Aviation Discussion

[fowler9]

Wizz is no better than Ryanair, it just has a more tasteful colour scheme.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All down to personal taste but I prefer them to Ryanair and Chopin Airport is a hell of a lot closer to Warsaw than Modlin.

 

[freetoview33]

Is there a chance IAG and Qatar Airways merge? Basically Qatar becoming part of IAG?

 

[306024]

Based on nothing more than personal experience, I'd rank the airlines I've used for short haul this year in the following order:

SAS
British Airways
Norwegian
Ryanair
Eurowings
EasyJet

BA are usually my first preference but punctuality on the short haul flights wasn't brilliant this year, so SAS come top for that reason. I find BA crews simply more 'professional' though.

Norwegian were punctual and best value for money, but for one plane where the turnround cleaners at Oslo let them down.

Say what you want about Ryanair, but their operational efficiency is worth studying. The only airline to score 100% PPM. Just not so sure why their passengers sometimes feel the need to applaud the fact that we have landed safely. Their cabin crew seem to be the most inconsistent, although on one flight they were exceptional.

Wizz were OK a few years back, but Luton isn't my airport of choice so haven't tried them recently. Eurowings catering was a candidate for the BR curly sandwich award, very poor.

My EasyJet experience, whilst punctual, is best left unrecorded.

 

[Butts]

Based on nothing more than personal experience, I'd rank the airlines I've used for short haul this year in the following order:

SAS
British Airways
Norwegian
Ryanair
Eurowings
EasyJet

BA are usually my first preference but punctuality on the short haul flights wasn't brilliant this year, so SAS come top for that reason. I find BA crews simply more 'professional' though.

Norwegian were punctual and best value for money, but for one plane where the turnround cleaners at Oslo let them down.

Say what you want about Ryanair, but their operational efficiency is worth studying. The only airline to score 100% PPM. Just not so sure why their passengers sometimes feel the need to applaud the fact that we have landed safely. Their cabin crew seem to be the most inconsistent, although on one flight they were exceptional.

Wizz were OK a few years back, but Luton isn't my airport of choice so haven't tried them recently. Eurowings catering was a candidate for the BR curly sandwich award, very poor.

My EasyJet experience, whilst punctual, is best left unrecorded.

No Flybe ???

 

[306024]

No Flybe ???

No Flybe. Simply don't fly to where I want to go, although London City to Düsseldorf could come in handy one day.

Jet2 setting up at Stansted next year shakes the market up a bit.

 

[Butts]

Going to the Motorshow in Paris with my son next week flying from Birmingham on Flybe.

Can't believe my luck it's booked for an Embraer 195 both ways (out 0630 back 2045). This craft in my view is the finest scheduled short haul method of travel by air available - bar none.

To add to my enjoyment both BHX and CDG have smoking areas "airside"

Heaven

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Wizz is no better than Ryanair, it just has a more tasteful colour scheme.

I think their cabin bag limits are a good thing, wish more would do it. None of the usual fights over locker space with Wizz Air that you get with most budget airlines whose luggage charges encourage people to cram as much as they can into the cabin.

 

[fowler9]

BA for me are the worst airline I have flown with. Short haul twice and the service was poor. Long haul twice, Heathrow to Hong Kong 747, headreast was falling off, toilets looked like they hadn't been cleaned for a week and the cabin crew had an attitude. Buenos Aires to Heathrow 777, headrest falling off again, actually everything from the Heathrow to Hong Kong flight.

 

[Butts]

BA for me are the worst airline I have flown with. Short haul twice and the service was poor. Long haul twice, Heathrow to Hong Kong 747, headreast was falling off, toilets looked like they hadn't been cleaned for a week and the cabin crew had an attitude. Buenos Aires to Heathrow 777, headrest falling off again, actually everything from the Heathrow to Hong Kong flight.

You have been unlucky by the sound of it. Certainly on shorthaul most are a modern Airbus with a better layout than easyjet and better service than Flybe.

However after January 11th it will be a direct comparison with all the frills stripped out.

 

[306024]

BA for me are the worst airline I have flown with. Short haul twice and the service was poor. Long haul twice, Heathrow to Hong Kong 747, headreast was falling off, toilets looked like they hadn't been cleaned for a week and the cabin crew had an attitude. Buenos Aires to Heathrow 777, headrest falling off again, actually everything from the Heathrow to Hong Kong flight.

