Charles Hobbs

Not the Karl Orff wrote:
    > In article ,
    > [email protected] (Philip George) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Virgin is best in business/first, BA for economy (giving you 2" more seat
    >>pitch than Virgin)
    >
    >
    > VS doesn't have a FC. The BA FC bed is wonderful.
    >
    > BA also doesn't have 2" more leg room than VS. if you believe this, I
    > have a lot of wonderful things I want to sell to you cheap.

I never flew Virgin, but I did fly BA from LAX-LHR and back about
two years ago....from LAX-LHR the seats seemed very cramped, but coming
back they were a bit roomier....not quite AA "More Room", but
acceptable.

Me

[email protected] (midunjen) wrote in message news:...
    > OK....
    > We have a chance to go from L.A. to London and can go either:
    > Virgin, who we love and have flown on before
    > or
    > Cheaper (much!) from British Airways.
    > What are the major differences and perks to one versus the other? We
    > love the luxury of Virgin but the price is over 100 bucks cheaper on
    > BA.


The only really bad thing about BA is the in flight service and
I'm not sure that'd be worth $100. You don't mention any schedule
differences so apparently those are worth much to you. I've
only taken both on the Orlando-London route. Virgin the first time
was marginal, got better the second time. Seats were a bit more
cramped due to issues with the entertainment system. BA in flight
service was pretty bad, and their ground service was awful.
But again, whether an extra hour or so in line to check in your
baggage is worth it to you or not is up to you. Just be WELL prepared.
I'd give yourself 3+ hours at London prior to check in, which is
where the schedule issues come back to light in my book. A noon
departure means arriving at 9:00am which means leaving London around
8:00 or so. Kinda means getting up at the 6:30-7:00 range. You
might be able to cut it down a bit by getting up at 7:30 and
figuring being to say Victoria by 8:30 for the train to Gatwick.
Now, do the math for a 10:00am departure.

(I've long forgotten how it works, but there were 2 departures
about 3 hours apart here. It was a good idea to get the first
one in case anything went wrong, you had a shot at the second
departure. You might check this kind of situation too).

Bavenger

I flew BA to London from SFO (roundtrip), and had no problems with the
service, the seats or the food. The only pain in the ass were the
passengers!

I've never understood why people flying in economy expect first class
service.

Irwell

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 07:08:54 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:


    >I'm 6'5", 190 and I somehow manage to fit.
Wow! Somehow I had imagined Miguel as
stocky, just shows how the Internet can
delude one.

Not The Karl Orff

In article ,
Charles Hobbs wrote:


    > I never flew Virgin, but I did fly BA from LAX-LHR and back about
    > two years ago....from LAX-LHR the seats seemed very cramped, but coming
    > back they were a bit roomier....not quite AA "More Room", but
    > acceptable.

Any idea what a/c these were? The only thing I could think of was you
got a free upgrade to WT+ on the way back (but that's roomier than MRTC).

Midunjen

Thanks to everyone for thier replies.... here's a little more
clarification...


    >
    > The luxury of Virgin? The most cramped seats I can remember--I'm not
    > overly tall (6 feet), but had to straddle the seat in front with my
    > knees the whole trip. When the seat in front of me reclined, the seat
    > back was about six inches from my chest.
    >

Agreed about the seats. Last time we flew it was in a plane that
seemed more the size of a Southwest carrier. Very cramped. On the way
back, the aircraft was a little larger and we sat more toward the back
of the plane where the aisle seemeed to widen a bit and it was
slightly better. HOWEVER... and this is the important part... myself
and the friend I am traveling with are both extremely nervous fliers,
and the entertainment that Virgin offers is a definite incentive. I
don't think BA has the individual seat back screens, do they?

Also, the BA flight is longer, by almost an hour. I wonder what gives
with that?
Anymore feedback would be appreciated. I also have a story I'd like to
post so if anyone sees my name again I'd love feedback on that as
well.

Thanks again for all the valuable advice.
Jennifer

Miguel Cruz

Irwell wrote:
    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> I'm 6'5", 190 and I somehow manage to fit.
    > Wow! Somehow I had imagined Miguel as stocky, just shows how the Internet
    > can delude one.

I'm stocky on the inside!

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Emilia

[email protected] (Irwell) wrote in news:3e4a9e0a.1574054
@news.CIS.DFN.DE:

    > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 07:08:54 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I'm 6'5", 190 and I somehow manage to fit.
    > Wow! Somehow I had imagined Miguel as
    > stocky, just shows how the Internet can
    > delude one.

Ha! And I thought he'd be short & skinny....

