"Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Bob Fry wrote:
    >> >>>>> "gglave" == gglave <[email protected]> writes:
    >> gglave> again. People ALWAYS complain about lack of movies or
    >> gglave> food or leg room, but have consistently shown that if push
    >> gglave> comes to shove they will always reject that in favour of a
    >> gglave> cheaper fare.
    >> I wonder though, if at purchase time it was quite clear what extra
    >> service they could buy ($10 for an inflight meal, $30 for 2 inches
    >> more legroom, and so forth), maybe people would pay more. I buy the
    >> cheap flight because I am very doubtful of actually buying better
    >> service. Mind you, I'm not saying that buying an airline ticket
    >> cafeteria style is practical. Just that people probably would pay for
    >> better service, if they truly got it and knew what they were buying.
    > Fly BA. Good pricing generally on long haul and 'full service'.

They seem to be doing something right being the worlds most profitable
airline too. Even on the short haul trips Dublin - London, its nice to get
a complimentary alcoholic drink or two on the flight. The have got their
costs under control without compromising too much on the service.

"tim (moved to sweden)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "d_jay_double" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] oups.com...
    >>I fly BA over ryanair anytime, as long as I can book early enough to
    >> keep prices reasonable. Even if the difference is sometimes close to a
    >> 100 pounds, I fly so often that I just can't stand the rush for seats
    >> on ryanair, the cramped seating, the pay through your nose for a
    >> sandwich syndrome....
    > I fly Ryanair because of the convenience of the airports that they
    > fly from. I just wish that BA (or others) would fly from nice quite
    > airports where you can park your car 2 minutes from the terminal
    > with another short walk to the gate. On return it's back in your
    > car, 5 minues after landing.
    > But they don't, they fly from monstrosities that you have to go
    > to by Public transport (because the parking is unaffordable),
    > arrive hours before the flight to fight through security etc.....

I do a lot from Southampton as an alternative to Heathrow living as I do 40
minutes from each. Car parking is relatively cheap and I have been known to
be off the plane and in my car in a couple of minutes in the short stay car
park and 10 minutes in the long stay.

"Gene Seibel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > An airplane isn't a restaurant. An airplane isn't a movie theater. An
    > airplane is a way to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount
    > of time and at reasonable cost. Most people see it as such.
    > --
Ever been on a 22 hour flight say London to Sydney. The airplane has to be
able to do a bit more than go from A to B.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Gene Seibel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > > An airplane isn't a restaurant. An airplane isn't a movie theater. An
    > > airplane is a way to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount
    > > of time and at reasonable cost. Most people see it as such.
    > > --
    > Ever been on a 22 hour flight say London to Sydney. The airplane has to be
    > able to do a bit more than go from A to B.

try about the same time SIN-LHR (or v-v, with 4-5 stops. QF, BA and
M...something used to do this in the old old days.

"Martin D. Pay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:57:38 +0100,
    > [email protected] (chancellor of the duchy of
    > besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) mangled uncounted
    > electrons thus:
    > >Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >[]
    > >> There is relatively little difference in service across airlines,
    > >> anyway. They all fly the same planes in the same way on the same
    > >> routes. No amount of service reduces flight time, and there's almost
    > >> nothing that can be done to reduce discomfort. And food and drink
don't
    > >> significantly compensate for this.
    > >
    > >The meals and drinks help pass a bit of time, usually, and IMO the
    > >aircraft with seat-back video and lots of movies and TV shows on demand
    > >help pass the time even more.
    > Speaking personally, and therefore as a sample of one, I'd
    > (almost!) pay not to have a TV screen in the back of the seat in
    > front of me. They're too damned small to be any use, and too
    > close to my eyes - all I get is a blinding headache and nausea
    > after a hour of exposure to one.
    > My cry is for legroom - any other 'frill' is entirely irrelevant
    > to me. I made the mistake of flying on a Virgin 747 from LGW to
    > MCO, following someone else's glowing recommendation. But never
    > again - I spent a good chunk of the (overnight) return flight
    > standing in the cross-aisle at the back, reading my book, rather
    > than try to sit... :(

Sounds like my PHX-LGW BA flight. Cramped as I'd never experienced before.

