Thomsonfly B767-200- The most uncomfortable airline?? [Archive]

firstforfirstchoice

17th Apr 2006, 07:48

Hi everyone,

A few weeks ago I returned from Malaga on a Thomsonfly B767-200 flight.
I am quite a tall person and flown on many charter flights before, but this aircraft has to be the worst for leg room. They could not fit any more seats into the aircraft if they wanted to.

I would think that this Thomsonfly aircraft would be only used on short haul routes (G-BYAA).

Does anyone know if all the Thomsonfly aircraft are like this??

If anyone decides to book a flight/holiday with Thomsonfly I would advise you to book an extra leg room seat, especaily if your flight is longer then two hours long!!

flyingspurtle

18th Apr 2006, 00:02

Think that the seats on board T/Fly are no tighter than most other charter co. People want to fly for free now,( the reason that EZY and Ryanair do so well), and the only way to do it is pack-em in like sardines.As you say everyone has the choice to pay for extra leg room on a T/Fly flight or as an alternative why not choose B.A or Iberia and fly business class.Doing this will leave you with less money to spend on your accomodation or those little extras like your after dinner brandy!! People have to weigh up what is the most important to them. And before you ask I do fly for Thomsonfly and have been proud to do so for 18 years so forgive me if I get a wee bit sparky now and then. Blame hypoxia and too much sherry!! x:}

WHBM

18th Apr 2006, 09:13

It's all in your perception.

I am 6'0". I have done many return business trips UK to Australia in Y and had no problem. One of the women in the office (5'3") used the same carrier for the trip and complained about "sardine class".

Holiday charter airlines and the budget carriers use the same seat pitch, generally 28". Malaga is one of the nearer destinations they serve anyway. This seat pitch has been standard on these flights since the jets came along in the 1960s. I've always found it fine. You could always try Iberia from Heathrow. Twice the price, no local departures, still have to pay for refreshments on board, need to change planes in Madrid.

World of Tweed

18th Apr 2006, 10:52

Actually the 762 is - in more general aspects - the more pleasant of the fleet to fly on.... toilets in the middle of the aircraft, big feel but not so long a wait to get off etc.

Unfortunately 28" is standard in the industry for shorthaul. When we take the 762 down to Australia we reconfigure it to a more comfortable 260 seats vs the standard 290 seats (europe)....

We do try to please.........BUT at the end of the day one unfortunately cannot expect too much when one pays so little....

Wycombe

18th Apr 2006, 11:03

Hopefully some of the UK-based long-haul charters will go the way that First Choice have on their 763's. The standard on-board product now offers more leg-room than standard Y on BA and VS.

Prices have risen accordingly, but it's good to have the option to some long-haul destinations that the scheduled carriers don't reach direct from UK (eg, CUN)

World of Tweed

18th Apr 2006, 11:28

With respect to First Choice's policy on longhaul....

They wanted to expand so needed to source 767 for the LH op. The only ones they could find were the "low-floor" weight versions which dictated how many seats they could squish into the aircraft.

So you can't be entirely sure which came first - the policy shift on LH pitch or the restricted aircraft?

Either way it would seem the be working for them...or is it........

They are a launch customer for the 787 - the 767 replacement. Boeing may be doing a part-ex deal with them which allows them to operate their 'less-full more-comfrotable' 767s on routes where others like Tfly and Mytravel would struggle..... so things may not be as clear cut as they seem.

Desk Driver

18th Apr 2006, 14:57

They wanted to expand so needed to source 767 for the LH op. The only ones they could find were the "low-floor" weight versions which dictated how many seats they could squish into the aircraft.

If the above we're true, which it is'nt I think First Choice would've paid for the floors to be re-enforced instead of changing their whole LH product??

As European launch customer for the 78 I'm sure Boeing would've helped find some "High Floor" 6's for them

jet2impress

18th Apr 2006, 15:15

We have 30" seat pitch. I personally think its quite good, yet people still complain. Those that complain are not prepared to pay the £10 to upgrade to an extra legroom seats, so I guess if they took out five rows they would not be prepared to pay the extra on the base ticket price for the convienience. So they would just be off down the road to use Easyjet or Ryanair!