The headrest wasn't falling off, it was simply more adjustable than other airlines

I'd agree some BA 747s are a bit long in the tooth now, and on some it shows. Only once had a cabin crew member with attitude though, she was very young, and I got the impression the rest of the crew were carrying her. No issues with toilets on any flights.

Going to the Motorshow in Paris with my son next week flying from Birmingham on Flybe.

Can't believe my luck it's booked for an Embraer 195 both ways (out 0630 back 2045). This craft in my view is the finest scheduled short haul method of travel by air available - bar none.

I'd agree again, 2+2 seating and decent legroom in the one I took last month. Enjoy the Paris Motorshow.

 

[Techniquest]

I do have to agree that Embraer 175s and 195s are awesome machines to fly on. It's been too long since I last flew on one, but the 2+2 seating layout on Flybe is wonderful and makes it worth paying the ching to fly with them.

The temptation to go booking some flights for January's week off is getting quite real...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think their cabin bag limits are a good thing, wish more would do it. None of the usual fights over locker space with Wizz Air that you get with most budget airlines whose luggage charges encourage people to cram as much as they can into the cabin.

An even more sensible way to do it is to stop charging for the first 20kg checked bag, like it used to be. With Wizz baggage charges are almost a card-fee-style hidden fee, as you can't really do much more than a day trip (and even then not if you have a large form factor laptop you need to take) without paying for either a large cabin bag or a checked bag.

Actually, I'd probably rather see a fee for a large cabin bag a la Wizz but *not* for the first item of checked baggage. But then I'm unusual - I'm a regular business traveller who near enough always checks a bag into the hold. Probably helps that I usually fly to/from Luton where the baggage handling is very quick. And I'm tall and big-footed, so the idea of my hand baggage going by my feet, even though it would technically fit, is right out.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

An even more sensible way to do it is to stop charging for the first 20kg checked bag, like it used to be. With Wizz baggage charges are almost a card-fee-style hidden fee, as you can't really do much more than a day trip (and even then not if you have a large form factor laptop you need to take) without paying for either a large cabin bag or a checked bag.

Actually, I'd probably rather see a fee for a large cabin bag a la Wizz but *not* for the first item of checked baggage. But then I'm unusual - I'm a regular business traveller who near enough always checks a bag into the hold. Probably helps that I usually fly to/from Luton where the baggage handling is very quick. And I'm tall and big-footed, so the idea of my hand baggage going by my feet, even though it would technically fit, is right out.

Thing is, people have gotten used to the unavoidable extra costs of flying, so unless there is some sort of EU agreement that a bag must be included in the cost, which would apply to all budget airlines, none of them are going to voluntarily increase their display prices at a risk of losing out on revenue.

Your idea makes sense about a free hold bag. It does seem so daft that airlines charge to use the plane's enormous hold, but it is free to use the tiny amount of locker space. It would limit fighting over the lockers, people trying to grab their bags before landing and people fiddling with lockers in-flight as well.

Often we do end up with bags at our feet because we are carrying backpacks and they can get crushed as people force their giant metal bags into the lockers. On long haul trips, we generally put everything into our hold bags so we have nothing but a camera/handbag with us on the plane.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It does seem so daft that airlines charge to use the plane's enormous hold, but it is free to use the tiny amount of locker space.

I guess the main problem is that everyone else- even BA- charge extra for a hold bag, so unless you include it for free in the headline price you're going to lose out on all the comparison sites.

I normally end up with my bag in the hold when I fly Ryanair anyway- last time it was so short notice (about two hours) I had to get my boarding pass at the airport and they proactively offered to free check it straight into the hold at the check-in desk- so it is just getting silly.

But if they don't charge, or include it in the price of the ticket, they're either losing out on revenue or losing out on the price comparison sites.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do have to agree that Embraer 175s and 195s are awesome machines to fly on. It's been too long since I last flew on one, but the 2+2 seating layout on Flybe is wonderful and makes it worth paying the ching to fly with them.

Even better on BA, as the seat spacing is I think more generous. I half think they might even have, unlike Flymaybe, aligned them to the (wonderfully large) windows.

