Paying for meals on charters

[Saintsman]

I didn't bother paying Thomas Cook £30 for inflight meals to Turkey because I thought it overpriced and we could go without anyway. I was therefore pleasantly surprised to find we (and everyone else) were given a meal.

Is this the norm or is it another con by the tour operators to grab a bit extra out of us?

Admittedly we flew with a charter airline (Pegasus BTW and they were very good) and not the tour operator's own airline. Thinking about it, it could be a bit of a logistical nightmare trying to feed some and not others. Maybe though we got lucky?

[apaddyinuk]

To be honest, I wouldnt bother paying for any "extras" for the very reason you stated above. Especially when it comes to things like exit rows also.Lets face it, if no one pays extra for the exit rows on a full flight then they are going to have to put someone into them anyways!

[lexxity]

It seems to be the norm that if a tour operator charters in another carrier then all pax get fed. Bt if it is their own aircraft then it is only those who pay who get fed.

[tart1]

I have noticed this on charter flights. If you say you want a meal, they will take your money but then you find that everyone on the flight gets a meal whether they have paid for it or not.

Also, there is no way that the meals are worth the money they charge. I think it is better to buy food at the airport - costs less and is better quality.

It's a rip-off. :*

[Bangkokeasy]

Thirty quid for a plastic lunchbox? :yuk:

Yuck yuck yuck!! What is the world coming to? I might consider paying to sit in a part of the plane where I didn't have to witness the unpleasant experience of seeing and smelling people unwrapping them...

[WHBM]

We have discussed this before. Certainly for the check-in staff and FAs it became a logistical nightmare with many cock-ups, and third-party charter operators would either not be able to handle it or not even be told.

That said, charging for the meals, even partially, coincided with a notable uprating of the standard, and hot meals are the norm again. There must be some here who remember that charter flight nadir, "seatback catering" of the 1970s/80s, where the refreshments (cold, inevitably) were placed in special compartments in front of you which you could eat when you wished. These had many practical problems too. The meals for both legs were loaded in the UK, the one for the return leg was meant to be locked up until released during the turnaround by crew with a key, but too many outward pax with a couple of hours to kill and a second meal tantalisingly in front of them found a way with coins etc to get at it. Likewise early boarders would grab their neighbours supplies before they arrived. There are no easy solutions !

[10secondsurvey]

WHBM,

There is an easy solution, give everyone a meal included in the ticket/package price. If I recall, the price (to the airline) per pax for a typical hot meal is peanuts, and makes little difference to the flight price. This would make everyone's life much easier, including the staff.

The notion is bandied about by airlines that by removing inclusive meals, the flight will somehow be cheaper. The reality is, the prices don't go down, and the meals are used as an additional profit centre for the airline. It is exactly the same with the removal of inclusive meals on scheduled carriers, with the opportunity for pax to purchase food on board (with a huge markup).

I will remember the point above though, about not bothering to pay, as you'll probably get a meal anyway.

[the_fish@blueyonder.]

When we flew with First Choice to Bulgaria at the beginning of the month we paid an extra £3/4 each for a meal and when it came we noticed that even though everyone onboard was offered the meal, a lot of people (in our section of the plane anyway) refused it. It was a dinner time flight, so it's not as if you were being served roast chicken dinner at 3am or anything. Anyway, those who refused it missed out on one of the best airline meals I've ever had. :D

On the way home however, almost everyone took the meal, even though it WAS 3am and it was a pretty mediocre cottage pie. :\

[wanderin_star]

Yes WBHM I am of the age remembering seat back catering. One of my first flights was to Spain on a Monarch 1-11 from Luton with seat back catering. Also all passengers had to be weighed on the scales along with luggage - it was strong head wind and unsure if 1-11 would make it to Malaga without stopping for refuel. One plus point in those days - if I remember correctly - soft drinks and mixers were free, you only paid for alcoholic drinks.

[TightSlot]

I can only speak reliably for my employer - Thomsonfly.