Balboy

19th Apr 2006, 11:30

As has been mentioned, most charter airlines have 28" seat pitch on short haul ops.
So its strange that you find Thomsonfly's G-BYAA uncomfortable as it has a 30" seat pitch between October and May.

Final 3 Greens

19th Apr 2006, 12:45

Balboy

30" is not good, just because it is 2" more than it might otherwise be

A tall pax will still find 30" unpleasantly cramped.

Flying Spurtle

"People want to fly for free now,( the reason that EZY and Ryanair do so well)"

Given that FR sometimes do give seats away or sell them very cheaply, what else do you expect?

Balboy

19th Apr 2006, 13:01

Indeed 30" is not good, but in reply to the original comment of ' most uncomfortable airline( aircraft ) I was merely pointing out that 30" is more than the usual 28" you find on other aircraft ( inc TOM's 757 ) to AGP.

So the answer to the question in the topic starter of Most Uncomfortable Airline is...no.

Also, who do you normaly fly to AGP with firstforfirstchoice?

firstforfirstchoice

19th Apr 2006, 16:32

I nearly always fly with First Choice Airways/holidays on holidays and flights to their sunshine destinations, including Malaga, but unfortunately, I missed the FCA flight coming back home, so had to be transferred to a Thomosnfly flight.

I think the main reason, why the B767-200 felt so cramped, was because I was put in a window seat, but unfortunately, their was no window, the B767-200 seems to have quite a few window seats at the front of the aircraft, but do not seem to have windows!!

Give me First Choice Airways' B757-200's any day!!

Cheers.:ok: :ok:

10secondsurvey

19th Apr 2006, 18:21

The reason why some people find 30" bad and others think it is ok, even if they are tall, is because legroom (or lack of it) is perceived depending upon length of femur (thigh bone) and not height. Someone who is very tall can have relatively short femurs and vice versa.
Interestingly, BA now claim there economy seat pitch is a 'comfortable' 76-78cm. At the lower end of this scale, 76 cm is just under 30", so less than many charter flights.
I genuinely wish First choice airlines well with their new long haul layout, just a pity we cannot get it in short haul. I would definitely choose them to fly long haul on charter routes, truly superb.
As regards budget airlines, in the USA JetBlue has a standard seat pitch of 34", so you can have budget prices with lots of legroom. I personally find economy in most long haul completely intolerable due to a lack of legroom, and only bearable for very short flights.

TSR2

19th Apr 2006, 21:55

There is only one aircraft more uncomfortable than a Thomsonfly B767 ............ Any other B767 in 2-4-2 configuration.

WHBM

20th Apr 2006, 08:41

It's a similar situation on the railway over the years - as the "average person" has got larger the space provided for each seat has got smaller.

When I was a kid the trains from London to Cambridge had 3-across seating, in those compartments with a corridor at the side, even in second class. The next generation of trains had 4-across, 2 each side. The latest ones, at vast expense apparently, have 5-across which is distinctly too-friendly on the 3-seat side when full. Legroom has gone down too. And in comparison to all those who say for air travel "pay peanuts get squashed" the fares have gone up in that time way ahead of inflation. Liverpool Street to Stansted often costs more than the base cost of the subsequent European flight.

oversteer

20th Apr 2006, 13:23

Last year I flew Thomson from Punta Cana to LGW, 767-300 in 2-4-2 configuration, now that was an experience :{

What made it worse was the constant peddling of duty free throughout the "night" when all we wanted to do was go to sleep. In the bolt-upright seats. Not fun.

Oh well, at least it was cheap!

Leodis

20th Apr 2006, 13:50

Woodgnome

24th Apr 2006, 10:19

Two completely different experiences BHX-BCN & BCN-MAN.

BHX-BCN with MyTravelLite last year, awful, I'm only 5'8" and I only had about half an inch between my knees and the seat in front and the seats had zero padding couldn't wait to get off.

