Jim Ley

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:03:36 GMT, "Jeff Hacker" <[email protected]>
wrote:
    >That being said, I'll still choose the airline with advance seat selection
    >over one without any time.

I'll choose one without, I hate that it takes so long to board, that
just feels like dead time...

Jim.

Miguel Cruz

AJC <[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> Try booking it as a codeshare via the US airline partner, if possible. US
    >> airlines are much nicer about that sort of thing (about all sorts of things
    >> - can you tell I'm sick of mean, stingy European carriers?).
    > Go on Miguel. Who was mean to you?

If I talk about it, I might start crying again.

    > Is it not possible, that there is a link between the fact that the 'mean
    > stingy' European carriers are generally in a better shape than the
    > 'generous' US carriers?

Maybe (though SwissAir and Sabena weren't known for their generosity). But
I'm just trying to help the guy get a reerved seat, not to cure the woes of
the airline industry.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 31 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Nobody

Juliana L Holm wrote:
    > Letting you book seats in advance does not seem that it would substantially
    > affect the bottom line. (except of course the passengers' ;-D )

European airlines are still preventing seat pre-selection for normal
passengers so that they can give this as a perk to differentiate premium
services from regular services.

In fact, it probably saves airlines money to allow seat preselection since
check-in is streamlined and thus requires fewer check-in positions to process
the same number of passengers.

The one philosophical difference this gives is that those who book early (and
thus pay less) get the best selections, while those last minte travellers who
pay full price have reduce seat selection capabilities. But this is easily
mitigated by keeping an adequate amount of good seats available for last
minute selection at airport.

Randee

We've not had any problem reserving seats via the web on either American
or United going to Europe. Obviously you have to reserve as soon as
possible for the best selection. Note that generally you cannot reserve
exit rows ahead of time. In most cases you have to do that the day of
the flight at the ticket counter. American offers a fairly generous 34"
pitch in coach compared to the typical 31" on, say, Lufthansa. United's
regular coach is also in the 31-32" region, but they have a premium
coach with about a 35" pitch. I don't recall the price differential
between United's regular and premium coach, but you can find a
definitive answer at united.com. Do be aware not all exit row seats are
that desirable, for one reason or another (lack of storage space,
bulkhead to close, etc.).

One point to note on United is that if you can get an exit row on the
day of the flight, that automatically bumps you from regular coach to
their premium coach at no extra charge. We have had good luck doing
this, but then we travel in February.
--
wf.

TS wrote:
    >
    > I've seen the seat maps showing the most desireable seats on
    > www.seatguru.com but it doesn't help if you cannot reserve them.
    > I noticed the Virgin Air website only allowed you to "request" either
    > window or aisle seats. It did not allow you to choose or reserve a
    > specific seat.
    > What about BA? Can you reserve any seat location that is still
    > available online, via the phone or by showing up at the ticket counter
    > an hour earlier than required?
    > How about United Airlines?
    > I think those are the only 3 choices for non-stop flights to London
    > from SFO.

Nobody

AJC wrote:
    > The point is that major US airlines are in various stages of
    > bankruptcy, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, unable to get credit
    > from their caterers, and so on. The industry in Europe is nowhere near
    > being in such dire straits.

Humm, lets see. Alitalia, Swiss, Olympic. British Airways has scaled down
significantly, had to sell its Qantas holdings to pay back debt etc. Sabena no
longer exists. Iberia is hoping British Air will buy it. European airlines may
not have the "chapter 11" tool to void contracts and zap debts, but they
aren't exactly very healthy either.

Having said that, those airlines which not not rely so much on trans-atlantic
business travellers are doing much better than airlines such as BA who have
been affected by the economic lethargy of the USA.

BTW, BBC reported yesterday that foreign investment in the USA has dropped 53%
since invasion of Iraq began, and that China has displaced the USA and is now
at the #1 position for foreign investment.

When international economic activity is reduced, so is the need for
international business travel. The Bush regime may have had
political/sociologic reasons to further insulate the USA from foreign
criticisms, but in doing so, it has also greatly reduced international trade
and as a result, the need for international business travel.


Also, it is possible that Europe is a couple years behind the USA with regards
to low cost carrier's impact on the legacy airlines. Southwest has a very good
image in terms of reliability and has stolen a non trivial amount of business
travellers. JetBlue will start to eat into business markets now that it has
flights from LGA.

Ryannair is still seen as the airline that carries drunken hoodlums to footbal
games, not a reliable carrier used by business. But I am sure that they are
slowly working on their image. Also, european low cost carriers tend to stay
away from the airports used by business travellers, while in the USA, with
some exceptions (Dallas, San Francisco, New York), the low cost carriers use
airports which are either the same or just as palatable to business travellers.