Genuinely delightful aircraft. I too would pay over the odds to fly on one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I guess the main problem is that everyone else- even BA- charge extra for a hold bag, so unless you include it for free in the headline price you're going to lose out on all the comparison sites.

Agreed - it's one of those things (like, say, increasing legroom[1]), that would need to be done by way of legislation to make it the same for everyone.

[1] The UK is actually one of the few countries that has a legal minimum seat pitch for passenger aircraft. But it's quite tight. Notably it's specified as actual legroom, not pitch, which is why airlines like thinner seats:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/7...h-from-two-experts-in-aircraft-economics.html

 

[Butts]

I do have to agree that Embraer 175s and 195s are awesome machines to fly on. It's been too long since I last flew on one, but the 2+2 seating layout on Flybe is wonderful and makes it worth paying the ching to fly with them.

The temptation to go booking some flights for January's week off is getting quite real...

Forget the 175...the 195 is the cream of the crop, plus they have to have three trolly dollys so you get served a lot quicker.

 

[Bald Rick]

Your idea makes sense about a free hold bag. It does seem so daft that airlines charge to use the plane's enormous hold, but it is free to use the tiny amount of locker space. It would limit fighting over the lockers, people trying to grab their bags before landing and people fiddling with lockers in-flight as well.

The charge is not so much about the weight / space of the hold bag, but to pay for the bloke(s) who load it on and off the plane at each end of the journey and the specialist handling equipment. Air handling companies will charge the airline per bag, the airlines pass it on (with a mark up).

It also enables carriers to turn round a plane more quickly if the luggage is carried on/off by the passengers. I flew from Glasgow to Luton a few weeks ago on a full flight with EZY; there were fewer than 10 bags which meant the plane turned round in Glasgow very quickly. One of the bags was one which also meant I didn't have to wait long at the carousel in the terminal

 

[fowler9]

You have been unlucky by the sound of it. Certainly on shorthaul most are a modern Airbus with a better layout than easyjet and better service than Flybe.

However after January 11th it will be a direct comparison with all the frills stripped out.

I think I did get unlucky to be honest from general reviews. I may have been a bit harsh and I would still use them again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The headrest wasn't falling off, it was simply more adjustable than other airlines

I'd agree some BA 747s are a bit long in the tooth now, and on some it shows. Only once had a cabin crew member with attitude though, she was very young, and I got the impression the rest of the crew were carrying her. No issues with toilets on any flights.



I'd agree again, 2+2 seating and decent legroom in the one I took last month. Enjoy the Paris Motorshow.

Ha ha, the headrests on the 777 and 747 did indeed have some extra adjustability built in. The 777 was alright apart from that, the 747 was indeed looking a bit careworn. I still loved it though, my first 747 flight. Oddly enough the stroppy cabin crew member looked fairly senior. As I said before I would still use them again and wouldn't go all over trip advisor being a "Disgusted of Liverpool".

 

[AlterEgo]

You have been unlucky by the sound of it. Certainly on shorthaul most are a modern Airbus with a better layout than easyjet and better service than Flybe.

However after January 11th it will be a direct comparison with all the frills stripped out.

If you fly a lot then BA still has a value proposition. Silver and Gold card holders get lounge access, and even if you don't make that grade the frequent flyer scheme is quite rewarding. Avios are relatively easy to redeem and earn, at the moment.

People talk about a thimble of orange juice and a crappy croissant like it's a "frill". Erm...?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The charge is not so much about the weight / space of the hold bag, but to pay for the bloke(s) who load it on and off the plane at each end of the journey and the specialist handling equipment. Air handling companies will charge the airline per bag, the airlines pass it on (with a mark up).

However these days it's a common occurrence that bags have to go in the hold anyway. It's just that instead of putting it into the hold in a secure and orderly fashion at the bag drop, you get to lug it through security and around the airport, leave it on a cart on the tarmac and hope that nobody makes off with it. The blokes are still there loading it and you still have to wait at the carousel at the other end.

If you fly a lot then BA still has a value proposition. Silver and Gold card holders get lounge access, and even if you don't make that grade the frequent flyer scheme is quite rewarding. Avios are relatively easy to redeem and earn, at the moment.