Stephane

Just fyi, BA offers a very interesting air-inclusive package: round
trip to LA-London + 3 night accomodation at a 2 to 4* rated London
hotel for ... $378 only.

Hope this helps.

Stephane (your Tyzo friend)

Charles Hobbs

Not the Karl Orff wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Charles Hobbs wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>I never flew Virgin, but I did fly BA from LAX-LHR and back about
    >>two years ago....from LAX-LHR the seats seemed very cramped, but coming
    >>back they were a bit roomier....not quite AA "More Room", but
    >>acceptable.
    >
    >
    > Any idea what a/c these were?

They were 747's each way, and both times I was in "Economy" class. It
just seemed that on the return trip, the seats were a tiny bit spread
out more...not a whole lot, but maybe about an inch or so more space
between seats.

Miguel Cruz

Charles Hobbs wrote:
    > They were 747's each way, and both times I was in "Economy" class. It
    > just seemed that on the return trip, the seats were a tiny bit spread
    > out more...not a whole lot, but maybe about an inch or so more space
    > between seats.

Maybe you lost weight in London!

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Irwell

On 12 Feb 2003 12:24:05 -0800, [email protected] (midunjen) wrote:
. HOWEVER... and this is the important part... myself
    >and the friend I am traveling with are both extremely nervous fliers,
    >and the entertainment that Virgin offers is a definite incentive. I
    >don't think BA has the individual seat back screens, do they?
Both outward and return flights on BA from San Francisco
to London had the individual video screens, own remote and headphones,
games and movies,
on our recenty flight. December/January.

Jims.

"Irwell" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On 12 Feb 2003 12:24:05 -0800, [email protected] (midunjen) wrote:
    > . HOWEVER... and this is the important part... myself
    > >and the friend I am traveling with are both extremely nervous fliers,
    > >and the entertainment that Virgin offers is a definite incentive. I
    > >don't think BA has the individual seat back screens, do they?
    > >
    > Both outward and return flights on BA from San Francisco
    > to London had the individual video screens, own remote and headphones,
    > games and movies,
    > on our recenty flight. December/January.

You can't generalize about an entire carrier's service, because they don't
fly the same planes on all their routes. I took BA from Seattle to London
and was definitely NOT impressed. No seatback entertainment units either.
It was a 747, and it was like a bus. But between two other cities it could
be an entirely different story. Maybe Seattle isn't important to them but
LAX is.

I'd check to see exactly which equipment they're using on these flights,
then go on the airline's websites and check the plane configurations to see.
Most of their sites do have seat maps. Believe it or not, I've had some
comfortable international service on United on their 777's, with seat back
video. But the point is, all planes aren't created equal.

Irwell

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 02:11:01 GMT, "JimS." wrote:

    >"Irwell" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> On 12 Feb 2003 12:24:05 -0800, [email protected] (midunjen) wrote:
    >> . HOWEVER... and this is the important part... myself
    >> >and the friend I am traveling with are both extremely nervous fliers,
    >> >and the entertainment that Virgin offers is a definite incentive. I
    >> >don't think BA has the individual seat back screens, do they?
    >> >
    >> Both outward and return flights on BA from San Francisco
    >> to London had the individual video screens, own remote and headphones,
    >> games and movies,
    >> on our recenty flight. December/January.
    >You can't generalize about an entire carrier's service, because they don't
    >fly the same planes on all their routes. I took BA from Seattle to London
    >and was definitely NOT impressed. No seatback entertainment units either.
    >It was a 747, and it was like a bus. But between two other cities it could
    >be an entirely different story. Maybe Seattle isn't important to them but
    >LAX is.
Not generalising, just reporting on what the conditions were
on our recent flight, incidentally one of the planes was a 747.

    >I'd check to see exactly which equipment they're using on these flights,
    >then go on the airline's websites and check the plane configurations to see.
    >Most of their sites do have seat maps. Believe it or not, I've had some
    >comfortable international service on United on their 777's, with seat back
    >video. But the point is, all planes aren't created equal.

A.Malhotra

Not the Karl Orff wrote:
    >
    > In article ,
    > [email protected] (markfromsf) wrote:
    >
    > > Is this technically true about the seats being less cramped than
    > > Virgin? Can most people actually fit in Virgin's seats?!? I would
    >
    > Both have seat pitch of 30-31" which is a bit lower than average. VS
    > also has the wonderful feature of entertainment system housing under
    > select seats which further impinges on the meagre under seat leg room.


I found Virgin's overhead handbaggage cabinets to be pretty pathetically
small, forcing me to put some stuff under my seat with the same effect
Anita