim and I (others?) are trying to tell
>you.
>
>Expedia is *NOT* a travel agency. A travel agent would (or should)
>have told about other options. You chose a cheaper route and used an
>on-line booking service. If you are not familiar enough with all the
>intricacies of International travel then you're better off using a
>travel agent. Not having access to information about other classes of
>service is purely *your* fault. You chose economy travel booking
>assistance. You got what you paid for.
I disagree with your assessment.
If you study my various posts you will note that one of my main gripes
is that economy seats are simply not wide enough for many people
...they don't have to be obese as you said, just slightly wider than
small-to-medium.
This is no accident by the airlines but a deliberate policy to install
inadequate seats in planes to maximise revenue and to encourage
passengers to upgrade to much higher cost seats in business and first.
>> 3. I repeat: it is my personal view that economy seats are simply not
>> wide enough for people who are slightly larger than small-to-medium.
>
><snip>
>
>> Seat size is the root of the problem which airlines need to address.
>
>And you are correct in that. But as I told you and has been widely
>discussed, this is a decision made by the passengers. Airlines have
>tried slightly wider seats in Coach with slightly more legroom and a
>slightly higher price to cover that. Passengers voted with their
>wallets not to have that.
I'm not aware of that and I was told some while ago that Eva offer
wider seats and they are always snapped up.
>> Why you think a travel agent would do better than me is a mystery.
>
>I think the answer is obvious given your complaints and that fact that
>some of them could have been avoided had you used a travel agency.
I doubt it very much.
My experience with travel agents over the years is not good.
Jim Ley
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>The Expedia website 'offers' a set of classes when booking flights.
>FYI it appears in a drop down window.
>The only options 'offered' to me were economy, business and first.
>
>Got it yet?
EXPEDIA is not a travel agent, USE a travel agent or a better website,
and then you might be able to find stuff...
Jim.
js
Here's my point. You are an immature little whiner.
the BA longhaul 747 has WTPlus seats. They are rows 17-21 on the 744
38 config and rows 28 - 31 on the 747 70 config.
The seats are in a 2-4-2 allowing for a 38 inch pitch and 18.5 inch
width - seven inches more pitch AND one inch WIDER than coach
(31/17.5).
Because you didn't see them is not because they weren't there.
> >> Further, it was not extra legroom or
> >> a better reclining seat that I wanted ...just the space I had bought
> >> and paid for. Is that unreasonable?
You got EXACTLY the seat you paid for.
> >> 2. I repeat: when I booked my flight I was not offered such a seat.
>
> >To me this is the core of what Jim and I (others?) are trying to tell
> >you.
>
> >Expedia is *NOT* a travel agency. A travel agent would (or should)
> >have told about other options. You chose a cheaper route and used an
> >on-line booking service. If you are not familiar enough with all the
> >intricacies of International travel then you're better off using a
> >travel agent. Not having access to information about other classes of
> >service is purely *your* fault. You chose economy travel booking
> >assistance. You got what you paid for.
>
> I disagree with your assessment.
I totally agree with the assessment. The online booking sites such as
Expedia, Travelocity, and Orbitz do NOT offer premium economy as a
choice. The airlines do as do bonafide travel agencies.
> If you study my various posts you will note that one of my main gripes
> is that economy seats are simply not wide enough for many people
> ...they don't have to be obese as you said, just slightly wider than
> small-to-medium.
And the width of coach seats on the major airlines on mainline jets
(boeings in this case) have not changed over the years - its only your
fat arse that has.
> This is no accident by the airlines but a deliberate policy to install
> inadequate seats in planes to maximise revenue
If the seats were inadequate no one would buy them.
> and to encourage
> passengers to upgrade to much higher cost seats in business and first.
You want more space, pay for it like the rest of us.
> >> 3. I repeat: it is my personal view that economy seats are simply not
> >> wide enough for people who are slightly larger than small-to-medium.
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> Seat size is the root of the problem which airlines need to address.
>
> >And you are correct in that. But as I told you and has been widely
> >discussed, this is a decision made by the passengers. Airlines have
> >tried slightly wider seats in Coach with slightly more legroom and a
> >slightly higher price to cover that. Passengers voted with their
> >wallets not to have that.
>
> I'm not aware of that
Congratulations - you have identified your core problem.
> and I was told some while ago that Eva offer
> wider seats and they are always snapped up.
Yes - wider seats are purchased at higher prices - why? Because they
are BETTER!
> >> Why you think a travel agent would do better than me is a mystery.
>
> >I think the answer is obvious given your complaints and that fact that
> >some of them could have been avoided had you used a travel agency.
>
> I doubt it very much.
Considering your self-proclaimed lack of awareness, I'm surprised.
Even with my experience of upwards of 250K miles per year and over 5
million lifetime, I use a travel agent routinely, especially for
international routes.
> My experience with travel agents over the years is not good.- Hide quoted text -
And obviously when you act as your own agent your experience are
stellar.
Yeh, right.
You are one immature crybaby and even the most patient in this NG are
likely fed up. Me? My only hope is that you shut up and stop wasting
bandwidth.
js
redm...@sprynet.com
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
snip
>
>The Expedia website 'offers' a set of classes when booking flights.
>FYI it appears in a drop down window.
>The only options 'offered' to me were economy, business and first.
>
>Got it yet?
It is true that some of the discount web sites do not bring up
"premier economy" as a choice.
>
snip
>
>>>Why you think a travel agent would do better than me is a mystery.
>>
>>Because you were too incompetent to find the seats available on a
>>flight, and are under the mistaken belief that there were only one
>>provider with economy plus serving asia.
>
Booking on the BA web site does bring up the option of "premier
economy" which presents flights with World Traveller Plus. Curiously
when I tried it for some hypothetical dates bookings from BKK to LHR
show only Qantas outbound wiht no WT+ and BA back with WT+. Looking
at LHR-BKK-LHR has BA0009/BA0010 with WT+ both ways.
It is indeed a lesson on learning the services available and not
taking what one particular online broker "offers."
Also note according to SeatGuru the BA 744 WT+ seat has 7" more pitch
and 1" (for what it is worth) more width than WT.
Is it possible that you were actually boarded on a Quantas 747 with
only one economy service?
nada
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> Yes, obese people are a fact of life but it is the responsibility of
> the airlines to deal with that issue.
No it's the responsibility of the fat pigs to lose weight. I
agree there should be standards that don't allow obese people to
fly, because they are a danger to all the other pax. Some of
these 3-seat porkers couldn't make it out the exit door, and they
shouldn't allow them on the plane in the first place.
Dennis P. Harris
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> Adding the flight origin wouldn't be too difficult
> but I suspect it's a piece of information that airlines try hard not
> to reveal for commercial reasons.
They don't bother because it's usually irrelvant to anyone but
chronic whiners like you the customer from hell. You're the kind
of guy that would complain about the cheap rope while they're
tying the noose for your hanging.
You wanted a cheap seat, you got one. You knew how small they
were.
Dennis P. Harris
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> Thanks for that info. It's further evidence that airlines are running
> their business to suit themselves, not in the customer interests.
>
err... that's how corporations are intended to run, for the
benefit of their shareholders, not for the benefit of their
customers, their supposed home country, the world, or anyone
else.
folks need to remember constantly that corporations are a legal
construct designed to maximize the profits of the owners and
investors while shielding those owners and investors from legal
liability for their actions.
in order for corporations to achieve any kind of socially
redeeming purpose, they must be regulated and legally
constrained.
only the most naive would think that corporations would be put
customer satisfaction ahead of shareholder greed, or long term
growth ahead of pumping up this quarter's stock price.
Tchiowa
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:18:25 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird
>
> > Thanks for that info. It's further evidence that airlines are running
> > their business to suit themselves, not in the customer interests.
>
> err... that's how corporations are intended to run, for the
> benefit of their shareholders, not for the benefit of their
> customers, their supposed home country, the world, or anyone
> else.
Very true.
> folks need to remember constantly that corporations are a legal
> construct designed to maximize the profits of the owners and
> investors while shielding those owners and investors from legal
> liability for their actions.
Utter nonsense.
> in order for corporations to achieve any kind of socially
> redeeming purpose, they must be regulated and legally
> constrained.
Even worse.
> only the most naive would think that corporations would be put
> customer satisfaction ahead of shareholder greed, or long term
> growth ahead of pumping up this quarter's stock price.
Some corporations act solely in the near term, as you suggest. Those
corporations tend not to last very long. Good corporations know that
taking care of the customer is the best way for a long term stable
company.
In the case of the seating that people complain about, the fact is
that the vast majority of customers have made it clear that they are
willing to accept cramped space and reduced service in order to get
lower costs. The low cost airlines proved that and the rest of the
industry is following their lead. This is customer satisfaction at its
best. Or worse, as you may view it.
A good example of proof of that is the dramatic *increase* in service
for Business and First Class. Those people have said that service is
more important than cost so they're getting improved service. The
economy passenger has made a different choice so the airlines are
accomodating them.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Feb 27, 5:16 pm, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2007 16:52:42 -0800 'Tchiowa'
>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>> >> If you can't see the bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
>> >> you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
>> >> these days: 3-4 hours to check-in, ineffective security checks, shoes
>> >> off at LHR, personal items in plastic bags, inadequate seating, flight
>> >> delays, damaged luggage, lost luggage etc etc.
>> >
>> >I disagree with you completely.
>>
>> Too bad. The world is full of defeatists who accept anything that's
>> thrown at them. My original post was intended to generate some debate
>> about how the airlines run their business as much as to complain about
>> my recent experience with British Airways.
>
>There is a difference between being a defeatist and complaining
>because the world doesn't work the way you want it to. The world was
>not designed to make everything happen exactly the way you want it to.
>Understanding that is part of "growing up".
Lol. An American joker...
You are being defeatist because you are essentially arguing in support
of the current airline model even though many people dread flying
nowadays because of the way they are treated and packed in like
cattle. Long haul flights can easily become a PITA of nightmare
proportions. Even upgrading to 1st may not guarantee a good flight
as someone pointed out to me a while ago.
If you carefully read my original post and my additional posts, you
will see that I have raised genuine concerns about the current model
of airline business. EG: I believe that airline seats are simply not
wide enough for anybody larger than small-to-medium width; airlines
are overbooking seats and causing passenger disruptions/delays etc.
It cannot be fair that a passenger buys a long haul ticket only to
find that he/she is seated next to another passenger who is larger
than medium and overflows their seat space for 13hrs.
And exactly what should an airline do in the BA situation in Bangkok
I first described? If I assume that BA had not overbooked my flight
*as they claimed* but were actually trying to find seats on my flight
for passengers dumped off the previous night's flight due to a techy
problem, should they roll over the problem to my flight? or should
they try to isolate it and deal with it without affecting my flight?
I was told that the reason they rolled it over was due to some 24hr
rule on compensation but I have no info on this.
Most of these things are not in the interest of passengers, only the
airlines. Airlines *choose* their business model and obviously it's
designed to maximise their bottom lines. IE they don't have to pack
seats into planes like a sardine can, but they choose to.
All I'm really saying is that there are problems with the current
model as evidenced by the growing numbers of people who dread flying
nowadays, but I have not actually set out my own ideas for change.
I wanted to see what other people had to say about it.
>Regardless of your intention behind your original post, it came off as
>rather an immature whining session. Several people have tried to
>explain reality to you in this thread and you won't listen to any of
>us.
People see what they want to see based upon the prism through which
they view events. One or two other posters saw my post for what it was
- a portrayal of the current state of flying.
>> IMHO it's long overdue that governments need to introduce some sort
>> of passenger charter which defines the minimum standard of travel on
>> airlines. Currently, airlines are a law unto themselves and get away
>> with treating passengers like cash cows involved in a race to the
>> bottom in order to increase passenger numbers and profits.
>
>No need for government intervention. The free market will take care of
>itself. And despite what you want, it is the free market that is
>demanding smaller, cheaper seats.
I disagree. A large part of the problem is that airlines are virtually
above the law across the world. The rights of passengers are pitiful.
Witness that the seating problem I described provides me with little
recourse.
And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the
American obsession with them. I could also rant on about the current
situation with Microsoft and its new Vista Op/Sys.
>> >Thur was right.
>>
>> Not so. His comments were more defeatism.
>
>No. His comments are realism.
No, his comments were a justification of the current reality.
>> >For the record I fly
>> >over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of
>> >decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like.