BCN-MAN with Monarch - Last week FANTASTIC! (apart from the technical hitch:bored: ) Don't know why anyone under 6'6" would pay for the extra legroom seats? Shh! Don't tell the management they'll reduce the legroom or put the prices up!

arthur harbrow

26th Apr 2006, 21:28

I have found the Monarch A300s to be the worst of all, probably 28 inch pitch like other charter airlines, but Airbus seats always seem to be more uncomfortable.

Rollingthunder

26th Apr 2006, 23:13

Just to be pedantic, Airbus or Boeing do not choose the seats. The type and model are determined by the aircraft buyer as BFE (Buyer Furnished Equipment) along with many other interior items.

WHBM

30th Apr 2006, 08:57

I can agree with both the above comments.

Yes I know seat spec is down to the customer and not necessarily connected to the airframe manufacturer. And yet there does seem to be a pattern, particularly on widebodies, that Airbus seats are not as good as Boeing ones in the same fleet and same class.

I first noticed this some years ago on Cathay Pacific when using their B744s and A343s on long-haul in Y. The seats appeared less well upholstered, and the seat supporting structures were less convenient and more obstructing for those seated in the row behind.

Narrowbody Airbus should be better as the fuselage has the extra 6" internal cross-section, translated into an extra 1" per seat, but again I find I don't notice that, and when on regular trips recently I compared Aer Lingus A320s with the last of their 737s, the 737 actually seemed to have better seats. Also notable was their older A320s in Y had better seats than the latest one-class ones.

Is it just that Boeings in a fleet tend to be older, when better standards applied at manufacture ? Or do Airbus seats tend to come from European manufacturers like Sigma and are not as well done as the Boeing default from US manufacturers.

AUTOGLIDE

1st May 2006, 13:15

I personally find the problem is not the seat pitch as such, but the amount of 'intrusion' into my personal space when the seat in front is reclined. I recently flew a 12 hour sector on a European flag carrier (B744 Combi), and I couldn't actually get out of my seat when the occupant in front was reclined. The idea of the 'TGV' seat, borrowed from the French train where the seat base moves rather the the back, meaning that when you recline you use your own space to do it seems welcome, but I imagine it would require extra pitch to accomodate the moving squab.
In short, the golden age of flying is gone, nobody wants to pay the costs anymore, pressure on wages, space etc so less revenue per passenger must mean that more passengers needed per flight to make up the revenue.:(

kriss1000

11th May 2006, 13:53

Must comment on this:

Firstly let me explain that these 2 flights are the first charter jets I`ve flown with. Always use scheduled..

Man (EGCC) to Montego Bay (MKJS) 09/03/06

Thomsonfly 763 Flight No. BY508 10Hrs

Worst aircraft seating and FA`s I`ve ever had the displeasure to fly with, 2-4-2 config and as stated before all the FA`s want to do was sell duty free. They were also discourtious and thought they were doing you a fovor. Food ok , but In my estimation coming around for drinks once every 4 hours is bloody rediculous.

Nothing wrong with the A/C or the Flight crew it was a good flight and the captain and first officers did a good job throughout the flight, No problems.

Return flight same A/C different FA`S slightly better but same with the drinks etc....

Overall crap will not fly with them EVER again Full Stop.

Now,

Flew with FCA First Choice Airways From Man(EGCC) to Mexico (MMUN) 26/04/06 10hrs 50min.

Seating config 2-3-2 (as it should be)

No comparison excellent all the way there and back.

Going to the Bahamas next month flying to US with BA then out with Delta...

TightSlot

11th May 2006, 14:32

Just to declare an interest, this is my lot you're talking about, so very sorry to hear that you were not pleased.

Just for curiosity, not as a mod but as humble contributor...

You mention that a cabin bar service needs to be offered more frequently than it was. Can you let us know, assuming that you were planning the flight, how frequently the cabin bar service should be offered? i.e. how many times and how frequently? Since the return flight experienced the same problem, on a night sector, your answer would be of interest.
As a follow up, I assume from reading your post that the scheduled airlines that you customarily use invariably offer more frequent cabin bar services. I wondered which scheduled carriers these might be? So many of them seem to offer a service standard that s little different to that offered by most charter carriers, so it is obviously important that this high level of service is recognised publicly.
Many thanks in anticipation of your response, and I'm sorry to hear that you were disappointed.