Jeff Hacker

"Keith Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Cyrus Afzali" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:06:08 +0200, AJC <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:34:49 +0000 (UTC), Juliana L Holm
    > >><[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >
    > >>>The point is that there are strong and weak carriers on both sides of
the
    > >>>Ocean.
    > >>
    > >>The point is that major US airlines are in various stages of
    > >>bankruptcy, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, unable to get credit
    > >>from their caterers, and so on. The industry in Europe is nowhere near
    > >>being in such dire straits.
    > >
    > > Two -- count em, two -- U.S. carriers are in various stages of
    > > bankruptcy. While Delta's in a precarious position, its problems
    > > aren't as severe as United's became and unions are more willing to
    > > work things out there. Keep in mind United was representative of the
    > > best/worst that employee ownership has to offer. At a certain point,
    > > they just said enough. Smart? Well, that's a matter of opinion. People
    > > who've been through these things always advise them to stay at the
    > > table, but hostilities get in the way sometimes.
    > >
    > US Airways have also filed for banruptcy again
    > so its at least 3
    > > Secondly, name me a European carrier that operates on the scale of a
    > > U.S. carrier? How many U.S. cities do European carriers serve?
    > How many European cities do US carriers serve ?
    > European carriers do most of their business on
    > overseas flights.

Not necessarily. Most European airlines have extensive European route
networks (short hauls, heavy congestion). Unless, of course, you think that
just because they're not in the U.S., they are operating only "overseas
flights." If you think that, you really do need help :-)
    > > We're
    > > the world's biggest aviation market, so it's a relevant question.
    > > Comparing Europe's industry to the U.S.' is just beyond ludicrous.
    > The bureau of transportation statistics seems to disagee
    > In 2001 there were some 600m US domestic passenger trips
    > while within the EU there were some 400m air passenger
    > trips.
    > The markets arent quite as mismatched as you believe.
    > Keith

Not the Karl Orff

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

    > Assuming we fly BA, we've decided that World Traveller Plus on BA will be
    > the best deal at a discounted price under $1300 per person with 38" seat
    > pitch and power points for a laptop/portable DVD player.

I've flown BA W+. I wouldn't pay $100 per direction more than AA

Nobody

Cyrus Afzali wrote:
    > Two -- count em, two -- U.S. carriers are in various stages of
    > bankruptcy. While Delta's in a precarious position, its problems
    > aren't as severe as United's became and unions are more willing to
    > work things out there.

Didn't one carrier completely stop not too long after 9-11 ? (forget its name).

Actually, it would seem that only 1 US *major* carrier is in a precarious
position (US Air).

The other ones are just struggling to adapt to a new economic reality. United
chose bankrupcy protection, Delta might follow. Those are just tools to force
a group of poeple to negotiate because in the past, they were absolutely
unwilling to agree to any lowering of their standards.

Prior to 9-11, the slight economid downturn which should have been short lived
had alrteady bnegun to ring alarm bells at the major carriers, but it wasn't
considered serious or long term/structural enough to warrant risking a strike
the day you ask for concessions.


You can to consider that the USA has had a double whammy: the combination of
lenghtened economic downturn with the emergence of low cost carriers as
reliable,viable means of business travel, and this a at time where the USA not
only lacks economic leadership, but also has a regime that needs to perpetuate
(for political purposes) the fears that prevent full recovery of air travel demand.

The post 9-11 impacts were not felt outside the USA because governments
outside the USA did not purposefully continue to instill fear. However,
airlines that depend on USA travel did continue to feel the pain. This is why
British Airways has had more pain than Air France for instance.

    > Secondly, name me a European carrier that operates on the scale of a
    > U.S. carrier? How many U.S. cities do European carriers serve? We're
    > the world's biggest aviation market, so it's a relevant question.

Actually, it isn't the "how many US cities" that needs to be counted, just the
"how many cities". And in that respect, I am sure that the major euro carriers
compete quite favourably against any of the big US carriers is the scale of
their network (with greater percentage of intl flights).

    > Not nearly as much so. The airline industry is swayed heavily by the
    > price of oil, the economy, etc.

Correct. But again, you need to take a look at the real causes behind this.
USA refuses to sign Kyoto, prefering to continue to push its citizens to use
fuel inefficient trucks for single passenger carriage. And it then steps on a
hornet's nest with its illegal invasion of Iraq. This not only made the middle
east unstable, but it also resulted in the US government racking up huge
debts, and perpetuated the economic slowdown, resulting in a huge trade
deficit which forced the US dollar way down.