People talk about a thimble of orange juice and a crappy croissant like it's a "frill". Erm...?

For now the BAEC is a value proposition if you're a regular high-value flier. But I expect that the lounges will be the next thing to receive Cruz's special brand of enhancement.

With BA short haul it's more than the G&T and the individually wrapped crisp. BA charge for seat selection, they charge for hold luggage, they charge if you use a credit card. All of these charges are higher than the LCCs. The base fare is also usually higher. It makes you wonder what the point of BA is.

 

[dcsprior]

It makes you wonder what the point of BA is.

In addition to their loyalty scheme, the remaining USPs for BA domestic flights are:

* guaranteed connections and through handling of bagage. I wonder if Easyjet etc will look into taking some of that business as a reaction to BA trying to take some of theirs (assuming BA's reduction in freebies is to enable them to reduce headline fares)

* Heathrow. How much this is worth other than as part of the above is questionable, given that Virgin have up on Scotland - Heathrow

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

 

[gsnedders]

It also enables carriers to turn round a plane more quickly if the luggage is carried on/off by the passengers. I flew from Glasgow to Luton a few weeks ago on a full flight with EZY; there were fewer than 10 bags which meant the plane turned round in Glasgow very quickly. One of the bags was one which also meant I didn't have to wait long at the carousel in the terminal

It's interesting to compare this to my experiences of domestic flights in Japan. Both of those were on 777s with 306 seats, and both of those started boarding 15 minutes before departure, doors closed 5 minutes before, and left the stand dead on time. It feels like we frequently spend nearer double the amount of time boarding a far smaller aircraft for domestic flights here (with about the same number of passengers per aisle), and the big difference was not having the majority of the passengers hanging about in the aisle trying to find and then put their suitcase up into the overhead lockers. Loading hold luggage was also comparatively quick, given they were put in ULDs prior to being put on the plane, which I'm always marginally surprised that LCCs haven't adopted here—I guess the cost of loading them exceeds the saving in ground time.

All in all, it led to the 777s having a ~20 minute turnaround time, whereas I generally see 30–45 minutes for a A320-family in the UK.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That's actually quite a reasonable offer in that case. I wonder, as it's for a fear of flying course, if they use particular A319s with modifications, or if it's just a standard fleet member used.

I think they just use a standard one from within the fleet; whichever is available on the given date.

Of course as we're booked flight only we're not having to sit through the course bit which gives us more time available on the day - the downside to that is I'll have to explain all the noises and sensations during the flight to my daughter myself!

 

[me123]

BA charge for seat selection, they charge for hold luggage, they charge if you use a credit card. All of these charges are higher than the LCCs. The base fare is also usually higher.

That's not true now, is it? The only charge I can see where BA is higher than easyJet (to take just one LCC) is the credit card surcharge (£5 vs £3.48).

On domestic flights, BA charge between £10-20 extra for the "plus" fare compared to the "basic" fare*. This allows a 23kg checked bag and seat selection (from 48h before departure). It also allows some flexibility on the day of travel free of charge. easyJet charge £4 to select a seat and £28 for a 23kg bag. Flexi fares are available at a higher cost (£30) and offer a lot more, including the above, but are still markedly more expensive than BA.

I have on quite a few occasions seen base fares with BA that are on a par with LCCs. Indeed, on this occasion I quickly searched for Glasgow to London Gatwick flights. £79 with BA, £135 with EZY. (Looking for morning flights on 20th October, outward portion of return flight). Why would anyone fly easyJet when it's cheaper to fly BA?

It makes you wonder what the point of BA is.

Transfer to a wide network of flights and access to the Heathrow hub. Sometimes is cheaper (see above). Provides competition.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

* Heathrow. How much this is worth other than as part of the above is questionable, given that Virgin have up on Scotland - Heathrow

Doesn't necessarily mean that Heathrow is worthless. VS had an uphill struggle. They were entering markets with limited brand recognition, competing with well established carriers, and offering a premium service in a market where low cost is king. For long haul travel, regular passengers were loyal to their existing airlines, and VS operates to fewer destinations than BA at a lower frequency limiting connectivity to some degree. VSLR found their market was for point-point traffic, yet the costs of operating at Heathrow mean that point-point traffic on short haul routes is not an easy way to make money (hence why no "true" LCCs serve LHR).