>>
>> Yippy for you. I have also done *a lot* of flying in my life but I
>> don't see what that's got to do with it.
>
>You had made a comment to another poster about him not having much
>experience in flying.
No I did not.
>> >I would *not*
>> >describe it as a nightmare. I think you've over-reacted.
>>
>> IYO. You have obviously missed the points of my original post.
>>
>> >There was a cancelled flight.
>>
>> I never said that - only that cancellation was touted unofficially.
>> British Airways in Bangkok made *no* mention of a cancelled flight.
>> Recall that their Bangkok memo only mentioned *overbooking*.
>
>You said that there was a cancelled flight from the previous day which
>exacerbated the overbooking situation.
Yes, I said it was mentioned "unofficially" (by other passengers).
I repeat: BA made no mention of a cancelled flight the previous day
- only that they had overbooked my flight. That's what their memo
revealed at check-in after we had queued for two hours or so.
It is true to say that while we were sitting on the plane for two
hours before take-off, the Captain of my flight casually mentioned a
*technical problem* which he assumed we knew about (but did not) and
that we were now waiting for 35 passengers who had arrived late at the
airport and were going through the airport immigration procedures etc.
This was not exactly true.
Unofficially, these passengers were still in the Bangkok hotel while
BA worked out how many of them could be seated onto my flight and
they were then transported to the airport.
This of course was a movable target as they pressured passengers on
my flight at check-in to bump off and accept an alternative travel
package. Hence the two hour delay before take-off.
Q, should BA have boarded my flight in the certain knowledge that we
would not take-off until the 35 other passengers had been brought to
the airport and ticketed?
>> >That is going to create seating
>> >problems. It's a reality in flying. It happens. Be prepared for it.
>>
>> I'm well aware that if there is a cancellation, it will cause some
>> disruption.
>> I'm usually interested to know what has caused the cancellation,
>> whether it's for genuine tech reasons or some commercial reason
>> (airlines sometimes cancel a flight for consolidation reasons).
>> I'm also interested in how the airline deal with the problem.
>
>And how would that knowledge have affected your seat assignment or any
>of the other complaints that you have?
If you read my original post, you will note that I made a number of
points - my seat allocation was just one of them.
>> >Some of your complaint are "off the board". Examples:
>>
>> >Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
>> >small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
>> >for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
>> >Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
>> >slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
>> >comfort. So you get what you pay for.
>>
>> Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.
>
>Of course you did. You booked Economy. Are you telling me that BA
>doesn't have Business or First?
This is nonsense.
>> The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
>> first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
>> cost in Economy" as you say.
>
>Read what I said. The customers have spoken that they won't pay for
>more space so the airlines don't offer it.
IYO. Others may disagree.
I suggest that it's got more to do with *follow the herd*.
Business - the free market as you describe it - has an amazing habit
of acting like lemmings. Customers are rarely involved.
Do you really believe that *customers* have asked for all the DRM and
other techy restrictions in the latest MS Vista Op/Sys?
>> I would usually happily pay a premium on long haul flights for a
>> larger seat with more space but this isn't available on most airlines.
>> Business and first are way too expensive.
>
>As they are for most people. But that is still a choice you make. You
>put money as your first consideration ahead of service then complain
>because of the choice you made.
Who is now behaving like an immature poster?
When I book a flight, I expect a minimum acceptable standard of
service but I rarely receive it.
>> It is my opinion that airlines cram too many seats into their planes
>> to maximise numbers and profits.
>
>Of course they do. And, again, if passengers were willing to pay a bit
>more for less seats on the plane the airlines would offer them. But
>they don't so the airlines don't. You are a "victim" of the free
>market.
Indeed. I'm a victim of the commercial-driven free market which is
more concerned with running itself for its own benefit than meeting
customer expectations.
>> It is *not* passengers who have created the current model of airline
>> seating, it is the airlines themselves chasing numbers and profits.
>
>As driven by passenger demand.
...So you keep asserting but I disagree.
>> >Agent information: You complained that your "agent" (Expedia) didn't
>> >give you enough information.
>>
>> I mentioned that it was "too bad" Expedia don't provide this
>> information. I have also mentioned it to Expedia directly via e-mail.
>> They may look into it to improve customer satisfaction.
>>
>> >Expedia is *not* a travel agency. People
>> >use Expedia so they can save the cost of travel agents.
>>
>> I never said Expedia were a *travel* agency.
>> I use Expedia because it's a convenient Internet based agent that I've
>> used many times before without a problem in terms of buying tickets.
>
>It's not an "agent" either. It's a site that sells tickets. You want
>proper travel advice, use a travel agent.
If Expedia is not a travel agent or even an agent, then what is it?
>Again, you made your choice and put money first before service. Then
>you complain about the service.
More nonsense.
>> >You chose to
>> >do that then complain because they didn't give you the service that
>> >you chose not to pay for. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>>
>> That is a rubbish distortion of my comments.
>
>It's a fairly exact analysis of what happened.
No.
>> >Flight delays: Come on. 1 1/2 hours on what amounts to a 24 hour
>> >flight (roughly). 3 continents, 2 days. You don't think that's a bit
>> >of an over-reaction?
>>
>> Not at all ... and I don't know where you get the idea that it's
>> roughly a 24hr flight. Bangkok to London non-stop is about 13hrs
>> ...unless you are sitting on the plane for an additional 2hrs before
>> take-off as I was.
>
>I thought it was Sydney-Bangkok-London which is around 24 hours
>including layovers. You were just on part of the flight.
I didn't fly from Sydney.
As far as I was concerned my flight was from Bangkok to London.
I didn't even know that my flight had originated in Sydney until I
spoke to several other passengers.
>> >> Yes, I arrived 3.5hrs before my flight time but *not* to stand in
>> >> a queue waiting for BA to get their act together.
>>
>> >Many airlines don't open their check-in counters more than 2 or 2 1/2
>> >hours before flight time. So you did, in fact, ask for an extra hour
>> >or more wait time.
>>
>> I ask for nothing except to be checked-in as quickly as possible.
>> In the UK we are told to arrive at least 3-4 hours before our flights
>> to go through security etc but it's clear to me that the real reason
>> is to stand in check-in queues.
>
>I see. It's a world wide conspiracy to make you stand in a line.
No, its a WW drive by airlines to reduce their operating costs at the
expense of passenger service and comfort. Too bad you deny that.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:18:25 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird
><RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that info. It's further evidence that airlines are running
>> their business to suit themselves, not in the customer interests.
>>
>err... that's how corporations are intended to run, for the
>benefit of their shareholders, not for the benefit of their
>customers, their supposed home country, the world, or anyone
>else.
Indeed, but one wishes that businesses would pay at least some
attention to their customers. Too few do.
>folks need to remember constantly that corporations are a legal
>construct designed to maximize the profits of the owners and
>investors while shielding those owners and investors from legal
>liability for their actions.
Quite so.
>in order for corporations to achieve any kind of socially
>redeeming purpose, they must be regulated and legally
>constrained.
Exactly. And my earlier comments allude to the fact that airlines
are not constrained by enough legal rules. This is partly due to them
being flag carriers for nations and of being international in nature.
Strong regulation becomes difficult and often undesirable.
>only the most naive would think that corporations would be put
>customer satisfaction ahead of shareholder greed, or long term
>growth ahead of pumping up this quarter's stock price.
Agreed.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:32:21 +0000, hummingbird
You keep saying that Expedia is not a travel agent but you have yet
to state what you think they are.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:32:21 +0000, hummingbird
><RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>>
>>The Expedia website 'offers' a set of classes when booking flights.
>>FYI it appears in a drop down window.
>>The only options 'offered' to me were economy, business and first.
>>
>>Got it yet?
>
>It is true that some of the discount web sites do not bring up
>"premier economy" as a choice.
So it seems.
>snip
>>
>>>>Why you think a travel agent would do better than me is a mystery.
>>>
>>>Because you were too incompetent to find the seats available on a
>>>flight, and are under the mistaken belief that there were only one
>>>provider with economy plus serving asia.
>>
>Booking on the BA web site does bring up the option of "premier
>economy" which presents flights with World Traveller Plus. Curiously
>when I tried it for some hypothetical dates bookings from BKK to LHR
>show only Qantas outbound wiht no WT+ and BA back with WT+. Looking
>at LHR-BKK-LHR has BA0009/BA0010 with WT+ both ways.
>
>It is indeed a lesson on learning the services available and not
>taking what one particular online broker "offers."
>
>Also note according to SeatGuru the BA 744 WT+ seat has 7" more pitch
>and 1" (for what it is worth) more width than WT.
1" of extra width would hardly be worth the premium cost.
IMHO economy seats need to be at least three inches wider and a space
inserted between seats to enable each seat to have its own armrests.
>Is it possible that you were actually boarded on a Quantas 747 with
>only one economy service?
No, it was definitely a BA 747-400 that I flew home on.
There was a Qantas 747 which left Bangkok for London soon after mine.
It's worth mentioning that I flew out to Hong Kong and only returned
from Bangkok, so that made the booking slightly more difficult.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
Says someone posting from the United States of Assholes.
[rest binned unread]
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
My point is that airlines are in a position to require that any person
who is too wide should have to buy two tickets, but they choose not
to do so, thereby passing the problem onto other passengers.
Alternatively they could install wider seats into planes.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:16:00 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird
Rotfl. Why you describe an overbooked flight and only getting 2/3rds
of my seat as whining is a mystery. Another idiot who must have been
at the back of the queue when brains were handed out. Oooooh for
the days when the riff-raff didn't have access to the Internet...
Tchiowa
> On 27 Feb 2007 21:04:37 -0800 'Tchiowa'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
> >There is a difference between being a defeatist and complaining
> >because the world doesn't work the way you want it to. The world was
> >not designed to make everything happen exactly the way you want it to.
> >Understanding that is part of "growing up".
>
> Lol. An American joker...
>
> You are being defeatist because you are essentially arguing in support
> of the current airline model
No, I'm arguing in favor of the free market because it has been shown
to be the best way to solve problems like this.
> even though many people dread flying
> nowadays because of the way they are treated and packed in like
> cattle.
Yet give them the option to pay a bit more and get better seats and
they overwhelmingly turn it down.
> If you carefully read my original post and my additional posts, you
> will see that I have raised genuine concerns about the current model
> of airline business. EG: I believe that airline seats are simply not
> wide enough for anybody larger than small-to-medium width;
And, again (and again and again) that is as a result of passenger
demand. Airlines have tried bigger seats and more legroom at slightly
higher prices and passengers rejected it. The airlines are doing what
customer demand makes them do.
The airlines would be happy to have one passenger for a whole 747
paying a million dollars for the flight. But there aren't enough who
will do that. Whenever the airlines have tried increasing seat pitch,
for example, and charging slightly more for it, the passengers beat a
path to their competitor's door in order to save money.
> airlines are overbooking seats and causing passenger disruptions/delays etc.
There is a simple solution to the overbooking situation. Whenever a
passenger reserves a flight but doesn't take it without cancelling a
week in advance he is forced to pay for it anyway. Are you ready to
accept that??? How about it they raise prices 10% without any
additional service to cover the cost of empty seats from "no shows"?
That is why the airlines overbook. They know that typically a certain
percentage of people with reservations won't show. So they overbook in
order to fill the seats. Otherwise they lose and will have to pass the
cost to the customer in higher prices or penalties for cancellations.
Which would you prefer?
> It cannot be fair that a passenger buys a long haul ticket only to
> find that he/she is seated next to another passenger who is larger
> than medium and overflows their seat space for 13hrs.
We've all agreed with that. And some airlines have tried to force
obese passengers to buy 2 tickets. Which resulted in lawsuits claiming
discrimination so the airlines were forced to back off.
> And exactly what should an airline do in the BA situation in Bangkok
> I first described? If I assume that BA had not overbooked my flight
> *as they claimed* but were actually trying to find seats on my flight
> for passengers dumped off the previous night's flight due to a techy
> problem, should they roll over the problem to my flight? or should
> they try to isolate it and deal with it without affecting my flight?
In other words you don't care who gets hurt as long as it's not you???
> I was told that the reason they rolled it over was due to some 24hr
> rule on compensation but I have no info on this.
Could very well be.
> Most of these things are not in the interest of passengers, only the
> airlines. Airlines *choose* their business model and obviously it's
> designed to maximise their bottom lines. IE they don't have to pack
> seats into planes like a sardine can, but they choose to.
Again, airlines have tried to do it differently and the passengers
forced them to change.
