If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants
Mxsmanic wrote:
JohnT writes: I will take that as a compliment. That also sounds very typically British. Showing your immense cultural awareness again, I see. -- (*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website "He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants
Mister B wrote:
On Nov 17, 6:51 pm, Mxsmanic wrote: JohnT writes: I will take that as a compliment. That also sounds very typically British. It's the tones he uses, doncha know. Damn, you beat me to it! -- (*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website "He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants
Craig Welch wrote:
mrtravel said: Craig Welch wrote: xyzzy said: I believe British Airways feels it's more important to maintain the exclusivity (and therefore perceived value) of those seats than to fill them up the unsold ones with, say, the highest status frequent fliers who are on the flight like most airlines would do. Translation: 'Like most airlines would do' ========= 'As most American airlines would do'. NO, they would not. Most US airlines do not normally give away international upgrades without some kind of payment, unless Y is oversold. I must admit that I answered that last post on the basis that Y would be oversold. Reading it again, I see that wasn't a stated assumption, so I retract my words. The prior poster was complaining that Y was full, and the "snooty" section had plenty of room. He didn't mentioned Y was oversold. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants
"TMOliver" wrote in
: "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote ... "mrtravel" wrote.... Don't any of you people fly? Commercial? Only if I have to. GA? Any time I possibly can. Darkwing obviously flies infrequently and even then neither very far or very inexpensively. I don't know in which GA birds you fly (or where), but ORD and LGD are quite expensive destinations if I choose to go "by GA". A Gulfstream charter to match the airlines' timeframe remains out of sight of my corporate pocketbook, while that's a Hell of a (several) day's work in a 172.... As for Edinburgh or Milan, staying awake precludes the attempt, even should I fill the cockpit with jerricans. It's bad enough to be an asshole, but when you add the quality of "silly" to your personal status, you've transcended any pretense at either credibility or respect. TMO FYI - If you are going GA into the ORD area, PWK, 7.6 NM from ORD, has no landing fee and even has US customs with 2 hours advance notice. Why would a GA flight want to go to ORD? And before Daly pulled his midnight raid, GA also had CGX, which was far more convenient to downtown Chicago than either ORD or MDW. LGD has no landing fee either. Why did use Le Grande, Oregon in your example? GA refers to the rules the aircraft operates under, not the type of aircraft. Air freight companies operate GA, even though they fly some big iron such as the MD-11 or 747-400F. Even the airlines have GA flight such as when they ferry the aircraft for maintenance or do the return to service check out flight following major maintenance. Thare is some big iron which routinely operates GA (the Boeing BBJ, which is basically a 737, John Travolta's 707, and several 747). In fact, there is one Arab prince who will be operating an A380 as a GA flight as soon as his gets delivered. Yes, most small aircraft like the Cessna 172 or Piper Warrior/Archer/Arrow only operate under GA rules, but there are a few which operated under air taxi or air charter rules and are not GA flights when they do so. The key is that in the US all civilian flights operate under GA (Part 91) rules. Add paying passengers, and you then have air taxi/charter (Part 135) or air transport (Part 121) rules in addition to the GA rules. The rules apply to the flight, not the aircraft. From a cost standpoint, if you go by yourself, the airlines will almost always beat GA. If you have two people on the flight and are not getting advance purchase airfares, GA can become cost competitive on shorter flights (200-400 miles). Go to three people, and GA becomes cost competitive up to about 800 miles. From a time standpoint, taking into account the time to park at an air carrier airport, the 2 hours advance arrival to clear security, the time to pick up checked luggage (if you need to transport anything now prohibited by TSA in your carry on luggage), & the time to take the shuttle bus to the rental car, you can almost always get there faster with GA on flights of 300 miles or less, even in a small a plane as a Piper Archer or Cessna 172. From San Jose to Los Angeles, if you avoid rush hour, it's about a wash timewise between driving and flying via airline. One of the factors slanting time to favor GA for the short haul flights is that not everyone lives near an air carrier airport. If you need to drive for an hour or more to reach the departure airport, and then need 2 hours for check in procedures, you're about 350 to 400 miles behind the GA aircraft (Piper Archer) which departed from the little airport only 10 minutes from home before you start to taxi for take off in the airliner. For long haul, GA cannot beat the airlines for time unless, as you said, you are the the corporate jet class, and then the costs, unless you are at the top echelon in the corporation, eat you alive. However, if you have 4 or 5 or more executives whom normally travel 1st class going on the same flight, then the corporate jet becomes very competitive with the airlines, even to Milan. All the ranting and raving the airlines have been doing recently against GA is due to their abject fear of the new VLJs. With a VLJ costing under $2 million, on medium to short haul flights when you have as few as 2 executives going together, your costs are about the same as for 2 business class tickets, but you now go on your schedule and out of the small airport convenient to both your departure and destination. Compare that with having to drive to the nearest air carrier airport, possibly connect at at least one air carrier hub airport, and then drive a longer distance from the air carrier airport nearest to your destination, and the big profit customer is going to leave the airlines. The airlines can't compete with this, and they know it. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... British Airways has admitted flying dozens of "ghost flights" across the Atlantic, with only pilots and cargo aboard (and no passengers), because it doesn't have the crews to staff the flights with passengers: http://www.emailthis.clickability.co...5276864& pt=Y Some of the ghost flights are apparently flown just to keep slots at major airports active, even though every ghost flight burns tons of fuel. Why don't they just hire more FAs? It is highly improbable that they are turning away customers who would otherwise be on these flights. Instead, other flights will be flying at a higher capacity than they would if these flights were available. So, hiring more cabin crew to allow these flights to carry passengers would simply add to the cost of flying them without bringing in more income. If demand rises to the point where they need the seats on those flights, they will hire more staff and they won't have lost the slots they need to fly them. Colin Bignell |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants
"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message ... "TMOliver" wrote in : "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote ... "mrtravel" wrote.... Don't any of you people fly? Commercial? Only if I have to. GA? Any time I possibly can. Darkwing obviously flies infrequently and even then neither very far or very inexpensively. I don't know in which GA birds you fly (or where), but ORD and LGD are quite expensive destinations if I choose to go "by GA". A Gulfstream charter to match the airlines' timeframe remains out of sight of my corporate pocketbook, while that's a Hell of a (several) day's work in a 172.... As for Edinburgh or Milan, staying awake precludes the attempt, even should I fill the cockpit with jerricans. It's bad enough to be an asshole, but when you add the quality of "silly" to your personal status, you've transcended any pretense at either credibility or respect. TMO FYI - If you are going GA into the ORD area, PWK, 7.6 NM from ORD, has no landing fee and even has US customs with 2 hours advance notice. Why would a GA flight want to go to ORD? And before Daly pulled his midnight raid, GA also had CGX, which was far more convenient to downtown Chicago than either ORD or MDW. LGD has no landing fee either. Why did use Le Grande, Oregon in your example? GA refers to the rules the aircraft operates under, not the type of aircraft. Air freight companies operate GA, even though they fly some big iron such as the MD-11 or 747-400F. Even the airlines have GA flight such as when they ferry the aircraft for maintenance or do the return to service check out flight following major maintenance. Thare is some big iron which routinely operates GA (the Boeing BBJ, which is basically a 737, John Travolta's 707, and several 747). In fact, there is one Arab prince who will be operating an A380 as a GA flight as soon as his gets delivered. Yes, most small aircraft like the Cessna 172 or Piper Warrior/Archer/Arrow only operate under GA rules, but there are a few which operated under air taxi or air charter rules and are not GA flights when they do so. The key is that in the US all civilian flights operate under GA (Part 91) rules. Add paying passengers, and you then have air taxi/charter (Part 135) or air transport (Part 121) rules in addition to the GA rules. The rules apply to the flight, not the aircraft. From a cost standpoint, if you go by yourself, the airlines will almost always beat GA. If you have two people on the flight and are not getting advance purchase airfares, GA can become cost competitive on shorter flights (200-400 miles). Go to three people, and GA becomes cost competitive up to about 800 miles. From a time standpoint, taking into account the time to park at an air carrier airport, the 2 hours advance arrival to clear security, the time to pick up checked luggage (if you need to transport anything now prohibited by TSA in your carry on luggage), & the time to take the shuttle bus to the rental car, you can almost always get there faster with GA on flights of 300 miles or less, even in a small a plane as a Piper Archer or Cessna 172. From San Jose to Los Angeles, if you avoid rush hour, it's about a wash timewise between driving and flying via airline. One of the factors slanting time to favor GA for the short haul flights is that not everyone lives near an air carrier airport. If you need to drive for an hour or more to reach the departure airport, and then need 2 hours for check in procedures, you're about 350 to 400 miles behind the GA aircraft (Piper Archer) which departed from the little airport only 10 minutes from home before you start to taxi for take off in the airliner. For long haul, GA cannot beat the airlines for time unless, as you said, you are the the corporate jet class, and then the costs, unless you are at the top echelon in the corporation, eat you alive. However, if you have 4 or 5 or more executives whom normally travel 1st class going on the same flight, then the corporate jet becomes very competitive with the airlines, even to Milan. All the ranting and raving the airlines have been doing recently against GA is due to their abject fear of the new VLJs. With a VLJ costing under $2 million, on medium to short haul flights when you have as few as 2 executives going together, your costs are about the same as for 2 business class tickets, but you now go on your schedule and out of the small airport convenient to both your departure and destination. Compare that with having to drive to the nearest air carrier airport, possibly connect at at least one air carrier hub airport, and then drive a longer distance from the air carrier airport nearest to your destination, and the big profit customer is going to leave the airlines. The airlines can't compete with this, and they know it. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) I flew into PWK a couple years back with an instructor when I was working on my Instrument (which I finally abandoned due to lack of time). There was a landing fee unless I got fuel, since the FBO that I rent from reimbursed me I got the fuel. I *think* we stopped at Ratheon but it has been to long. It was the coolest flight I had ever been on. Flew from MQJ IFR to PWK. Went right along the lake front inbound and then right over the top of O'Hare coming back. Only took one hour to get back with GS of up to 200 in a 182! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants
"Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in
: I flew into PWK a couple years back with an instructor when I was working on my Instrument (which I finally abandoned due to lack of time). There was a landing fee unless I got fuel, since the FBO that I rent from reimbursed me I got the fuel. I *think* we stopped at Ratheon but it has been to long. It was the coolest flight I had ever been on. Flew from MQJ IFR to PWK. Went right along the lake front inbound and then right over the top of O'Hare coming back. Only took one hour to get back with GS of up to 200 in a 182! It looks like you got hit with a ramp fee from the FBO rather than a landing fee. Most of the time if the fee is waived for fuel purchase, it's the FBO's ramp fee that is being waived. Airnav.com does not indicate a landing fee at PWK, nor does the airport's own web pages. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flightattendants
VainGlorious wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:23:43 GMT, Craig Welch wrote: said: On Nov 14, 9:55 pm, Mxsmanic wrote: My wife and I flew back last weekend from Johannesburg and London on BA. The 747 from JoBurg to LHR was full, but from there to YYC the cattle-car section of the 777 was jammed, yet the snooty- chairs were mostly empty. I endured 9 hours of discomfort; good thing I didn't know until I got off that those comfy lounges were unoccupied. Might have made noise about getting a better seat. To what avail? Do you think they would have moved you just because you complained? Then the 'snooty' passengers would have made noise about being joined by a free-loader. This. Like it or not, people will pay a logarithmically higher airfare in the hope that they will have a greater likelihood of enjoying a civilized flight. Any thinking airline would be foolish to allow the riff raff to invade the rarified air of business and 1st class. I just did a quickie glace at ba.com. A midweek fortnight RT in March, JNB-LHR: Steerage: £170 Business/Club: £1600 1st: £1817 So, let's say you paid £1600 for Business class: roughly 10x what the commoners pay. You have an empty seat across the aisle from you. Because some "drunken green grocer from Luton" decides he'd be more comfortable up front, you get to spend 9 hours in abject horror as this hideous, foul-smelling idiot drones on and on about how the Pakis are making England a desert and coughing up phlegm, some of which lands on your Simon Carter cufflink. Rich people dont get drunk or misbehave???? I find that hard to believe As for a foul smelling pax, coughing up phleghm, could be a slight exageration on your part.. How long, do you suppose, those £1600 seats will retain their value? The pricey seats pay for the flight. Everyone else just about covers their share of the fuel costs. No one likes steerage. I know I don't. I upgrade when I can, but I understand why empty premium seats remain empty. - TR BTW: I find these BA airfares very affordable, all thing considered. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:57:22 +1100, Qanset wrote:
VainGlorious wrote: So, let's say you paid £1600 for Business class: roughly 10x what the commoners pay. You have an empty seat across the aisle from you. Because some "drunken green grocer from Luton" decides he'd be more comfortable up front, you get to spend 9 hours in abject horror as this hideous, foul-smelling idiot drones on and on about how the Pakis are making England a desert and coughing up phlegm, some of which lands on your Simon Carter cufflink. Rich people dont get drunk or misbehave???? I find that hard to believe As for a foul smelling pax, coughing up phleghm, could be a slight exageration on your part.. Of course it's an exaggeration. You can't look at the policy in isolation or anecdotally. As an airline, you must look at the big picture. Where's the value in business/1st class? Is it bigger seats? Is it better food and service? That's part of it, sure. But five more cm of seat width are not worth 10x the airfare, nor is a poached salmon. The real value is primarily a psychological one: you are a "VIP", and the amenities are an indication of your status. Once you compromise that value, no one will pay for it anymore. In VIP seats, you are more likely to have sedate seatmates and a less stressful flight. It's not a guarantee (as anyone who's flown Alaska Air 1st class will tell you), but you are statistically more likely to have a civil flight in business or 1st than you are in steerage. VIPs like to think of themselves as more refined and they like to display their refinement. Airlines take advantage of this. Yes, there ARE yahoos and boors in 1st class seats. It happens. But not as much as in steerage. The airlines count on this and make efforts to maintain this. They have no vested interested in giving away upgraded seats to the common scum. There is no advantage in it. - TR - a common scum who occasionally flies business/1st class. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
British Airways flight grounded in Helsinki | Mikko Peltoniemi | Air travel | 22 | November 19th, 2007 05:26 AM |
British Airways says fog forces UK flight cancellations | chinchillakilla | Europe | 12 | December 21st, 2006 09:19 PM |
British Airways says fog forces UK flight cancellations | chinchillakilla | Air travel | 5 | December 21st, 2006 04:42 PM |
British Airways flight grounded in Helsinki | Mikko Peltoniemi | Air travel | 4 | October 10th, 2004 05:41 AM |
Two deaths on same British Airways flight | rip | Air travel | 3 | January 19th, 2004 09:05 PM |