Heathrow is a valuable hub, it's just that VS had the market wrong. BA are able to make the domestic flights successful primarily by linking into a vast network of connecting flights. They hold a huge number of slots at LHR, and no other London based carrier is going to effectively compete with them unless they relinquish slots (which would be moronic) or LHR is to expand. But I'll leave that debate to one side for now.

 

[Butts]

Flew down from Edinburgh to Birmingham today on Flybe (1105 -delayed till 1135)

Changed my seat at check in m/c to 2C (Exit Seat on Q400) only to be booted into 20C on boarding (High Flyer replacing me)

Still had a "2" to myself. Although the plane was only half full they were not allowing "coupled flyers" to migrate to a single. Claimed the weight dispersal was critical due to the lack of luggage in the hold.

What a load of bollocks - one passenger may weigh twice as much as another which would put a spanner in their loading criteria.

Does anyone actually believe this nonsense they spout on occasion ?

 

[dievoyagerdie]

It's not nonsense at all. The crew will have a load sheet. The aircraft must be loaded in accordance with it. It is a legal requirement of the commander to ensure that this is done.

This takes into account passengers seated in the zones (usually three zones in the cabin). Moving backward or forward will affect the centre of of gravity. Moving sideways won't. Baggage distribution will also do it. Notwithstanding the fact that people weigh different weights, the load sheet will use standard weights for pax and crew. Hold baggage will usually be actual weights.

The centre of gravity must be within limits based on using the standard weights. If it's not within the limits then it can cause significant stability problems.

Do also remember that the Q400 landing gear is long, and moves back which will create a rearward shift in the CofG when the gear is retracted.

This is why EasyJet will load the front hold on a A320 as its more tail heavy than the A319. On lightly loaded flights when the trick is out, pax may be asked to move seats. It's quicker and easier to move pax than it is bag.

It's usually construed as a great conspiracy by passengers designed to get money out of you. However we are just ensuring you get to your destination safely.

 

[me123]

... yes, it's a real thing. Weight needs to be balanced for take off and landing. Happens on lots of carriers, not just small turboprops. Seen this on Aer Lingus Regional as well as a VS 747 and BA 767. Heard of EZY doing it as well - prior to allocated seating they'd block off rows on lighter flights to encourage passengers to spread themselves about.

Obviously their calculations must presume that weight is fixed for each passenger which is obviously nonsense. It is obviously impractical and insulting to weigh passengers on boarding. But they already have some data about you (age and sex) that allows them to take a reasonable guess at your weight. An adult male would probably be in the 60-100kg range, a five year old closer to 20kg. Any deviations are probably going to be accounted for - there will be more portly passengers on board, as well as more slender ones. So they can potentially then allocate seats by working out what's likely to be a good balance. There is the small chance that the front of the plane is filled with pie enthusiasts and the rear with anorexics, but that's not highly likely.

 

[Techniquest]

Load sheets and sensible spacing of passengers is always considered vital to me, and any request to move or stay in my seat is carried out without issue. I watch Air Crash Investigation (new series started last night, recorded it but not watched it yet) semi-regularly and, while I don't remember which incident it was, I'll never forget how ignoring the load sheets and incorrectly calculating weights etc before takeoff was the cause of a major crash.

As I say, I forget which one this was, as I've watched quite a few and this episode was watched a couple of years ago. It's also strange how I watch more of it in the days before a flight, so I'm expecting a binge of ACI in early to mid November!

 

[WatcherZero]

Old but should give you an idea.

 

[WestCoast]

Romanian low-cost airline Blue Air is launching a base at Liverpool Airport next year and plans to offer new services to Milan, Rome, Hamburg and Alicante, in addition to its existing Romanian services, in direct and indirect competition against Ryanair, easyJet and Wizzair services from Liverpool, Manchester and Doncaster-Sheffield.

http://www.bqlive.co.uk/2016/10/11/blue-air-brings-flights-and-jobs-to-liverpool/

The airline doesn't charge for carry on luggage and offers complimentary meals and drinks on some services, fares can undercut Ryanair and Wizzair.