> All I'm really saying is that there are problems with the current
> model as evidenced by the growing numbers of people who dread flying
> nowadays, but I have not actually set out my own ideas for change.
> I wanted to see what other people had to say about it.
????? Remember your comment about the flight? 100% full. I have a hard
time getting seats on flights between Asia and the US when booking a
month in advance. US flights are at full capacity. Seems like the
airlines have plenty of passengers.
> >No need for government intervention. The free market will take care of
> >itself. And despite what you want, it is the free market that is
> >demanding smaller, cheaper seats.
>
> I disagree. A large part of the problem is that airlines are virtually
> above the law across the world. The rights of passengers are pitiful.
> Witness that the seating problem I described provides me with little
> recourse.
> And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the
> American obsession with them.
America is far and away the most successful country on the planet
economically. It's people live better than anyone else. Make more
money, take more flights, have bigger houses, drive nicer cars, etc.
The American obsession with the free market is based on the fact that
is WORKS!
> I could also rant on about the current situation with Microsoft and its new Vista Op/Sys.
If someone had a better standard that people were willing to pay for
then MicroSoft would be forced out of business.
> >> >For the record I fly
> >> >over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of
> >> >decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like.
>
> >> Yippy for you. I have also done *a lot* of flying in my life but I
> >> don't see what that's got to do with it.
>
> >You had made a comment to another poster about him not having much
> >experience in flying.
>
> No I did not.
You mean you didn't make this comment to Thur: "If you can't see the
bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
these days: "
"Perhaps he's not aware..."???
> Yes, I said it was mentioned "unofficially" (by other passengers).
>
> I repeat: BA made no mention of a cancelled flight the previous day
> - only that they had overbooked my flight. That's what their memo
> revealed at check-in after we had queued for two hours or so.
So your complaint is that they didn't communicate well? Yeah, that's a
problem.
> Q, should BA have boarded my flight in the certain knowledge that we
> would not take-off until the 35 other passengers had been brought to
> the airport and ticketed?
Yes.
> >> >Some of your complaint are "off the board". Examples:
>
> >> >Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
> >> >small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
> >> >for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
> >> >Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
> >> >slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
> >> >comfort. So you get what you pay for.
>
> >> Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.
>
> >Of course you did. You booked Economy. Are you telling me that BA
> >doesn't have Business or First?
>
> This is nonsense.
Really? You complained about seat size. You *CHOSE* your seat.
Multiple classes of service with different size seats and different
costs. You chose *CHEAP*.
> >> The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
> >> first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
> >> cost in Economy" as you say.
>
> >Read what I said. The customers have spoken that they won't pay for
> >more space so the airlines don't offer it.
>
> IYO. Others may disagree.
Sorry, but it's been proven. Airlines tried. Jet Blue and SouthWest
won by having smaller seats and less service. Other airlines are
forced to change in order to compete.
> >> I would usually happily pay a premium on long haul flights for a
> >> larger seat with more space but this isn't available on most airlines.
> >> Business and first are way too expensive.
>
> >As they are for most people. But that is still a choice you make. You
> >put money as your first consideration ahead of service then complain
> >because of the choice you made.
>
> Who is now behaving like an immature poster?
??? How is that immature? You made a choice. Now you are complaining
about the results of *YOUR* choice.
> When I book a flight, I expect a minimum acceptable standard of
> service but I rarely receive it.
You "expect"??? You know what the service is. You know you can get
better service if you pay for it. But you won't.
> >> It is my opinion that airlines cram too many seats into their planes
> >> to maximise numbers and profits.
>
> >Of course they do. And, again, if passengers were willing to pay a bit
> >more for less seats on the plane the airlines would offer them. But
> >they don't so the airlines don't. You are a "victim" of the free
> >market.
>
> Indeed. I'm a victim of the commercial-driven free market which is
> more concerned with running itself for its own benefit than meeting
> customer expectations.
No, it's concerned with running itself as the customers demand they
run it. Customers vote with their wallets every day.
> >It's not an "agent" either. It's a site that sells tickets. You want
> >proper travel advice, use a travel agent.
>
> If Expedia is not a travel agent or even an agent, then what is it?
A website that sells tickets.
> >Again, you made your choice and put money first before service. Then
> >you complain about the service.
>
> More nonsense.
More facts.
> >I thought it was Sydney-Bangkok-London which is around 24 hours
> >including layovers. You were just on part of the flight.
>
> I didn't fly from Sydney.
The plane did.
> As far as I was concerned my flight was from Bangkok to London.
> I didn't even know that my flight had originated in Sydney until I
> spoke to several other passengers.
Why didn't you know? You chose to buy your tickets yourself rather
than using a travel agent. You are responsible for finding those
things out.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Mar 1, 5:47 pm, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2007 21:04:37 -0800 'Tchiowa'
>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>> >There is a difference between being a defeatist and complaining
>> >because the world doesn't work the way you want it to. The world was
>> >not designed to make everything happen exactly the way you want it to.
>> >Understanding that is part of "growing up".
>>
>> Lol. An American joker...
>>
>> You are being defeatist because you are essentially arguing in support
>> of the current airline model
>
>No, I'm arguing in favor of the free market because it has been shown
>to be the best way to solve problems like this.
You never mentioned the free market above. But as I've already said
elsewhere in the thread, the free market is not the perfect solution
to everything as you foolishly think. That is naive beyond belief.
IMHO what is lacking in the airline industry is a modern legal
framework standard defining passenger rights when travelling on
airlines. What we have is a mish-mash of inadequate regulation going
back many decades derived from your beloved free market and reluctance
by governments to get involved because airlines are flag carriers.
Much of the current bias in favour of airlines -vs- passengers comes
from your own country and the rest just follow like sheep.
One example I gave earlier is that when I buy a ticket, it should
entitle me to the full seat space I have bought. Currently it doesn't.
Another is that the methods created by airlines of marketing tickets
result in much overbooking. Baggage is mishandled causing it much
damage over time. All these things are unacceptable.
Corps have a strong tendency to indulge in herd instinct and market
control/dominance and what we now see in the airline industry is a
race to the bottom to maximise profits by reducing customer service
and this results in passengers being treated like cattle.
When passengers have no alternative but to buy a ticket on a flight
with inadequate seat space, suffer overbooking or oversize neighbours,
there is no free market in operation. The phrase "there all the same"
comes to mind.
Do you honestly think that your beloved "free market" demanded all the
legal and technical constraints imposed in the new MS Vista Op/Sys?
You need to get an understanding of how big business operates.
>> even though many people dread flying
>> nowadays because of the way they are treated and packed in like
>> cattle.
>
>Yet give them the option to pay a bit more and get better seats and
>they overwhelmingly turn it down.
I have already disagreed with this broad assertion.
Whilst I accept that large numbers of riff-raff will accept anything
as long as it's at the lowest possible price, there are still very
many travellers who wish to travel in respectable conditions.
Even buying business or first class tickets will not guarantee this as
there are many riff-raff people with loads-a-money. Some celebrities
come to mind.
>> If you carefully read my original post and my additional posts, you
>> will see that I have raised genuine concerns about the current model
>> of airline business. EG: I believe that airline seats are simply not
>> wide enough for anybody larger than small-to-medium width;
>
>And, again (and again and again) that is as a result of passenger
>demand. Airlines have tried bigger seats and more legroom at slightly
>higher prices and passengers rejected it. The airlines are doing what
>customer demand makes them do.
See above. I disagree with your unfounded assertion.
I already mentioned that (afaik) Eva offer such an option when booking
flights and I'm told "the seats get sold quite quickly".
What I think you mean is that a majority of the riff-raff prefer
it and airlines are catering for passenger numbers, not quality of
service, probably to compete with low budget airlines.
>The airlines would be happy to have one passenger for a whole 747
>paying a million dollars for the flight. But there aren't enough who
>will do that. Whenever the airlines have tried increasing seat pitch,
>for example, and charging slightly more for it, the passengers beat a
>path to their competitor's door in order to save money.
>
>> airlines are overbooking seats and causing passenger disruptions/delays etc.
>
>There is a simple solution to the overbooking situation. Whenever a
>passenger reserves a flight but doesn't take it without cancelling a
>week in advance he is forced to pay for it anyway. Are you ready to
>accept that???
Most of the tickets I buy already have that condition.
It doesn't stop the airlines from overbooking.
>How about it they raise prices 10% without any
>additional service to cover the cost of empty seats from "no shows"?
>That is why the airlines overbook. They know that typically a certain
>percentage of people with reservations won't show. So they overbook in
>order to fill the seats. Otherwise they lose and will have to pass the
>cost to the customer in higher prices or penalties for cancellations.
>Which would you prefer?
You are completely missing the point.
The current methods of selling airline tickets is chosen by the
airlines to suit themselves.
They could just as easily sell all tickets on a no-show/no refund
basis. That would not involve raising ticket prices or overbooking.
The airlines *choose* how they sell their tickets and the current
methods cause severe inconvenience to many travellers.
>> It cannot be fair that a passenger buys a long haul ticket only to
>> find that he/she is seated next to another passenger who is larger
>> than medium and overflows their seat space for 13hrs.
>
>We've all agreed with that. And some airlines have tried to force
>obese passengers to buy 2 tickets. Which resulted in lawsuits claiming
>discrimination so the airlines were forced to back off.
Because governments decline to get involved.
How about if I issue a lawsuit because I didn't get what I paid for?
>> And exactly what should an airline do in the BA situation in Bangkok
>> I first described? If I assume that BA had not overbooked my flight
>> *as they claimed* but were actually trying to find seats on my flight
>> for passengers dumped off the previous night's flight due to a techy
>> problem, should they roll over the problem to my flight? or should
>> they try to isolate it and deal with it without affecting my flight?
>
>In other words you don't care who gets hurt as long as it's not you???
Not at all. That's another distortion of my views.
It doesn't make sense to knock-on a flight problem to other flights,
which simply increases the number of people who are inconvenienced.
Remember that BA always claimed that my flight was *overbooked*.
They mentioned nothing about a previous cancellation.
>> I was told that the reason they rolled it over was due to some 24hr
>> rule on compensation but I have no info on this.
>
>Could very well be.
Again, a solution which suited the airline, not the passengers.
Are you getting the picture yet?
>> Most of these things are not in the interest of passengers, only the
>> airlines. Airlines *choose* their business model and obviously it's
>> designed to maximise their bottom lines. IE they don't have to pack
>> seats into planes like a sardine can, but they choose to.
>
>Again, airlines have tried to do it differently and the passengers
>forced them to change.
See above. Peddling nonsense is daft.
>> All I'm really saying is that there are problems with the current
>> model as evidenced by the growing numbers of people who dread flying
>> nowadays, but I have not actually set out my own ideas for change.
>> I wanted to see what other people had to say about it.
>
>????? Remember your comment about the flight? 100% full. I have a hard
>time getting seats on flights between Asia and the US when booking a
>month in advance. US flights are at full capacity. Seems like the
>airlines have plenty of passengers.
Naturally, because airlines have brought the price of tickets down so
much over the years that everybody and his dog are flying. You could
offer plates of horse shit in a restaurant and some people would buy
it. Full flights mean nothing except that people will pay.
>> >No need for government intervention. The free market will take care of
>> >itself. And despite what you want, it is the free market that is
>> >demanding smaller, cheaper seats.
>>
>> I disagree. A large part of the problem is that airlines are virtually
>> above the law across the world. The rights of passengers are pitiful.
>> Witness that the seating problem I described provides me with little
>> recourse.
>> And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the
>> American obsession with them.
>
>America is far and away the most successful country on the planet
>economically. It's people live better than anyone else.
At the expense of many other countries ... but don't let's get into
politics.
>Make more
>money, take more flights, have bigger houses, drive nicer cars, etc.
You mean German and Japanese cars don't you...
>The American obsession with the free market is based on the fact that
>is WORKS!
Free markets are a clear benefit over state controlled markets but
are not the panacea to everything which must be slavishly worshipped.
They are simply a tool but need to be regulated. The US knows all
about corporate regulation, having some of the most regulated markets
anywhere in the western world.
>> I could also rant on about the current situation with Microsoft and its new Vista Op/Sys.
>
>If someone had a better standard that people were willing to pay for
>then MicroSoft would be forced out of business.
Not as easily as you think...
Microsoft is like IBM before it, both have dominated the market.
That's what corps aim to do.
Betamax got killed off by VHS some years ago, not because the latter
was better but because of corporate muscle.