Paul Nixon

Chris wrote:

    > "Gene Seibel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > > An airplane isn't a restaurant. An airplane isn't a movie theater. An
    > > airplane is a way to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount
    > > of time and at reasonable cost. Most people see it as such.
    > > --
    > Ever been on a 22 hour flight say London to Sydney. The airplane has to be
    > able to do a bit more than go from A to B.


The still - standing record for the longest non - stop commercial flight is
the late - 50's TWA Los Angeles - London route, flown with the propeller -
driven Lockheed L-1049G "Starliner" Constellation...it was almost 25 hours
in length. Second record holder is a late - 50's Scandinavian Airlines
flight flown with the prop Douglas DC-7C "Seven Seas" on the Los Angeles -
Copenhagen route (both of these flights had to make refueling stops on their
westbound legs e.g. LHR - LAX, CPH - LAX)...

Of course these were primarily all First Class layouts with sleeper berths,
etc..about 40 or so passengers max.

I can't imagine bouncing around in a prop plane for all that time, even with
the finest in amenities...

--
Best
Greg

"Bob Fry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>> "gglave" == gglave <[email protected]> writes:
    > gglave> again. People ALWAYS complain about lack of movies or
    > gglave> food or leg room, but have consistently shown that if push
    > gglave> comes to shove they will always reject that in favour of a
    > gglave> cheaper fare.
    > I wonder though, if at purchase time it was quite clear what extra
    > service they could buy ($10 for an inflight meal, $30 for 2 inches
    > more legroom, and so forth), maybe people would pay more. I buy the
    > cheap flight because I am very doubtful of actually buying better
    > service. Mind you, I'm not saying that buying an airline ticket
    > cafeteria style is practical. Just that people probably would pay for
    > better service, if they truly got it and knew what they were buying.

Years ago, in the U.S., the major airlines offered two classes of economy
service - one with meals and one without. The additional airfare charged
for meals was $10 (about UKP 6) on a 5 1/2 hour flight between Hawaii and
the U.S. West Coast. Within a short time, most passengers were paying the
extra because they understood what they were buying. While a typical
European flight is probably closer to 2 hours than 5, I think the premise
still applies: if the people understand what they are buying, and the price
is fair, a market will develop for the service, at least on some routes. It
is the same principal that makes Virgin's Premium Economy, BA's World
Traveler Plus, and several other airlines' premium economy service, run full
with PAID passengers (as opposed to frequent flyer upgrades).

"Gene Seibel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > An airplane isn't a restaurant. An airplane isn't a movie theater. An
    > airplane is a way to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount
    > of time and at reasonable cost. Most people see it as such.

Unfortunately, this is VERY true. That is the reason for the success of the
LCC's (and then people bitch about limited free baggage allowances, paying
for drinks and food, cramped seating, etc.)


    > --
    > Gene Seibel
    > Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
    > Because we fly, we envy no one.
    >

"Miguel Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > d_jay_double <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> I fly BA over ryanair anytime, as long as I can book early enough to
    >> keep prices reasonable. Even if the difference is sometimes close to a
    >> 100 pounds, I fly so often that I just can't stand the rush for seats
    >> on ryanair, the cramped seating, the pay through your nose for a
    >> sandwich syndrome....
    > They charge 100 pounds for a sandwich?

That really is "designer bread!"
    > Because it would seem odd to pay 100 pound to avoid paying, say, 7 pounds
    > for a sandwich.

But even 7 pounds seams pretty steep for a typical airline ham sandwich!

    > miguel
    > --
    > Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
    > Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net> wrote in
message news:[email protected] nk.net...
    > Chris wrote:
    >> "Gene Seibel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected] oups.com...
    >> > An airplane isn't a restaurant. An airplane isn't a movie theater. An
    >> > airplane is a way to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount
    >> > of time and at reasonable cost. Most people see it as such.
    >> > --
    >> Ever been on a 22 hour flight say London to Sydney. The airplane has to
    >> be
    >> able to do a bit more than go from A to B.
    > The still - standing record for the longest non - stop commercial flight
    > is
    > the late - 50's TWA Los Angeles - London route, flown with the propeller -
    > driven Lockheed L-1049G "Starliner" Constellation.