The oil producing nations were then forced to raise oil price to keep the
value the same (since it continues to be priced in the devalued US$). Combine
this with China increasing its oil consumption and you get the current state
of the oil price. Had the USA government used its power to lead energy
efficiency instead of illegally using its military to destroy another country.

Initially, the non US carriers were somewhat sheltered by the rise in oil
price because of the devaluation of the US dollar. But when the USD recovered
somewhat, this resulted in net increases to the euro carriers. And the
continued instability in the world due to the USA incompetence in Iraq has
caused the oil price to continue to go up.

The real sad thing about all fo this is that close to 50% of americans still
support the regime that is responsible for making matters so much worse than
they could have been if there had been a competant admistration in the last 4 years.

Leadership isn't about being able to order your military to destroy another
country, it is about convincing your own citizens of the need to take certain
actions, or NOT take certain actions. In a time a showck, a real leader is
able to moderate a nation's anger. A bad leader will amplify the nation's
anger for political gain.

Nobody

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
    > > Letting you book seats in advance does not seem that it would substantially
    > > affect the bottom line. (except of course the passengers' ;-D )
    >
    > It does require significant infrastructure investment, however.

No, Airlines have had seat preselection in their CRS for ages. In fact, some
used to allow seat preselection for all pax, but not too long ago, widthdrew
the service from coach passengers as a way to give an artificial perk to
passengers with status.

Qantas for instanec no longer allows seat preselection for normal pax, but
will gladly honour it for status pax, or when a code share partner makes a
reservation that include seat preselection.

Cyrus Afzali

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:54:44 -0400, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Cyrus Afzali wrote:
    >> Two -- count em, two -- U.S. carriers are in various stages of
    >> bankruptcy. While Delta's in a precarious position, its problems
    >> aren't as severe as United's became and unions are more willing to
    >> work things out there.
    >Didn't one carrier completely stop not too long after 9-11 ? (forget its name).

Midway -- which actually was the second incarnation of Midway
Airlines. It folded on Sept. 12.
    >Actually, it would seem that only 1 US *major* carrier is in a precarious
    >position (US Air).

Any carrier operating in bankruptcy is in precarious position, and
that includes United.
    >The other ones are just struggling to adapt to a new economic reality. United
    >chose bankrupcy protection, Delta might follow. Those are just tools to force
    >a group of poeple to negotiate because in the past, they were absolutely
    >unwilling to agree to any lowering of their standards.
    >Prior to 9-11, the slight economid downturn which should have been short lived
    >had alrteady bnegun to ring alarm bells at the major carriers, but it wasn't
    >considered serious or long term/structural enough to warrant risking a strike
    >the day you ask for concessions.

No matter what Bush says, in major business centers of this country,
the downturn wasn't slight. NYC already had an unemployment rate north
of 6 percent before 9/11, which later rose to above 9. Airlines were
already suffering from reduced traffic, as businesses had been laying
people off for six months.

    >The post 9-11 impacts were not felt outside the USA because governments
    >outside the USA did not purposefully continue to instill fear. However,
    >airlines that depend on USA travel did continue to feel the pain. This is why
    >British Airways has had more pain than Air France for instance.

Oh please. There are economies outside the U.S. that have been in the
tanks for years. If the U.S. voters had to endure recessions like
they've seen in Japan, there would be mass panic. You just don't know
what you're talking about, MEZEI.

    >Correct. But again, you need to take a look at the real causes behind this.
    >USA refuses to sign Kyoto, prefering to continue to push its citizens to use
    >fuel inefficient trucks for single passenger carriage. And it then steps on a
    >hornet's nest with its illegal invasion of Iraq. This not only made the middle
    >east unstable, but it also resulted in the US government racking up huge
    >debts, and perpetuated the economic slowdown, resulting in a huge trade
    >deficit which forced the US dollar way down.

Kyoto has nothing to do with the troubles of the airline industry,
MEZEI. The reason petroleum prices are skyrocketing has to do chiefly
with increased consumption for electricity production. There are
economies using tons of oil now that weren't players during the last
major oil crisis.

A well-known economist at the University of New Orleans has calculated
that even if everyone who had a gas-guzzing SUV switched overnight to
a hybrid, it would have only a negligible impact.

    >Leadership isn't about being able to order your military to destroy another
    >country, it is about convincing your own citizens of the need to take certain
    >actions, or NOT take certain actions. In a time a showck, a real leader is
    >able to moderate a nation's anger. A bad leader will amplify the nation's
    >anger for political gain.