>> >> >For the record I fly
>> >> >over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of
>> >> >decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like.
>>
>> >> Yippy for you. I have also done *a lot* of flying in my life but I
>> >> don't see what that's got to do with it.
>>
>> >You had made a comment to another poster about him not having much
>> >experience in flying.
>>
>> No I did not.
>
>You mean you didn't make this comment to Thur: "If you can't see the
>bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
>you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
>these days: "
>
>"Perhaps he's not aware..."???
None of that confirms your previous allegation.
Thur could simply be a very frequent traveller but extremely naive.
>> Yes, I said it was mentioned "unofficially" (by other passengers).
>>
>> I repeat: BA made no mention of a cancelled flight the previous day
>> - only that they had overbooked my flight. That's what their memo
>> revealed at check-in after we had queued for two hours or so.
>
>So your complaint is that they didn't communicate well? Yeah, that's a
>problem.
yada yada.
>> Q, should BA have boarded my flight in the certain knowledge that we
>> would not take-off until the 35 other passengers had been brought to
>> the airport and ticketed?
>
>Yes.
Why?
>> >> >Some of your complaint are "off the board". Examples:
>>
>> >> >Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
>> >> >small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
>> >> >for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
>> >> >Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
>> >> >slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
>> >> >comfort. So you get what you pay for.
>>
>> >> Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.
>>
>> >Of course you did. You booked Economy. Are you telling me that BA
>> >doesn't have Business or First?
>>
>> This is nonsense.
>
>Really? You complained about seat size. You *CHOSE* your seat.
>Multiple classes of service with different size seats and different
>costs. You chose *CHEAP*.
No, I accepted one of the offers made available to me.
>> >> The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
>> >> first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
>> >> cost in Economy" as you say.
>>
>> >Read what I said. The customers have spoken that they won't pay for
>> >more space so the airlines don't offer it.
>>
>> IYO. Others may disagree.
>
>Sorry, but it's been proven. Airlines tried. Jet Blue and SouthWest
>won by having smaller seats and less service. Other airlines are
>forced to change in order to compete.
You don't understand how marketing works.
Not easily possible when the booking agent doesn't make the
information available.
Jim Ley
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>One example I gave earlier is that when I buy a ticket, it should
>entitle me to the full seat space I have bought. Currently it doesn't.
That's because you've not bought a SEAT, you've bought carriage from A
to B, it doesn't even need to be by plane.
>Another is that the methods created by airlines of marketing tickets
>result in much overbooking. Baggage is mishandled causing it much
>damage over time. All these things are unacceptable.
So vote with your money, and don't buy the tickets!
>When passengers have no alternative but to buy a ticket on a flight
>with inadequate seat space,
Of course you have an alternative, don't travel, or pay the market
rate for the service you require.
> there are still very
>many travellers who wish to travel in respectable conditions.
Yep, it's called business class.
>See above. I disagree with your unfounded assertion.
>I already mentioned that (afaik) Eva offer such an option when booking
>flights and I'm told "the seats get sold quite quickly".
And so do BA and many other airlines, but you couldn't find them when
you booked...
>They could just as easily sell all tickets on a no-show/no refund
>basis. That would not involve raising ticket prices or overbooking.
Of course it would, because people wouldn't fly them! the people who
want flexible tickets would continue flying airlines that accept
flexible tickets - as they're more expensive than non-flexible ones
that would be bvery bad for the airline.
>The airlines *choose* how they sell their tickets and the current
>methods cause severe inconvenience to many travellers.
No, a minority, a tiny minority in fact, I've been inconvenienced once
in the last few years with a flight a week, that was due to the BA
strike, and all the inconvenience was an extra long break in London -
and even that was my choice, I could've flown to arrive on close to
original time.
>Not at all. That's another distortion of my views.
>It doesn't make sense to knock-on a flight problem to other flights,
>which simply increases the number of people who are inconvenienced.
Of course it does, it gets the people who need to get home as quickly
as possible onto a suitable flight, and gives the opportunity for
those people who are more flexible the chance to get some compensation
- what exactly do you suggest as an alternative?
>Betamax got killed off by VHS some years ago, not because the latter
>was better but because of corporate muscle.
I think you'll find it was consumer choice...
>>Why didn't you know? You chose to buy your tickets yourself rather
>>than using a travel agent. You are responsible for finding those
>>things out.
>
>Not easily possible when the booking agent doesn't make the
>information available.
So stop using Expedia - if it doesn't make the information available!
BA's website would've price-matched I believe, so you'd not have been
out of pocket and the information was there.
Jim.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:53:00 +0000, hummingbird
><RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>One example I gave earlier is that when I buy a ticket, it should
>>entitle me to the full seat space I have bought. Currently it doesn't.
>
>That's because you've not bought a SEAT, you've bought carriage from A
>to B, it doesn't even need to be by plane.
And do you believe this situation is acceptable? or are you coming
round to my view that the rules governing air travel are inadequate
and leave passengers with little recourse?
>>Another is that the methods created by airlines of marketing tickets
>>result in much overbooking. Baggage is mishandled causing it much
>>damage over time. All these things are unacceptable.
>
>So vote with your money, and don't buy the tickets!
A very daft comment. Doubtless if you were told that air surrounding
you was polluted, you would choose not to breath. There are things in
life which we cannot easily stop doing w/o major disruption to our
lives. Buying food comes to mind. But it doesn't mean that because we
still do them that we agree 100% with the conditions imposed.
>>When passengers have no alternative but to buy a ticket on a flight
>>with inadequate seat space,
>
>Of course you have an alternative, don't travel, or pay the market
>rate for the service you require.
There is no "market rate for the service you require" as I've
described in this thread. Even buying business/first class tickets
at massively higher prices will not guarantee service. I may still be
seated near a screaming shifty kid or loudmouth idiot.
>> there are still very
>>many travellers who wish to travel in respectable conditions.
>
>Yep, it's called business class.
Rubbish.
>>See above. I disagree with your unfounded assertion.
>>I already mentioned that (afaik) Eva offer such an option when booking
>>flights and I'm told "the seats get sold quite quickly".
>
>And so do BA and many other airlines, but you couldn't find them when
>you booked...
As previously said, those seats don't provide adequate seat width.
What's your next brilliant idea Mr Smarty?
>>They could just as easily sell all tickets on a no-show/no refund
>>basis. That would not involve raising ticket prices or overbooking.
>
>Of course it would, because people wouldn't fly them! the people who
>want flexible tickets would continue flying airlines that accept
>flexible tickets - as they're more expensive than non-flexible ones
>that would be bvery bad for the airline.
Rubbish thought process yet again.
Nisse PowerMan
>
> On Mar 1, 5:47 pm, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> > On 27 Feb 2007 21:04:37 -0800 'Tchiowa'
> > posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
> > >There is a difference between being a defeatist and complaining
> > >because the world doesn't work the way you want it to. The world was
> > >not designed to make everything happen exactly the way you want it to.
> > >Understanding that is part of "growing up".
> >
> > Lol. An American joker...
> >
> > You are being defeatist because you are essentially arguing in support
> > of the current airline model
>
> No, I'm arguing in favor of the free market because it has been shown
> to be the best way to solve problems like this.
Free market is totally unable to cope with these problems, just check
the so-called low price carriers, crappy service and still people accept
whatever.
It was not until the EU put down the foot and regulated against bandit
carriers that people could get their right against aircarriers.
Now it is regulated how much it cost to overbook and to delay and that
is good and in favor to the people travelling.
But it would not have been addressed by criminal companies at all.
/Nisse
<snip snap>
--
Remove the obvious part before replying by mail please!
Mike Hunt
> On 1 Mar 2007 17:49:49 -0800 'Tchiowa'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>>How about it they raise prices 10% without any
>>additional service to cover the cost of empty seats from "no shows"?
>>That is why the airlines overbook. They know that typically a certain
>>percentage of people with reservations won't show. So they overbook in
>>order to fill the seats. Otherwise they lose and will have to pass the
>>cost to the customer in higher prices or penalties for cancellations.
>>Which would you prefer?
>
>
> You are completely missing the point.
> The current methods of selling airline tickets is chosen by the
> airlines to suit themselves.
>
> They could just as easily sell all tickets on a no-show/no refund
> basis. That would not involve raising ticket prices or overbooking.
>
> The airlines *choose* how they sell their tickets and the current
> methods cause severe inconvenience to many travellers.
Airlines have tried the "no show no refund" method.
You must have missed it. There were too many complaints from people that
didn't like their tickets becoming worthless.
>>Why didn't you know? You chose to buy your tickets yourself rather
>>than using a travel agent. You are responsible for finding those
>>things out.
>
>
> Not easily possible when the booking agent doesn't make the
> information available.
Who chose the booking agent?
If you don't know about such things as larger seats and have a desire to
book them, then contact the people that can sell you them.
Mike Hunt
> Free market is totally unable to cope with these problems, just check
> the so-called low price carriers, crappy service and still people accept
> whatever.
>
> It was not until the EU put down the foot and regulated against bandit
> carriers that people could get their right against aircarriers.
>
> Now it is regulated how much it cost to overbook and to delay and that
> is good and in favor to the people travelling.
>
> But it would not have been addressed by criminal companies at all.
>
Who ends up paying for this stuff? That is the whole point of choosing
discount carriers, you give up some perks to save money. Does it make
any sense for carriers to pay customers when their are weather delays?
This is what is happening in Europe now. Sure, it might be better in the
short term for customers, but then if it puts low cost carriers out of
business, then who pays?
Frank F. Matthews
Tchiowa wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:30 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:18:25 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird
>>
>><RHBIYDTNP...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for that info. It's further evidence that airlines are running
>>>their business to suit themselves, not in the customer interests.
>>
>>err... that's how corporations are intended to run, for the
>>benefit of their shareholders, not for the benefit of their
>>customers, their supposed home country, the world, or anyone
>>else.
>
>
> Very true.
>
>
>>folks need to remember constantly that corporations are a legal
>>construct designed to maximize the profits of the owners and
>>investors while shielding those owners and investors from legal
>>liability for their actions.
>
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
Not completely. It would be better to say that the purpose of a
corporation is to limit the personal liability of the owners to the
capital invested at the formation of the corporation plus the retained
earnings.
That is why some types of corporations are regulated like insurance
companies.
white...@yahoo.co.uk
> Nisse PowerMan wrote:
> > Free market is totally unable to cope with these problems, just check
> > the so-called low price carriers, crappy service and still people accept
> > whatever.
>
> > It was not until the EU put down the foot and regulated against bandit
> > carriers that people could get their right against aircarriers.
>
> > Now it is regulated how much it cost to overbook and to delay and that
> > is good and in favor to the people travelling.
>
> > But it would not have been addressed by criminal companies at all.
>
> Who ends up paying for this stuff? That is the whole point of choosing
> discount carriers, you give up some perks to save money. Does it make
> any sense for carriers to pay customers when their are weather delays?
> This is what is happening in Europe now.
Hardly. There is a huge hole in the EU regulations where airlines
cite 'extra-ordinary' circumstances and avoid liability. This can
even
include a technical fault with the aircraft....!
I don't expect compensation for weather related events, I do expect
that
airlines plan for it so that whole systems don't completely collapse.
We are told that we should expect delays: so should airlines, they
are the experts..!
And if they tell me to get on a flight or loose my ticket I do expect
them
to pay for the hotel accommodation if I miss the connecting flight.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
> > On 1 Mar 2007 17:49:49 -0800 'Tchiowa'
> > posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
> >
> >>How about it they raise prices 10% without any
> >>additional service to cover the cost of empty seats from "no shows"?
> >>That is why the airlines overbook. They know that typically a certain
> >>percentage of people with reservations won't show. So they overbook in
> >>order to fill the seats. Otherwise they lose and will have to pass the
> >>cost to the customer in higher prices or penalties for cancellations.
> >>Which would you prefer?
> >
> >
> > You are completely missing the point.
> > The current methods of selling airline tickets is chosen by the
> > airlines to suit themselves.
> >
> > They could just as easily sell all tickets on a no-show/no refund
> > basis. That would not involve raising ticket prices or overbooking.
> >
> > The airlines *choose* how they sell their tickets and the current
> > methods cause severe inconvenience to many travellers.
>
>Airlines have tried the "no show no refund" method.
>You must have missed it. There were too many complaints from people that
>didn't like their tickets becoming worthless.
I don't believe you.