WHBM

11th May 2006, 15:49

TS :

Many long-haul scheduled operators just do a couple of runs with the bar, like before the meal, but in betwen also come through with tea, soft drinks and water, like every couple of hours.

I think the problem with the charter operators is that every drink service is seen as a revenue opportunity (are your crews on commission ?), most of the revenue comes from the alcohol and not the soft drinks, and yet they do not want to be pushing the alcohol too much for fear of getting problems in the cabin with those who cannot hold it.

TightSlot

11th May 2006, 16:10

Thanks WHBM

Yes, our crews are on commission, and yes the charter operators see bar services as revenue opportunities. Soft drinks are chargeable on Longhaul, so additional soft drinks services are all grist to the mill.

I'll wait and see how kriss1000 answers, if you're OK with that, since it is unclear whether this is what he wants (he may prefer the option of a full bar service every 2 hours?)

I was also pleased to note that the captain and first officers did a good job throughout the flight - Although this must have been tricky to observe from the cabin.

kriss1000

11th May 2006, 16:52

No problem i`ll gladly reply,

If we can return to the FCA flight as a non-drinker (alcohol that is) I am a big coffee drinker, one both the outbound day and inbound night flights with FCA I had no problems at all asking the FA`s for coffee this was dished out every time I asked for it, black,white or cappuchino, after a short wait that is, this just didnt happen on Thomson when they eventually got round to asking me they said there was no black coffee just cappuchino????... I had to wait for the meal service before they came with black coffee, to be fair on the return flight an FA male actually made me one.

I understand that headphones, duty free etc are all part of the commercial venture and has to be done. What I would change is the seating config 2-4-2 is not for long haul flights if the 2-3-2 config was impossed then at least an FA could get past the trollies to get you a coffee etc.. They need to desperately reduce the number of Pax.

We travel a lot i`m semi retired and have used most of the flag carrier operators, don`t get me wrong I do not expect to get this kind of service on a charter A/C thats not my point at all, I was merely pointing out the difference between these two charter flights so that any interested pax could take note.

Perhaps it would be more informative if you flew FCA to see the difference for yourself.

Im my opinion best Airline:

1. Singapore Airlines also includes the best FA`s
2. Cathay Pacific
3. Continental Airlines also best food
4. BA
5. AAL
6. Malaysia

Although this must have been tricky to observe from the cabin.

I fly too..

TightSlot

11th May 2006, 22:23

Thanks kriss1000

I've travelled a lot with virtually all the other carriers that you mention, so your feedback is interesting as a comparison to my experiences. I'm aware that Tfly have issues around their longhaul product just now, and that you are not alone in your views: I'm also aware that not all crews are equally diligent in passenger care.

FCA have certainly shaken up the longhaul charter market recently, but their product raises as many questions as it answers. Time, and financial performance, will tell, no doubt.

It's probably unfair and unwise for me to continue posting on this thread under a mod name, so I'll thank you for your thoughts and think on them further before my next longhaul

CargoOne

11th May 2006, 22:37

I should say (nothing new) that you are getting what you have paid for.
When I'm flying for a holidays to Carribean destinations out of UK I'm always trying to take MyTravel A330 service with premium class 2-3-2 cabin, which is something like old-style J-cabin (no flat beds but reasonably wide and reasonable seat pitch, and I'm a tall guy), and althouth they not doing a bar service every hour I never ever had a problem a press a call button and being served with a smile, or sometimes I just taking my glass and heading to forward galley where FAs are quite happy to refill it and chat about how's life goes. Food is nothing to write home about but still reasonable, and drinks are free. You just need to pay something at a time of a booking.

Saying that when I'm looking on rear cabin on these flights I'm just damn sure I would never go for this cramped, narrow and non-existing leg space in the back. This is all about how much you respect yourself, nothing more and nothing less. As for me if I cannot afford to pay some extra to get a comfortable flight I would rather opt to stay at home. But that's just me.

Groundlover

12th May 2006, 00:32

BA is 31" seat pitch. Sit near the front of ET and you will might be pleasantly surprised with 34".

kriss1000

12th May 2006, 07:14

Hi TightSlot,

This i`snt aimed at any tour operator its just a general observation while were on the subject.