.actually, the Starliner was the L-1649

.it was almost 25 hours
    > in length. Second record holder is a late - 50's Scandinavian Airlines
    > flight flown with the prop Douglas DC-7C "Seven Seas" on the Los Angeles -
    > Copenhagen route (both of these flights had to make refueling stops on
    > their
    > westbound legs e.g. LHR - LAX, CPH - LAX)...
    > Of course these were primarily all First Class layouts with sleeper
    > berths,
    > etc..about 40 or so passengers max.
    > I can't imagine bouncing around in a prop plane for all that time, even
    > with
    > the finest in amenities...

I'm old enough to have flown many hours in propeller airplanes
(Stratocruisers, DC6B's, DC7B's, DC7C's, etc.) They may have been a bit
noisy, but not particularly uncomfortable otherwise. Even when they added
an economy class in the DC7C's (2-3 seating), passenger comfort and legroom
was at least as nice as today's. The flights just droned on and on and on,
and they didn't have inflight entertainment then.
    > --
    > Best
    > Greg
    >

"Martin D. Pay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:57:38 +0100,
    > [email protected] (chancellor of the duchy of
    > besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) mangled uncounted
    > electrons thus:
    >>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>[]
    >>> There is relatively little difference in service across airlines,
    >>> anyway. They all fly the same planes in the same way on the same
    >>> routes. No amount of service reduces flight time, and there's almost
    >>> nothing that can be done to reduce discomfort. And food and drink don't
    >>> significantly compensate for this.
    >>The meals and drinks help pass a bit of time, usually, and IMO the
    >>aircraft with seat-back video and lots of movies and TV shows on demand
    >>help pass the time even more.
    > Speaking personally, and therefore as a sample of one, I'd
    > (almost!) pay not to have a TV screen in the back of the seat in
    > front of me. They're too damned small to be any use, and too
    > close to my eyes - all I get is a blinding headache and nausea
    > after a hour of exposure to one.
    > My cry is for legroom - any other 'frill' is entirely irrelevant
    > to me. I made the mistake of flying on a Virgin 747 from LGW to
    > MCO, following someone else's glowing recommendation. But never
    > again - I spent a good chunk of the (overnight) return flight
    > standing in the cross-aisle at the back, reading my book, rather
    > than try to sit... :(
    > Martin D. Pay
    > As a leisure flyer, I don't have the luxury of affording top-end
    > seats...

I would agree with you about Virgin's tight economy class seating. But the
cost of upgrading to their premium economy (one less seat across per row,
and 38" pitch vs. 31" in regular steerage) is a good compromise.

"nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > ShawnD2112 wrote:
    >> Sorry, nobody, but you're not quite right. People flying in Economy
    >> class
    >> buy tickets on price and price alone, once the hygience factors like
    >> safety
    >> and destination are there. In fact, routing and aircraft type are
    >> non-issues. People will fly from London to Amsterdam to New York if it's
    >> cheaper than a London-NY direct service.
    > I disagree. Here, Air Transat offers lowest prices for trans atlantic,
    > but many people insist on paying more because they've flown Transat once
    > and swore never to do it again with only 28" seat pitch for so long.
    > Price is not the only variable.
    > And in terms of domestic USA market, the problem is that the low cost
    > carriers actually offers service in flight, just not meals. JetBlue for
    > instance offers in seat video for passengers.