> >>Why didn't you know? You chose to buy your tickets yourself rather
> >>than using a travel agent. You are responsible for finding those
> >>things out.
> >
> >
> > Not easily possible when the booking agent doesn't make the
> > information available.
>
>Who chose the booking agent?
>If you don't know about such things as larger seats and have a desire to
>book them, then contact the people that can sell you them.
I probably know as much about larger seats as you and the other
uninformed experts in this thread. But that isn't really my point
is it. Maybe you missed my various points about the airline industry
which I have said organises itself to suit itself and to draw in as
many *accept anything at the lowest price* passengers as possible
at the expense of treating the rest of us like cattle ...overbooking,
seats which are too narrow, long check-in queues etc.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, if you sold horse shit in the only
restaurant in town, some people would buy it. Does that make it good?
Brian
wrote:
>Free market is totally unable to cope with these problems, just check
>the so-called low price carriers, crappy service and still people accept
>whatever.
It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low
cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3
checked bags. I don't particularly like their boarding system but it
does give us (tall) people a better shot at seats with more leg room.
AirTran allows upgrades to business class at a reasonable price on a
space available basis.
Mike Hunt
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:02:13 -0800 'Mike Hunt'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>>
>>Airlines have tried the "no show no refund" method.
>>You must have missed it. There were too many complaints from people that
>>didn't like their tickets becoming worthless.
>
>
> I don't believe you.
>
I understand, but they tried it a few years ago.
American Airlines even tried increasing legroom for everyone in coach.
But.... it didn't work.
You also don't believe that BA has classes of seats you can't buy on
Expedia, but you can research this yourself on the BA website.
>
>>>>Why didn't you know? You chose to buy your tickets yourself rather
>>>>than using a travel agent. You are responsible for finding those
>>>>things out.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not easily possible when the booking agent doesn't make the
>>>information available.
>>
>>Who chose the booking agent?
>>If you don't know about such things as larger seats and have a desire to
>>book them, then contact the people that can sell you them.
>
>
> I probably know as much about larger seats as you and the other
> uninformed experts in this thread. But that isn't really my point
> is it.
You bought the wrong ticket, and we are the uninformed ones?
Maybe you missed my various points about the airline industry
> which I have said organises itself to suit itself and to draw in as
> many *accept anything at the lowest price* passengers as possible
> at the expense of treating the rest of us like cattle ...overbooking,
> seats which are too narrow, long check-in queues etc.
>
> As I said elsewhere in this thread, if you sold horse shit in the only
> restaurant in town, some people would buy it. Does that make it good?
No, people wouldn't go to the restaurant and it would close or start
selling something they wanted
VS
Brian <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote:
>It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low
>cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3
>checked bags.
... and their seat pitch is *better* than legacy carriers'. In fact,
the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
first-class seats. It's good to have airlines like Southwest that
maintain standards of service while others are racing to the bottom.
js
I know one person who would....and then complain about it.
js
> In article <t1ehu2pcq1lqpedlklqeb2n1cn40kmk...@4ax.com>,
>
> Brian <drmorrisnos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low
> >cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3
> >checked bags.
>
> ... and their seat pitch is *better* than legacy carriers'.
32 and 17 width
> In fact,
> the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
> first-class seats.
Nope.
> It's good to have airlines like Southwest that
> maintain standards of service while others are racing to the bottom.
You go right ahead.
js
VS
js <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low
>>>cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3
>>>checked bags.
>>
>>... and their seat pitch is *better* than legacy carriers'.
>
>32 and 17 width
As opposed to 31 on United, Continental, Northwest and such.
>>the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
>>first-class seats.
>
>Nope.
Yep.
js
> In article <1172890910.899085.80...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
>
> js <jonathansmit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low
> >>>cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3
> >>>checked bags.
>
> >>... and their seat pitch is *better* than legacy carriers'.
>
> >32 and 17 width
>
> As opposed to 31 on United, Continental, Northwest and such.
The UAL 300's have 32/17
Continental is 31/17.2 in their 737 series
Northwest doesn't have 737s in the fleet but 757 varies between 31 and
33 with 17.2 width.
>
> >>the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
> >>first-class seats.
>
> >Nope.
>
> Yep.
UAL FC 38/20.5 and Prem Econ 34/17 in the 737-5's
Contiental FC 38/21
Northwest FC 37/21
Now go away.
js
Mike Hunt
> In article <t1ehu2pcq1lqpedlk...@4ax.com>,
> Brian <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low
>>cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3
>>checked bags.
>
>
> ... and their seat pitch is *better* than legacy carriers'. In fact,
> the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
> first-class seats.
Can you document this, because I extremely doubt it.
Mike Hunt
What carriers have less than 32 inches of pitch in FIRST CLASS?
VS
js <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low
>>>>>cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3
>>>>>checked bags.
>>
>>>>... and their seat pitch is *better* than legacy carriers'.
>>
>> >32 and 17 width
>>
>> As opposed to 31 on United, Continental, Northwest and such.
>
>The UAL 300's have 32/17
31 on the UAL's 320s - worse than Southwest.
>Continental is 31/17.2 in their 737 series
Worse than Southwest.
>Northwest doesn't have 737s in the fleet but 757 varies between 31 and
>33 with 17.2 width.
As little as 30 on the 319s - worse than Southwest.
>>>>the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
^^^^
>>>>first-class seats.
>
>UAL FC 38/20.5 and Prem Econ 34/17 in the 737-5's
>Contiental FC 38/21
>Northwest FC 37/21
Son, is English your native tongue? I highlighted the relevant word
above to aid your comprehension. Think about this, then get lost.
VS
Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
>What carriers have less than 32 inches of pitch in FIRST CLASS?
KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:02:13 -0800 'Mike Hunt'
>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>>>
>>>Airlines have tried the "no show no refund" method.
>>>You must have missed it. There were too many complaints from people that
>>>didn't like their tickets becoming worthless.
>>
>>
>> I don't believe you.
>I understand, but they tried it a few years ago.
>American Airlines even tried increasing legroom for everyone in coach.
>But.... it didn't work.
Well this debate was never about American Airlines nor legroom -
my gripe on seats was with BA and most other airlines and the width
of them - although I accept that the 'American model' of airplane
seating is the one which prevails.
BA get much of their revenue from transatlantic flights and therefore
tend to adopt the American business model. But there is often a
variance between American consumer tolerance and those in the rest of
the world which airlines don't understand or don't want to hear about.
In Europe there are plenty of people who do not wish to join in the
race to the bottom of flight quality just to save a few quid but have
no choice because the airlines have imposed it onto them and there is
no choice anymore.
We're back to the issue of the airlines running their business to suit
themselves and this results in little choice for customers.
>You also don't believe that BA has classes of seats you can't buy on
>Expedia, but you can research this yourself on the BA website.
No, I wrote that when I checked out the whole cabin of the BA 747
from Bangkok, I did not see any other seat as someone described. I
*did* see business class seats. I also wrote that Expedia did *not*
offer me any other seat apart from economy, business and first.
They are the facts. 'Acredita se quiser'.
I checked the BA website and it does appear that they offer
World Traveller Plus but apparently not on all flights and clearly
not through all booking agents. In any case it does not deal with my
particular gripe on seats: that they are too narrow for passengers
who are larger than small-to-medium.
A person doesn't have to be obese to overflow the seat, but deprives
me of what I've paid for, but I have little or no recourse because of
inadequate airline contractual obligations as I wrote earlier.
Consider the options open to you if you buy any other product which
is *not fit for purpose*. You have immediate legal recourse but
seemingly not with airlines. Their only contractual obligation is to
transport you from A to B and it doesn't even have to be by air.
They are a law unto themselves.
>>>>>Why didn't you know? You chose to buy your tickets yourself rather
>>>>>than using a travel agent. You are responsible for finding those
>>>>>things out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not easily possible when the booking agent doesn't make the
>>>>information available.
>>>
>>>Who chose the booking agent?
>>>If you don't know about such things as larger seats and have a desire to
>>>book them, then contact the people that can sell you them.
>>
>>
>> I probably know as much about larger seats as you and the other
>> uninformed experts in this thread. But that isn't really my point
>> is it.
>
>You bought the wrong ticket, and we are the uninformed ones?
No, I did not buy the wrong ticket.
Clearly you have a comprehension problem. I suggest you re-read my
posts to understand what my gripes are about.
> Maybe you missed my various points about the airline industry
>> which I have said organises itself to suit itself and to draw in as
>> many *accept anything at the lowest price* passengers as possible
>> at the expense of treating the rest of us like cattle ...overbooking,
>> seats which are too narrow, long check-in queues etc.
>>
>> As I said elsewhere in this thread, if you sold horse shit in the only
>> restaurant in town, some people would buy it. Does that make it good?
>No, people wouldn't go to the restaurant and it would close or start
>selling something they wanted
I disagree. There are many people who will buy almost anything if
it's cheap enough and packaged to look pretty enough. The American
consumer is quite typical. Since the airlines have dumbed down their
business model to draw in ever larger numbers of the uninformed
masses, this is what we see happening. Low-cost budget airlines come
to mind.
All I'm really saying is that the huge mass of people in the bottom
layer of society are not usually very discerning people and will
accept almost anything if it's cheap enough. It's called mass
consumerism and we know that Americans lead the world in this.
Witness that 70% of US GDP is derived from consumer spending.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Mar 2, 4:38 pm, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
You should try to be more discerning.
Jim Ley
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:13:58 GMT 'Jim Ley'
>posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:53:00 +0000, hummingbird
>><RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>One example I gave earlier is that when I buy a ticket, it should
>>>entitle me to the full seat space I have bought. Currently it doesn't.
>>
>>That's because you've not bought a SEAT, you've bought carriage from A
>>to B, it doesn't even need to be by plane.
>
>And do you believe this situation is acceptable? or are you coming
>round to my view that the rules governing air travel are inadequate
>and leave passengers with little recourse?
I think it's absolutely fine, I care about the destination, not the
journey, when I care about the journey I fly business class. I would
be annoyed if I ended up on a bus through the airlines fault, and I
wouldn't fly them again, and would endeavour to get some compensation
out of them if they didn't - and I've certainly stopped flying
airlines I don't like (Both Virgin branded, although I'm not sure the
Virgin Express brand even exists any more...)
>>So vote with your money, and don't buy the tickets!
>
>A very daft comment. Doubtless if you were told that air surrounding
>you was polluted, you would choose not to breath.
Flying is definately a personal choice, you don't have to do it, even
if you're required to for your current job, most jobs other than pilot
or FA don't require you to fly, so change jobs if it matters that much
to you.
>There is no "market rate for the service you require" as I've
>described in this thread. Even buying business/first class tickets
>at massively higher prices will not guarantee service. I may still be
>seated near a screaming shifty kid or loudmouth idiot.
So a private plane is the service you require, it's expensive, not
surprisingly, as your requiement is no-one you disagree with.
Jim.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
Your repetitive comments are little more than naive simplistic
solutions to genuine problems and you clearly have little knowledge
about the world of big business and marketing. Life is not black
and white as you seem to think.
If you have anything serious to add, let me know.
js
> In article <1172893024.178540.143...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
>
> js <jonathansmit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>It's not mutually exclusive. In the U.S. Southwest and AirTran are low
> >>>>>cost carriers but aren't that bad in service. Southwest even allows 3
> >>>>>checked bags.
>
> >>>>... and their seat pitch is *better* than legacy carriers'.
>
> >> >32 and 17 width
>
> >> As opposed to 31 on United, Continental, Northwest and such.
>
> >The UAL 300's have 32/17
>
> 31 on the UAL's 320s - worse than Southwest.
>
> >Continental is 31/17.2 in their 737 series
>
> Worse than Southwest.
>
> >Northwest doesn't have 737s in the fleet but 757 varies between 31 and
> >33 with 17.2 width.
>
> As little as 30 on the 319s - worse than Southwest.
Apples to apples idiot - a 319 is not a 737
> >>>>the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
>
> ^^^^
>
> >>>>first-class seats.
>
> >UAL FC 38/20.5 and Prem Econ 34/17 in the 737-5's
> >Contiental FC 38/21
> >Northwest FC 37/21
>
> Son, is English your native tongue?
No.
> I highlighted the relevant word
?west??
> above to aid your comprehension. Think about this, then get lost.
And which airline's first class seats have less pitch and less width
than SW? None.