I'm not pro-Bush, so I'm not going into that discussion. I'm just
going to do what I can on an individual level to get him gone. But
even without Bush, there's no way to say many of these problems
wouldn't have been with us.

Ts

"Not the Karl Orff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "TS" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Assuming we fly BA, we've decided that World Traveller Plus on BA will be
    >> the best deal at a discounted price under $1300 per person with 38" seat
    >> pitch and power points for a laptop/portable DVD player.
    > I've flown BA W+. I wouldn't pay $100 per direction more than AA

AA doesn't fly non-stop from SFO to any point in Europe, so they are out of
the running unless we decide we are willing to deal with one layover and
plane change. In that case we will fly directly out of SMF and skip commute
to SFO.
Also BA WT+ has power points at every seat, whearas AA is very likely to not
have a power point in the coach seats we are assigned.

Anonymous

randee wrote:
    > We've not had any problem reserving seats via the web on either American
    > or United going to Europe.

Yes, but this isn't always the case on foreign carriers.

Anonymous

TS wrote:
    > "Not the Karl Orff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>In article <[email protected]>,
    >>"TS" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Assuming we fly BA, we've decided that World Traveller Plus on BA will be
    >>>the best deal at a discounted price under $1300 per person with 38" seat
    >>>pitch and power points for a laptop/portable DVD player.
    >>I've flown BA W+. I wouldn't pay $100 per direction more than AA
    >
    >
    > AA doesn't fly non-stop from SFO to any point in Europe, so they are out of
    > the running unless we decide we are willing to deal with one layover and
    > plane change. In that case we will fly directly out of SMF and skip commute
    > to SFO.
    > Also BA WT+ has power points at every seat, whearas AA is very likely to not
    > have a power point in the coach seats we are assigned.

Does the FF miles matter in your decision?
Also, while power points may not be in seats you would be assigned, you
might consider picking them. If the goal is non stop from SFO to
London, then you are limited in choices. However, if flying from SMF,
then you might consider flying AA via ORD or DFW.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, TS
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Not the Karl Orff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "TS" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Assuming we fly BA, we've decided that World Traveller Plus on BA will be
    > >> the best deal at a discounted price under $1300 per person with 38" seat
    > >> pitch and power points for a laptop/portable DVD player.
    > >
    > > I've flown BA W+. I wouldn't pay $100 per direction more than AA
    >
    > AA doesn't fly non-stop from SFO to any point in Europe, so they are out of
    > the running unless we decide we are willing to deal with one layover and
    > plane change. In that case we will fly directly out of SMF and skip commute
    > to SFO.
    > Also BA WT+ has power points at every seat, whearas AA is very likely to not
    > have a power point in the coach seats we are assigned.

Another option is to go via LAX and then AA #136 non-stop 777 service.
At http://www.aa.com seating mapping shows power-port locations.

jay
Thu Sep 23, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

    >

Ts

I don't think AA is a good choice to get to Europe from either SFO or SMF
when non-stops are available from SFO on other airlines.
I don't know that I would have control over getting one of the coach seats
on AA with a power port, plus it would involve flying down to LAX on
Southwest and changing planes.
If we are going to deal with changing planes, we might as well just take the
AA flight that connects in Chicago and only check our luggage once instead
of twice.
If we decide we don't want to drive or ride a train to SFO from Sacramento,
then we will consider AA if AA is much cheaper than the the 38 pitch WT+
seats on BA connecting in PHX..


"Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:230920041952413539%[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, TS
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> "Not the Karl Orff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> > In article <[email protected]>,
    >> > "TS" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Assuming we fly BA, we've decided that World Traveller Plus on BA will
    >> >> be
    >> >> the best deal at a discounted price under $1300 per person with 38"
    >> >> seat
    >> >> pitch and power points for a laptop/portable DVD player.
    >> >
    >> > I've flown BA W+. I wouldn't pay $100 per direction more than AA
    >> AA doesn't fly non-stop from SFO to any point in Europe, so they are out
    >> of
    >> the running unless we decide we are willing to deal with one layover and
    >> plane change. In that case we will fly directly out of SMF and skip
    >> commute
    >> to SFO.
    >> Also BA WT+ has power points at every seat, whearas AA is very likely to
    >> not
    >> have a power point in the coach seats we are assigned.
    > Another option is to go via LAX and then AA #136 non-stop 777 service.
    > At http://www.aa.com seating mapping shows power-port locations.
    > jay
    > Thu Sep 23, 2004
    > mailto:[email protected]
    >>