If one is paying for a *****+ Hotel where you expect to be pampered ie. Thomson A La Carte of First Choice Premier then surely this should reflect in the flight.

Personally i`m returning to booking the hotel and flights to suit myself, afterall i`m paying them its not the other way round.

Pilotdom

12th May 2006, 09:15

Thomas Cook have excellent seat Pitch on their 752 fleet, Standard pitch is 35" with leather seats to Boot. Have flown to Canada and European destinations with them and it was incredibly confortable. One to Look at as well as First Choice!

TightSlot

12th May 2006, 09:26

Standard pitch is 35" with leather seats to Boot. Have flown to Canada and European destinations with them and it was incredibly confortable. One to Look at as well as First Choice!

Wow!!! 35" standard config on European desinations - that is very impressive. We obviously need to take another look at our product. Thank you

chicken legs

12th May 2006, 11:30

On my last Thomas Cook flight to AGP it was standard seating on 757, 28" if I'm not mistaken, same as T-fly. No sign of leather seats either!

WHBM

12th May 2006, 14:14

If I am not mistaken Thomas Cook have a separate subfleet of 757s used on their UK-Canadian charters with a different seat pitch.

Flying Torquewrench

12th May 2006, 14:22

As far as i know the 35" on Thomas Cook is only on a couple of aircraft which fly dedicated routes to Canada. (i believe for Canadian Affair)

Before i give my opinion about the First Choice product i would like to make clear that this is not a stab at First Choice. I fly for another Charter operater and have been on board the FCA 767. When i was on board i had a chat with the Captain (management pilot) and he told me the following story.

The 767's and interior are payed for by Boeing as part of the 787 deal. The passengers love the product but are not willing to pay more for the service. Hence, FCA is having a hard time to make a profit on these aircraft. They do make a profit on them but not as much as a 767 would in the normal charter configuration. If the market recognizes the advantages of this FCA configuration and is prepared to pay for ti than FCA would continue this in their 787's. However if this is not the case than FCA would choosefor a more conventional charter configuration on their 787's.

Again i would like to stretch to any FCA employee this is not a fight against FCA. I have been on board the 767 and would choose FCA over my own company if i have the choice. The story above is exactly as it was told to me by this management pilot. I hope it all works out for you guys and that in the long term all charter operaters are changing their configuration to the same configuration as currently on the FCA 767's.

For the rest. For most charter company's the tour operater has a big influence in the seating capacity of the aircraft. Within our company everybody wants to reduce the amount of seats but the tour operaters request an aircraft with an X amount of seats. If we decide to remove seats than the tour operater would take their business to another airline and we are out of business. So, you can't always blame the airline.

FT

joniveson

12th May 2006, 15:04

If you think the T-Fly 767 is bad have you ever been on their 757s? They are uncomfortable. With regards to the seat pitch it has never been good but it is not as bad as some other charter carriers especially Monarch. Regarding some of the comments made about the inflight service, I think standards have really dropped since Britannia disappeared. I used to work for Thomson Holidays and I really saw a change in the service offered to customers after the TUI takeover. I flew from DSA to Prague return with Thomsonfly a few months ago on 737 and all I can say is never again. The crew were some of the most rude and miserable ever encountered and the cabin cleanliness and maintenance left a lot to be desired. The flights may well be cheap but do we have to pay extra for a smile? What happened to the TUI smile?

firstforfirstchoice

12th May 2006, 17:29

Hi all,

I think there are only two or three Thomas Cook B757's that are configured with leather seats, which has already been mentioned.
Think the aircraft are G-FCLH and G-FCLK, but not sure.
These aircraft, as mentioned do have fewer seats and are used on the Canada routes from Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, etc.

But these two do also operate on the usual sunshine routes, when not on the Canada flights.

But the majority of the B757-200 fleet do not have leather seats and are configured to allow more pax, which equals more seats, which equals a lot less leg room!!

But I still think Thomas Cook Airlines are the second best UK charter airline, after First Choice Airways of course.:ok: :ok:

Cheers.