Thanks for playing. Next time, try data.
js
js
> In article <FuKdnSl7r9XignTYnZ2dneKdnZydn...@comcast.com>,
> Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
>
> >What carriers have less than 32 inches of pitch in FIRST CLASS?
>
> KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.
The seat you refer to is "Europe Select" and is sold as WBC - World
Business Class. It is not a first class seat, it is a business class
seat. It is priced as a business class seat.
The average seat pitch is 31 inches in select. It is also 31 inches
in economy.
KLM does not have a firstclass seat on any of its planes. None.
Try again?
js
DevilsPGD
"Tchiowa" <tchi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>There is a simple solution to the overbooking situation. Whenever a
>passenger reserves a flight but doesn't take it without cancelling a
>week in advance he is forced to pay for it anyway.
First off, most of the tickets sold have that condition (Perhaps most is
going too far, but many)
I'd suggest the opposite -- Rather, if I have a non-refundable ticket,
and I find out a week in advance I won't be flying, why should I tell
the airline? It's the same to me either way.
If there was some small benefit to informing the airline in advance,
they'd have a chance to resell that ticket and make their money WITHOUT
overbooking.
Part of my theory is supported by WestJet (The Canadian version of
Southwest) -- Absolute lowest fares, virtually no tickets are
refundable, but *all* flights can be converted into credit (Good as
cash, minus a $40 change fee) up to two hours before the flight leaves.
Westjet does quite well, last I heard they even turn a profit, they have
assigned seating (although assignments only start 24 hours before the
flight, but no stampeding like Southwest), make accommodations for
people with special needs (my aunt gets a pre-assigned seat in a
bulkhead row, and doesn't have to be online 24 hours before the flight
madly clicking away), and a significant percentage of the Westjet
flights I've flown have been 100% full (vs American -- I have *never*
flown on a 100% full American flight)
I've only dealt with Westjet on one canceled flight (My brother's
flight, actually, but I was at the airport and did the wheeling and
dealing), their offer was 100% compensation, plus they'd get him there
about four hours late, or 100% compensation, plus a free ticket on any
flight in the next 7 days to the same destination, waiving any
difference in fares -- They were quite happy that my brother was just as
willing to go home tomorrow, and ignored the fact that there was no
seat-sale tomorrow, which worked out fine for the two of us)
--
Insert something clever here.
Jeff Hacker
"Tchiowa" <tchi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172800189.2...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...>> On 27 Feb 2007 21:04:37 -0800 'Tchiowa'
>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>> >There is a difference between being a defeatist and complaining
>> >because the world doesn't work the way you want it to. The world was
>> >not designed to make everything happen exactly the way you want it to.
>> >Understanding that is part of "growing up".
>>
>> Lol. An American joker...
>>
>> You are being defeatist because you are essentially arguing in support
>> of the current airline model
>
> No, I'm arguing in favor of the free market because it has been shown
> to be the best way to solve problems like this.
>
>> nowadays because of the way they are treated and packed in like
>> cattle.
>
> Yet give them the option to pay a bit more and get better seats and
> they overwhelmingly turn it down.
>
>> If you carefully read my original post and my additional posts, you
>> will see that I have raised genuine concerns about the current model
>> of airline business. EG: I believe that airline seats are simply not
>> wide enough for anybody larger than small-to-medium width;
>
> And, again (and again and again) that is as a result of passenger
> demand. Airlines have tried bigger seats and more legroom at slightly
> higher prices and passengers rejected it. The airlines are doing what
> customer demand makes them do.
>
> The airlines would be happy to have one passenger for a whole 747
> paying a million dollars for the flight. But there aren't enough who
> will do that. Whenever the airlines have tried increasing seat pitch,
> for example, and charging slightly more for it, the passengers beat a
> path to their competitor's door in order to save money.
>
>> airlines are overbooking seats and causing passenger disruptions/delays
>> etc.
>
> There is a simple solution to the overbooking situation. Whenever a
> passenger reserves a flight but doesn't take it without cancelling a
> accept that??? How about it they raise prices 10% without any
> additional service to cover the cost of empty seats from "no shows"?
> That is why the airlines overbook. They know that typically a certain
> percentage of people with reservations won't show. So they overbook in
> order to fill the seats. Otherwise they lose and will have to pass the
> cost to the customer in higher prices or penalties for cancellations.
> Which would you prefer?
Actually, in real practice that's pretty much what we have today. Most
tickets are non-refundable; if somebody doesn't show up they forfeit their
airfare, unless they've canceled in advance (in which case they can pay a
charge to rebook on another flight). If they don't cancel and rebook prior
to departure, they forfeit 100% of the fare. So the airline still has the
income and can re-sell the seat to a standby passenger, in effect, double
dipping.
>
>> It cannot be fair that a passenger buys a long haul ticket only to
>> find that he/she is seated next to another passenger who is larger
>> than medium and overflows their seat space for 13hrs.
>
> We've all agreed with that. And some airlines have tried to force
> obese passengers to buy 2 tickets. Which resulted in lawsuits claiming
> discrimination so the airlines were forced to back off.
>
>> And exactly what should an airline do in the BA situation in Bangkok
>> I first described? If I assume that BA had not overbooked my flight
>> *as they claimed* but were actually trying to find seats on my flight
>> for passengers dumped off the previous night's flight due to a techy
>> problem, should they roll over the problem to my flight? or should
>> they try to isolate it and deal with it without affecting my flight?
>
> In other words you don't care who gets hurt as long as it's not you???
>
>> I was told that the reason they rolled it over was due to some 24hr
>> rule on compensation but I have no info on this.
>
> Could very well be.
>
>> Most of these things are not in the interest of passengers, only the
>> airlines. Airlines *choose* their business model and obviously it's
>> designed to maximise their bottom lines. IE they don't have to pack
>> seats into planes like a sardine can, but they choose to.
>
> Again, airlines have tried to do it differently and the passengers
> forced them to change.
>
>> All I'm really saying is that there are problems with the current
>> model as evidenced by the growing numbers of people who dread flying
>> nowadays, but I have not actually set out my own ideas for change.
>> I wanted to see what other people had to say about it.
>
> ????? Remember your comment about the flight? 100% full. I have a hard
> time getting seats on flights between Asia and the US when booking a
> month in advance. US flights are at full capacity. Seems like the
> airlines have plenty of passengers.
>
>> >No need for government intervention. The free market will take care of
>> >itself. And despite what you want, it is the free market that is
>> >demanding smaller, cheaper seats.
>>
>> I disagree. A large part of the problem is that airlines are virtually
>> above the law across the world. The rights of passengers are pitiful.
>> Witness that the seating problem I described provides me with little
>> recourse.
>> And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the
>> American obsession with them.
I would agree that deregulation has created a large number of problems, not
the least of which is airline employee lifestyle issues. Most airline
employees today make less in real money than they did twenty years ago due
largely to deregulation and the need to compete with new Low Cost Carriers
with younger/newer/less highly paid workforces, and which carriers aren't
forced to serve many smaller communities. This is especially evident in the
United States where deregulation has resulted in the failure of legendary
pioneer carriers such as Braniff, Eastern, Pan Am, and TWA, and the numerous
bankruptcies of the other legacy carriers - Continental (2x), United, US
Airways (2x), Northwest, Delta, etc., but it also applies to airlines like
Canadian in Canada, Sabena and Swissair in Europe (and possibly, in the near
future, Alitalia), Ansett in Australia, etc. Coupled with less personal
service (and the loss of amenities such as meals, pillows, blankets, etc. on
many flights, and you can make a strong argument in favor of re-regulation.
>
> America is far and away the most successful country on the planet
> economically. It's people live better than anyone else. Make more
> money, take more flights, have bigger houses, drive nicer cars, etc.
> The American obsession with the free market is based on the fact that
> is WORKS!
>
>> I could also rant on about the current situation with Microsoft and its
>> new Vista Op/Sys.
>
> If someone had a better standard that people were willing to pay for
> then MicroSoft would be forced out of business.
>
>> >> >For the record I fly
>> >> >over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of
>> >> >decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like.
>>
>> >> Yippy for you. I have also done *a lot* of flying in my life but I
>> >> don't see what that's got to do with it.
>>
>> >You had made a comment to another poster about him not having much
>> >experience in flying.
>>
>> No I did not.
>
> You mean you didn't make this comment to Thur: "If you can't see the
> bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
> you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
> these days: "
>
> "Perhaps he's not aware..."???
>
>> Yes, I said it was mentioned "unofficially" (by other passengers).
>>
>> I repeat: BA made no mention of a cancelled flight the previous day
>> - only that they had overbooked my flight. That's what their memo
>> revealed at check-in after we had queued for two hours or so.
>
> So your complaint is that they didn't communicate well? Yeah, that's a
> problem.
>
>> Q, should BA have boarded my flight in the certain knowledge that we
>> would not take-off until the 35 other passengers had been brought to
>> the airport and ticketed?
>
> Yes.
>
>> >> >Some of your complaint are "off the board". Examples:
>>
>> >> >Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
>> >> >small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
>> >> >for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
>> >> >Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
>> >> >slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
>> >> >comfort. So you get what you pay for.
>>
>> >> Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.
>>
>> >Of course you did. You booked Economy. Are you telling me that BA
>> >doesn't have Business or First?
>>
>> This is nonsense.
>
> Really? You complained about seat size. You *CHOSE* your seat.
> Multiple classes of service with different size seats and different
> costs. You chose *CHEAP*.
>
>> >> The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
>> >> first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
>> >> cost in Economy" as you say.
>>
>> >Read what I said. The customers have spoken that they won't pay for
>> >more space so the airlines don't offer it.
>>
>> IYO. Others may disagree.
>
> Sorry, but it's been proven. Airlines tried. Jet Blue and SouthWest
> won by having smaller seats and less service. Other airlines are
> forced to change in order to compete.
>
>> >> I would usually happily pay a premium on long haul flights for a
>> >> larger seat with more space but this isn't available on most airlines.
>> >> Business and first are way too expensive.
>>
>> >As they are for most people. But that is still a choice you make. You
>> >put money as your first consideration ahead of service then complain
>> >because of the choice you made.
>>
>> Who is now behaving like an immature poster?
>
> ??? How is that immature? You made a choice. Now you are complaining
> about the results of *YOUR* choice.
>
>> When I book a flight, I expect a minimum acceptable standard of
>> service but I rarely receive it.
>
> You "expect"??? You know what the service is. You know you can get
> better service if you pay for it. But you won't.
>
>> >> It is my opinion that airlines cram too many seats into their planes
>> >> to maximise numbers and profits.
>>
>> >Of course they do. And, again, if passengers were willing to pay a bit
>> >more for less seats on the plane the airlines would offer them. But
>> >they don't so the airlines don't. You are a "victim" of the free
>> >market.
>>
>> Indeed. I'm a victim of the commercial-driven free market which is
>> more concerned with running itself for its own benefit than meeting
>> customer expectations.
>
> No, it's concerned with running itself as the customers demand they
> run it. Customers vote with their wallets every day.
>
>> >It's not an "agent" either. It's a site that sells tickets. You want
>> >proper travel advice, use a travel agent.
>>
>> If Expedia is not a travel agent or even an agent, then what is it?
>
> A website that sells tickets.
>
>> >Again, you made your choice and put money first before service. Then
>> >you complain about the service.
>>
>> More nonsense.
>
> More facts.
>
>> >I thought it was Sydney-Bangkok-London which is around 24 hours
>> >including layovers. You were just on part of the flight.
>>
>> I didn't fly from Sydney.
>
> The plane did.
>
>> As far as I was concerned my flight was from Bangkok to London.
>> I didn't even know that my flight had originated in Sydney until I
>> spoke to several other passengers.
js
> Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> said in rec.travel.air:
>
> >American Airlines even tried increasing legroom for everyone in coach.
> >But.... it didn't work.
>
>
> What was the goal of the increased legroom?
Revenue and profits.
Had the model worked to achieve the business goal then the
organization would not have undid the model.
Mike Hunt
I thought we were talking about US domestic first class, since you did
refer to American legacy carriers.
Comparing European business class seating is not really relevant, as it
is common for European business class seating to not have much legroom.
On some carriers it is more about service than bigger seats.
Jim Ley
<hack...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the
>>> American obsession with them.
>
>I would agree that deregulation has created a large number of problems, not
>the least of which is airline employee lifestyle issues. Most airline
>employees today make less in real money than they did twenty years ago due
>largely to deregulation and the need to compete with new Low Cost Carriers
>with younger/newer/less highly paid workforces, and which carriers aren't
>forced to serve many smaller communities.