as well as 34" pitch.
    > Another aspect of the LCCs in the USA is that starting in the year 2000,
    > they rapidly gained the image of being more reliable and on time than
    > the legacy carriers. So if you are travelling on business, Southwest
    > became a viable option to get you to your destination on time at a time
    > where legacy carriers had systemwide delays due to some thunderstors in
    > some big hub city.
    > So the differentiation in service levels diminished not only because the
    > legacy carriers cut back on service quality, but also becauuse low cost
    > carriers increased the value of their product. But legacy carrier still
    > had ridiculously more expensive last minute fares than the low cost
    > carriers.
    > Faces with paying $1000 to fly a legacy carrier instead of a low cost
    > airline for a last minute round trip, you'd forego the meal and go with
    > the low cost carrier. It isn't because of the meal, it was just that the
    > additional service the legacy carriers provided just weren't worth the
    > ticket price difference.
    > If you give a passenger a clear choice in well defined services with a
    > proce difference that fairly represents that difference alone, then that
    > woudl be a good indiaction of what passengers want. YOu want to charge
    > $1000 more for a meal, then you bet that pax won't go for it. But if you
    > were to charge $10 more for a real meal, you might find passengers
    > choosing to pay that extra for the meal. If you charged $30 more for
    > extra leg room, you'd find people paying for it.
    > The problem is that legacy carriers had overestimated how much business
    > travellers were really willing to pay for the extras that legacy
    > carriers provide.
    > In europe, this is different because the service level differences
    > betwene LCC and legacy carriers is mujch bigger than in north america.
    > A GOOD meal costs $10 to provide. Jetblue could afford to raise its
    > rates by $10, provide meals and still be very competitive with the
    > legacy carriers. It isn't the meal that caused the USA legacy carriers
    > to enter or approach bankrupcy. It is mismanagement, it is bad
    > schedules, an overly big fleet and expensice employee costs.
    > But management attacked the meals first, before tackling the real
    > issues. US Air only now has begun to rationalise its fleet and increase
    > schedule efficiency, and this is how many years since its first
    > bankrupcy ???????
    > When you can return 28 aircraft tomorrow and still maintain the same
    > number of available seat miles, that means that you were wasting a whole
    > hell of a lot more money than the provision of meals to customers.
    >> Because of this purchasing behaviour, economy fares are usually pretty
    >> low
    >> and the airlines hardly make any money on them at all, the exception
    >> being
    >> the lowcost carriers like Southwest and Easyjet.
    > Again, that is because of the bad pricing philosophy of the legacy
    > carriers. Milk a few business travellers with extravagently high fares,
    > and give the rest of the seats at or below cost to leasure passengers.
    > When you lose those few high yield busines spassengers, you end up wiith
    > no profitable passengers.
    > The LCCs greatly reduced the gap between leasure and business
    > travellers, so when a business traveller is lost, they can replace him
    > with a leasure travellers at not great loss in revenu. LCCs are more
    > "communist" where everyone is equal.

"S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] oups.com...
    >>> You are, I presume, joking, right????????
    >> Not at all - Economics have shown again and again that people are not
    >> willing to pay for perks on flights.
    > But this has got nothing to do with anything ! ????
    > People are prepare to pay for an aircraft that shows up, their luggage
    > with them when they arrive, and preferably a meal / drinks in flight. I
    > couldn't give a rat's rear about all the other stuff that the big boys use
    > to justify their ludicrously overblown prices, films, entertainment,
    > insurance (hotel stay if a flight's cancelled etc).

Many of the LCC's have entertainment, etc.
    > One of the most ridiculously high fares is Continental's Newark to B'ham
    > (BHX) ; it cannot be justified.
    >

Chris wrote:

    > "Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Bob Fry wrote:
    > >
    > >> >>>>> "gglave" == gglave <[email protected]> writes:
    > >> gglave> again. People ALWAYS complain about lack of movies or
    > >> gglave> food or leg room, but have consistently shown that if push
    > >> gglave> comes to shove they will always reject that in favour of a
    > >> gglave> cheaper fare.
    > >>
    > >> I wonder though, if at purchase time it was quite clear what extra
    > >> service they could buy ($10 for an inflight meal, $30 for 2 inches
    > >> more legroom, and so forth), maybe people would pay more. I buy the
    > >> cheap flight because I am very doubtful of actually buying better
    > >> service. Mind you, I'm not saying that buying an airline ticket
    > >> cafeteria style is practical. Just that people probably would pay for
    > >> better service, if they truly got it and knew what they were buying.
    > >
    > > Fly BA. Good pricing generally on long haul and 'full service'.
    > They seem to be doing something right being the worlds most profitable
    > airline too. Even on the short haul trips Dublin - London, its nice to get
    > a complimentary alcoholic drink or two on the flight. The have got their
    > costs under control without compromising too much on the service.

Nice to see us getting something right in the UK for once !

I simply can't fault their service. Invariably exemplary. Oh - they *did*
manage to briefly lose my case once on a trip to Bombay but I got £50
compensation. Always carried a basic change of clothes in the carry-on since
then !


Graham

    > miguel
    > --
    > Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
    > Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

Man Miguel.........your travels makes Rick Steves look like a homebody!

Excellent, excellent photography!!

Dan
PP-ASEL