Good! because it means all those younger/newer workforces have jobs,
rather than being unemployed, that's not a bad thing!
> Coupled with less personal
>service (and the loss of amenities such as meals, pillows, blankets, etc. on
>many flights, and you can make a strong argument in favor of re-regulation.
You mean you want the government to force passengers to subsidise the
lifestyles of Flight Attendants?
Jim.
VS
js <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.
>
>The seat you refer to is "Europe Select" and is sold as WBC - World
>Business Class. It is not a first class seat, it is a business class
>seat. It is priced as a business class seat.
Whatever they call it, it sucks. These ``business class'' seats
are worse than what Southwest offers in economy.
>The average seat pitch is 31 inches in select. It is also 31 inches
>in economy.
Worse than Southwest.
VS
js <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Northwest doesn't have 737s in the fleet but 757 varies between 31 and
>>>33 with 17.2 width.
>>
>>As little as 30 on the 319s - worse than Southwest.
>
>Apples to apples idiot - a 319 is not a 737
Apples to apples, economy seats on Northwest are worse than on
Southwest. Seat *pitch* does not depend on the plane, but even if
it did, Whose fault is it that Northwest uses crappy discount French
planes instead of 737s?
>> >>>>the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
>> ^^^^
>>>UAL FC 38/20.5 and Prem Econ 34/17 in the 737-5's
>>>Contiental FC 38/21
>>>Northwest FC 37/21
>>
>>Son, is English your native tongue?
>
>No.
So I noticed. You see, son, if I tell you that economy seats on
Southwest are better than SOME airlines' first class, you cannot
object to this by finding a couple of airlines whose first class seats
are better. You'll need to prove that ALL airlines' first class seats
are better than Southwest's economy, and that just ain't true.
>And which airline's first class seats have less pitch and less width
>than SW? None.
KLM and Air France on European flights.
VS
Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
>> KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.
>
>I thought we were talking about US domestic first class, since you did
>refer to American legacy carriers.
European airlines are worse than the shittiest American legacy carrier.
BA offers 31 inches of pitch in economy on 10-hour flights - worse
than Southwest on a 40-minute hop from Dallas to Houston.
>Comparing European business class seating is not really relevant, as it
>is common for European business class seating to not have much legroom.
>On some carriers it is more about service than bigger seats.
I find it amusing that European carriers offer worse seats and worse
service in their so called ``business class'' or ``first class''
or whatever they call it on intra-European flights than Southwest.
js
> In article <1172937062.057366.195...@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> js <jonathansmit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>Northwest doesn't have 737s in the fleet but 757 varies between 31 and
> >>>33 with 17.2 width.
>
> >>As little as 30 on the 319s - worse than Southwest.
>
> >Apples to apples idiot - a 319 is not a 737
>
> Apples to apples, economy seats on Northwest are worse than on
> Southwest.
No, not across the fleet. Since you cannot compare 737s between the
two, any comparison made requires different airplanes. In the case of
SW, they have one configuration - 32/17
NW, on the other hand flies a half dozen different airplanes and in
different configurations. IN ECONOMY, you can, on NW fly in a 30/17
seat on one of their old DC9 workhorses to as spacious as 34/17.2 on a
747. On the 319, there are seats that provide a 32 inch pitch and are
wider than economy seats on SW. The A330 coach configuration has
32/17.5 - better than SW and on some planes has a 33 inch pitch
(A330-300)
In the absence of apples to apples, you are wrong. Economy seats on
NW are not all worse than economy seats on SW - some are, some aren't.
Problem solved - next?
> Seat *pitch* does not depend on the plane,
Seat pitch varies across the fleets and even within an airplane.
> but even if
> it did, Whose fault is it that Northwest uses crappy discount French
> planes instead of 737s?
Considering the A330 on NW consistently provides better accomodations
than the SW 737....
>
> >> >>>>the economy seats on Southwest are better than some airlines'
> >> ^^^^
> >>>UAL FC 38/20.5 and Prem Econ 34/17 in the 737-5's
> >>>Contiental FC 38/21
> >>>Northwest FC 37/21
>
> >>Son, is English your native tongue?
>
> >No.
>
> So I noticed. You see, son, if I tell you that economy seats on
> Southwest are better than SOME airlines' first class, you cannot
> object to this by finding a couple of airlines whose first class seats
> are better.
I ask for an example - you can't find one.
> You'll need to prove that ALL airlines' first class seats
> are better than Southwest's economy,
Nope - I don't have to do anything.
> and that just ain't true.
Oh, it is.
> >And which airline's first class seats have less pitch and less width
> >than SW? None.
>
> KLM and Air France on European flights.
These aren't first class seats. These are business class seats on
regional jets or F100/F70s.
Play again?
Didn't think so.
js
js
> In article <s5Wdnbb2CehgCnfYnZ2dnUVZ_vShn...@comcast.com>,
How often do you get a free cocktail on SW? How about a meal? How
about a full refund?
js
Jim Ley
wrote:
>>And which airline's first class seats have less pitch and less width
>>than SW? None.
>
> KLM and Air France on European flights.
What first class seats on KLM and Air France have First Class seats?
Are you confusing business class with first class?
Jim.
js
> In article <1172937531.900813.106...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
>
> js <jonathansmit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.
>
> >The seat you refer to is "Europe Select" and is sold as WBC - World
> >Business Class. It is not a first class seat, it is a business class
> >seat. It is priced as a business class seat.
>
> Whatever they call it, it sucks. These ``business class'' seats
> are worse than what Southwest offers in economy.
>
> >The average seat pitch is 31 inches in select. It is also 31 inches
> >in economy.
>
> Worse than Southwest.
So, when you fly between AMS and LCY, perhaps you'd prefer SW.
Been fun, but your perspective on air travel is far too negative and
inconsistent.
I for one do not fly SW - for three very simple reasons - no first
class, no assigned seats, and people like you.
js
Mike Hunt
> In article <1172937531.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> js <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.
>>
>>The seat you refer to is "Europe Select" and is sold as WBC - World
>>Business Class. It is not a first class seat, it is a business class
>>seat. It is priced as a business class seat.
>
>
> Whatever they call it, it sucks. These ``business class'' seats
> are worse than what Southwest offers in economy.
>
1. Do you think KLM is trying to compete with WN? You are trying to
compare a US carrier with a foreign carrier that is using service to
differentiate this particular class, not seat size. It is an INVALID
comparison. From your quote
"It's good to have airlines like Southwest that
maintain standards of service while others are racing to the bottom."
How is WN doing this with 32 inches of pitch? Many other airlines have
the same pitch or MORE...
2. Please name the airline where WN economy seats have more pitch than
another airline's first class. You seemed to be confused on what you
should be comparing.
white...@yahoo.co.uk
> In article <s5Wdnbb2CehgCnfYnZ2dnUVZ_vShn...@comcast.com>,
> Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
>
> >> KLM in Fokker 70 and 100. 31 inches - worse than Southwest.
>
> >I thought we were talking about US domestic first class, since you did
> >refer to American legacy carriers.
>
> European airlines are worse than the shittiest American legacy carrier.
> BA offers 31 inches of pitch in economy on 10-hour flights - worse
> than Southwest on a 40-minute hop from Dallas to Houston.
Not surprisng long-haul has less space. You will find that these same
airlines have more space on their short-haul routes, so I doubt your
comparison
is valid.
>
Mike Hunt
>
>>Comparing European business class seating is not really relevant, as it
>>is common for European business class seating to not have much legroom.
>>On some carriers it is more about service than bigger seats.
>
>
> I find it amusing that European carriers offer worse seats and worse
> service in their so called ``business class'' or ``first class''
> or whatever they call it on intra-European flights than Southwest.
>
It is a ONE inch difference, on specific types of aircraft, and KLM is
not selling this class based on larger seating, it is selling it based
on other things.
Now, can you explain the SERVICE difference that makes WN better than
European business class?
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 06:08:47 -0800 (PST), sh...@xenon.Stanford.EDU (VS)
>wrote:
>>>And which airline's first class seats have less pitch and less width
>>>than SW? None.
>>
>> KLM and Air France on European flights.
>What first class seats on KLM and Air France have First Class seats?
Rotfl. Are you really this dumb Jim?
Tchiowa
> On 1 Mar 2007 17:49:49 -0800 'Tchiowa'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
> IMHO what is lacking in the airline industry is a modern legal
> framework standard defining passenger rights when travelling on
> airlines. What we have is a mish-mash of inadequate regulation going
> back many decades derived from your beloved free market and reluctance
> by governments to get involved because airlines are flag carriers.
> Much of the current bias in favour of airlines -vs- passengers comes
> from your own country and the rest just follow like sheep.
???? There is an international convention governing airline passage.
Read the back of your ticket.
> One example I gave earlier is that when I buy a ticket, it should
> entitle me to the full seat space I have bought. Currently it doesn't.
And that's been explained. Change the legal system if you don't like
it.
> Another is that the methods created by airlines of marketing tickets
> result in much overbooking.
Again, explained. Are you willing to have a rule that says anyone who
makes a reservation and doesn't show must pay the full price of the
ticket even though they didn't use it?
> Baggage is mishandled causing it much damage over time.
Blithering nonsense.
> Do you honestly think that your beloved "free market" demanded all the
> legal and technical constraints imposed in the new MS Vista Op/Sys?
I believe if the O/S doesn't work the way people want it to work they
will buy something else.
> You need to get an understanding of how big business operates.
No, you do. You seem to have a "Hard Left" opinion of businesses.
> >> even though many people dread flying
> >> nowadays because of the way they are treated and packed in like
> >> cattle.
>
> >Yet give them the option to pay a bit more and get better seats and
> >they overwhelmingly turn it down.
>
> I have already disagreed with this broad assertion.
> Whilst I accept that large numbers of riff-raff will accept anything
> as long as it's at the lowest possible price,
Yes, and they constitute the majority. And they are the ones the
airline caters to.
Of course there are others, like you, who want that "lowest possible
price" but aren't will to accept what that means.
> there are still very
> many travellers who wish to travel in respectable conditions.
Business and First Class.
> Even buying business or first class tickets will not guarantee this as
> there are many riff-raff people with loads-a-money. Some celebrities
> come to mind.
??? Completely self-contradictory statement.
> >And, again (and again and again) that is as a result of passenger
> >demand. Airlines have tried bigger seats and more legroom at slightly
> >higher prices and passengers rejected it. The airlines are doing what
> >customer demand makes them do.
>
> See above. I disagree with your unfounded assertion.
> I already mentioned that (afaik) Eva offer such an option when booking
> flights and I'm told "the seats get sold quite quickly".
Yes. But there are a limited number of seats and only in International
travel. In the US that was tried several times and the experiment
failed.
> >There is a simple solution to the overbooking situation. Whenever a
> >passenger reserves a flight but doesn't take it without cancelling a
> >week in advance he is forced to pay for it anyway. Are you ready to
> >accept that???
>
> Most of the tickets I buy already have that condition.
> It doesn't stop the airlines from overbooking.
Proof that you are going after "cheap" rather than "quality".
Now read what I wrote and think about your response. I referred to
"reservations". You can make a reservation before you pay for the
ticket. And it is quite common for people to make reservations then
not show. So the airlines have to overbook. There are also a number of
people who buy unrestricted tickets then don't show. They get their
money back.
The airline is in the business of filling up its seats. They have to
respond to customer (mis)behavior.
> >How about it they raise prices 10% without any
> >additional service to cover the cost of empty seats from "no shows"?
> >That is why the airlines overbook. They know that typically a certain
> >percentage of people with reservations won't show. So they overbook in
> >order to fill the seats. Otherwise they lose and will have to pass the
> >cost to the customer in higher prices or penalties for cancellations.
> >Which would you prefer?
>
> You are completely missing the point.
> The current methods of selling airline tickets is chosen by the
> airlines to suit themselves.
Because of the reasons above. Now answer the question. Are you willing
to pay 10% more with no additional service to cover the cost of empty
seats from "no shows"? If not, then you are stuck with overbooking.
> >> It cannot be fair that a passenger buys a long haul ticket only to
> >> find that he/she is seated next to another passenger who is larger
> >> than medium and overflows their seat space for 13hrs.
>
> >We've all agreed with that. And some airlines have tried to force
> >obese passengers to buy 2 tickets. Which resulted in lawsuits claiming
> >discrimination so the airlines were forced to back off.
>
> Because governments decline to get involved.
> How about if I issue a lawsuit because I didn't get what I paid for?
Go for it. Maybe things will change for the better. But right now we
are stuck with the status quo based on previous lawsuits.
> >> And exactly what should an airline do in the BA situation in Bangkok
> >> I first described? If I assume that BA had not overbooked my flight
> >> *as they claimed* but were actually trying to find seats on my flight
> >> for passengers dumped off the previous night's flight due to a techy
> >> problem, should they roll over the problem to my flight? or should
> >> they try to isolate it and deal with it without affecting my flight?
>
> >In other words you don't care who gets hurt as long as it's not you???
>
> Not at all. That's another distortion of my views.
Actually that's pretty much exactly what you said.
> It doesn't make sense to knock-on a flight problem to other flights,
> which simply increases the number of people who are inconvenienced.
So your proposal is to leave the people from the first flight stranded
for days or weeks?
> >> I was told that the reason they rolled it over was due to some 24hr
> >> rule on compensation but I have no info on this.
>
> >Could very well be.
>
> Again, a solution which suited the airline, not the passengers.
>
> Are you getting the picture yet?
Apparently you missed it. You acknowledge that they had to do this
because of a rule imposed on them so your solution is "more rules"?
> >> All I'm really saying is that there are problems with the current
> >> model as evidenced by the growing numbers of people who dread flying
> >> nowadays, but I have not actually set out my own ideas for change.
> >> I wanted to see what other people had to say about it.
>
> >????? Remember your comment about the flight? 100% full. I have a hard
> >time getting seats on flights between Asia and the US when booking a
> >month in advance. US flights are at full capacity. Seems like the
> >airlines have plenty of passengers.
>
> Naturally, because airlines have brought the price of tickets down so
> much over the years that everybody and his dog are flying. You could
> offer plates of horse shit in a restaurant and some people would buy
> it. Full flights mean nothing except that people will pay.
I thought you said that people "dread flying". If the airplanes are
full then the airline is doing *exactly* what the passengers want and
are willing to pay for. (Don't forget the "and" in that sentence.)
> >> And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the
> >> American obsession with them.
>
> >America is far and away the most successful country on the planet
> >economically. It's people live better than anyone else.
>
> At the expense of many other countries ... but don't let's get into politics.
This isn't politics, it's economics. The Free Market works. Socialism
and government control don't.
> Betamax got killed off by VHS some years ago, not because the latter
> was better but because of corporate muscle.
Wrong. Beta is a perfect example. It was a better system. But it was
more expensive. So the customers voted with their wallets that they
would rather have VHS and save money. Same as they have done with the
airline policies and seat sizes you're complaining about. You want
"Beta" airline service but pay "VHS" prices. You vote with your wallet
and you get "VHS" service.
> None of that confirms your previous allegation.
> Thur could simply be a very frequent traveller but extremely naive.
Or an infrequent traveller and also extremely naive like you?
> >> Q, should BA have boarded my flight in the certain knowledge that we
> >> would not take-off until the 35 other passengers had been brought to
> >> the airport and ticketed?
>
> >Yes.
>
> Why?
Time. Efficiency.
> >Really? You complained about seat size. You *CHOSE* your seat.
> >Multiple classes of service with different size seats and different
> >costs. You chose *CHEAP*.
>
> No, I accepted one of the offers made available to me.
Several offers were made to you. Economy, Business, First. You made
your choice.
> >Why didn't you know? You chose to buy your tickets yourself rather
> >than using a travel agent. You are responsible for finding those
> >things out.
>
> Not easily possible when the booking agent doesn't make the
> information available.
Who said anything about "easy"? Where do you get off demanding "easy"?
If you want "easy" use a Travel Agent. Travel Agents will give you
that information, "easy". But there's a cost involved. You wouldn't
pay the price for "easy".
Tchiowa
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:13:58 GMT 'Jim Ley'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
> >Yep, it's called business class.
>
> Rubbish.
You repeat this refrain. Are you not aware that Business Class has
wider seats and better overall conditions that Economy?
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>On Mar 2, 7:36 pm, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...@spammotel.com> wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "better overall conditions" but paying
large sums of money for a business seat (or even first class) does not
guarantee that your flight will be either comfortable or peaceful,
although I have always accepted that both classes of seat usually
provide a wider seat.
But there are plenty of uncouth slobs with loads-a-money who fly
BC or FC and drag their screaming shitty kids along with them or even
cause a big rumpus themselves. As I previously said, some celebrities
come to mind.
I know of an individual who always flies FC because he's a member of
the most important family in Dubai. On one occasion he was drunk on
board and caused a rumpus in FC and the FAs threatened to divert the
plane to dump him off.
Imagine the aggravation to other FC passengers while all that went on.
As a friend said to me some while ago "you might upgrade from economy
to FC to get away from screaming shitty kids and slobs, only to find
that you're seated close to a FC screaming shitty kid or a rich slob."
I don't know what the solution to this general problem is but I'm sure
that airlines do little or nothing about it.
Perhaps all passengers with kids should be located in one section of
the plane where they can be more easily controlled? I dunno. But this
problem, coupled to seats which are too narrow for larger than average
or obese people have collectively turned flying into an endurance test
for ordinary decent folk.
TMOliver
"hummingbird" abused the airwaves with another in series of irrational
pontiofications.....
>
> But there are plenty of uncouth slobs with loads-a-money who fly
> BC or FC and drag their screaming shitty kids along with them or even
> cause a big rumpus themselves. As I previously said, some celebrities
> come to mind.
> I know of an individual who always flies FC because he's a member of
> the most important family in Dubai. On one occasion he was drunk on
> board and caused a rumpus in FC and the FAs threatened to divert the
> plane to dump him off.
> Imagine the aggravation to other FC passengers while all that went on.
"The most imporant family in Dubai"
Child, unless the Grand Panjandrum of Pollysquat decides to hail the
offender out into the Gran Piazza and there to attach his limbs to four
large draft animals to pull him asunder, whilst drawing his liver and
lights out with a crochet hook thrust up his fundmant, your "individual",
protected by wealth and status will likely go on swilling popskull and
abusing his fellow passengers and fondling the FAs. Of course, you may rise
up from your seat, mightily offended, and swat the bugger across the chops,
knocking him arse over teakettle. Potentially, howver, you leave yourself
open to be beaten with brass-tipped lathis by the Dubai airport security
forces upon landing, and confined to a dry well far out in the desert for
your sins, for in Dubai, he who is kin unto the mighty, is generally in a
position to f*ck over the hoi polloi (or so it is written).
>
> As a friend said to me some while ago "you might upgrade from economy
> to FC to get away from screaming shitty kids and slobs, only to find
> that you're seated close to a FC screaming shitty kid or a rich slob."
Lo, it is further written (in the seventh chapter of the Meanderings of
Wiley Coyote).....
Seats in the front of the bus sell for more, yet, they who have the shekels
to purchase those seats are likely to be as equally boorish louts, arse
scrtachers and nose pickers as are the poor boogers in the back. Their
squalling babes, randomly spewing from whatever orifice, their boorish
habits, and their custom of eating greasy mutton with their fingers, are but
signs of their humanity.
>
> I don't know what the solution to this general problem is but I'm sure
> that airlines do little or nothing about it.
They are waiting for you to act, to don the red rags of rebellion, to lead
the mob unto the veritable Bastilles which are their air terminals, there to
lay waste about you with fire and sword, to confront the mighty in their
mirrored palaces, and to make us all equal (except for fat folk and mothers
with babes, who will be confined to their miserable squats or giant mansions
until (a) they are skinny and svelte or (b) the rotten little putti have
reached their majorities).
>
> Perhaps all passengers with kids should be located in one section of
> the plane where they can be more easily controlled? I dunno. But this
> problem, coupled to seats which are too narrow for larger than average
> or obese people have collectively turned flying into an endurance test
> for ordinary decent folk.
Aside from being a noxious twit, apparently quite unaware of your own racism
and prejudice, and envious of those whose fiscal condition allows them to
fly in the front because assets or status - Yes, some of them fly in First
not because they are wealthy or prominent, but have flown so often that the
airlines reward their loyally with big seats, well spaced rows, champagne
and an occasional few grains of cheap caviar.
I hope that on your next flight, you are seated in a "middle" seat, between
a mother breast feeding twins and a morbidly obese concert-quality
petomaniac traveling to a musical appearance at a NAAFI canteen after
preloading his magazines during three days of over-eating frijoles refritos
and "el charro" in a good Mexican restaurant.
TMO
nada
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> I believe that airline seats are simply not
> wide enough for anybody larger than small-to-medium width;
so lose some weight, you lardbutt!
DevilsPGD
(nada) wrote:
The widest part on my body is my shouldered, followed by my hips. Weight
gain or loss will change neither of those significantly on my body type.
hummingbird
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>"hummingbird" wrote.....>
>>
>> But there are plenty of uncouth slobs with loads-a-money who fly
>> BC or FC and drag their screaming shitty kids along with them or even
>> cause a big rumpus themselves. As I previously said, some celebrities
>> come to mind.
>> I know of an individual who always flies FC because he's a member of
>> the most important family in Dubai. On one occasion he was drunk on
>> board and caused a rumpus in FC and the FAs threatened to divert the
>> plane to dump him off.
>> Imagine the aggravation to other FC passengers while all that went on.
>"The most imporant family in Dubai"
That's correct. The al-Maktoum ruling family in fact.
If you post anything worth reading, let me know.
[rest of your incoherent drivel binned untranslated]
js
> In message <ch8pu2lkgcqge3bm927o0firer3qb4t...@4ax.com> n...@here.com
I'm far from clever and the antifat biddy isn't my friend. However,
given a 17 inch seat width, you would need a hip circumfrence of over
50 inches not to fit between the armrests. 2'PI'R and R=17/2
js
Bob Myers
"js" <jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1173138110.9...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm far from clever and the antifat biddy isn't my friend. However,
> given a 17 inch seat width, you would need a hip circumfrence of over
> 50 inches not to fit between the armrests. 2'PI'R and R=17/2
If people were of circular cross-section at the hips,
you'd have a point. Since they're not, I fail to see how
this contributes anything meaningful to the discussion.
Bob M.
js
> "js" <jonathansmit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Well, Bob - though the pelvic girdle is not exactly circular, the
estimate is valid when BMI exceeds 30 and w/h is less than 0.8 or so.
Since we are talking about lard butts, that pretty much describes
them. And, that said, weight loss would improve that.
I suppose had you been familiar with the basic etiology of obesity you
wouldn't have looked so foolish.
Now, what exactly was your contribution? That's what I thought.
js
Tchiowa
> On 4 Mar 2007 16:26:57 -0800 'Tchiowa'
> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
> >On Mar 2, 7:36 pm, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:13:58 GMT 'Jim Ley'
> >> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
> >> >Yep, it's called business class.
>
> >> Rubbish.
>
> >You repeat this refrain. Are you not aware that Business Class has
> >wider seats and better overall conditions that Economy?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "better overall conditions" but paying
> large sums of money for a business seat (or even first class) does not
> guarantee that your flight will be either comfortable or peaceful,
> although I have always accepted that both classes of seat usually
> provide a wider seat.
You complained about specific things including size of the seat. I
said that you had deliberately paid for a small seat. Others also
pointed out that Business Class resolves this. Rather than admit that
simple fact you now want to take about kids and slobs. Do you want a
government policy forcing the airlines to gag and handcuff all kids?
I think you tipped your hand, though, in the way you phrased the
statement. Business Class is more expensive than Economy, of course,
but it does not involved "large sums of money". Perhaps from the
perspective of someone whose primary goal is "cheap" that's the case.
> As a friend said to me some while ago "you might upgrade from economy
> to FC to get away from screaming shitty kids and slobs, only to find
> that you're seated close to a FC screaming shitty kid or a rich slob."
If your goal is to get away from people you think are inferior to you
("slobs" is the way you phrased it) then you need to buy your own
plane or quit flying.
Or change your attitude about other people.
> Perhaps all passengers with kids should be located in one section of
> the plane where they can be more easily controlled? I dunno. But this
> problem, coupled to seats which are too narrow for larger than average
> or obese people have collectively turned flying into an endurance test
> for ordinary decent folk.
Back to seat size which is easily resolved as long as your primary
goal isn't "cheap".
I'm an "ordinary decent folk" and I quite enjoy flying. There is the
occasional glitch but that's part of life. In the whole it's a fairly
enjoyable experience.