Meals are loaded to the precise number booked in advance, with no spares, and are sold at £10 round trip. If there are no-shows/refusals, these are sold on board at £6 each way.

The only circumstances that I'm aware of when we would cater full on such a flight, would be when another company is sub-chartered in to cover a flight, and their IT systems (or crew) cannot cope with the split service. Otherwise, we cater as booked. The reason for this is that it generates the very reaction shown above... I will remember the point above though, about not bothering to pay, as you'll probably get a meal anyway and also enfuriates those customers who have pre-booked and paid.

It is certainly true that airlines now regard catering as a revenue service. Previously, catering was the third biggest cost item on the books after salaries and fuel - now it is a major revenue stream. How much is saved on the fares for those not eating? I don't know, but immediately, they are paying £10 less than their eating colleagues.

On a purely personal note, I think it is worth it, and pay for myself and family when we travel together. Meals are therapy as well as fodder. The quality of our meals has improved since we started charging - they had to otherwise people would not choose to buy them.

There will always be some people who don't like or want our food, and that's just fine and dandy. Marks & Spencers at LTN are doing a roaring trade, and if that's what does it for you, then enjoy. We'll still give you an option to buy drinks and snacks from us in flight - an option that you can of course, decline. The only thing that I refuse to do for customers is to use our ovens and urns to make their self catered food and drinks hot - I'm sure somebody aroundd here will tell me that I'm being unreasonable, but I'm afraid I intend to take a stand on that one!

[Tempsford]

wanderin star,
The seat back catering you refer to on the Monarch 1-11 was something they inherited when they took the a/c ex Court Line. Talking of paying for your meals....Freddie Laker was doing that over 25 years ago on Skytrain, you could buy Meal Vouchers at Check In..nothing new under the sun is there...


Temps

[10secondsurvey]

Tightslot

My comment you quoted, referred exactly to the circumstances you yourself describe, as was pointed out by another poster earlier on. That is, that on a charter which is not from the actual tour company, their systems often cannot cope, and so they load meals for all (regardless of who paid).

As regards the point that pax save ten pound - that is only because that is what the airline charges. If airlines charged the actual cost of the meal, then passengers who decide not to have a meal would actually save maybe three quid.

As you rightly point out, food has become just another profit centre, with those purchasing food at inflated prices onboard effectively subsidising the tickets of those who do not.

[lexxity]

Tightslot slightlyish off topic, would you heat up babyfood brought on board by a pax?

[tart1]

Tightslot slightlyish off topic, would you heat up babyfood brought on board by a pax?
Good point Lexxy - I would hope that would be treated a bit differently from someone asking for hot water for a Pot Noodle or to heat a ready meal in the oven, which I don't think the crew should have to do.

I also remember seat-back catering from the 70s when I started flying for Monarch. Although by then they had stopped loading for both sectors (we had to put the IB meals in on turnround) it was awful. That summer (1978) was very bad for ATC delays often of many hours. If you were sitting in the heat at an outstation, the food in the seat backs could deteriorate quite quickly. It was a constant problem and I would guess that modern health and safety rules today would mean that this practice would not be allowed.

[TightSlot]

Sorry for slow response - I've been off doing the job. Yes we heat up baby food - a regular occurrence (did it today). There is IMHO, a difference between doing so, and making up hot meals for adults, which I hope is evident to all. Apart from the obvious humanitarian requirement, a happy baby tends to mean less unhappiness for those others sitting nearby.

As you rightly point out, food has become just another profit centre, with those purchasing food at inflated prices onboard effectively subsidising the tickets of those who do not. With the greatest respect, this argument is, I would suggest, valid for all customers. What I mean is that those paying excess baggage charges, purchasing drinks or booking exec lounges, by way of immediate example, also subsidise their fellow passengers. In fact, given the extensive use of yield management software for manipulating fares, all passengers are subsidising each other to a greater or lesser degree. I don't feel bad about this, or about charging more for a hot meal than it is bought in for by the airline. Just like other businesses, airlines are entitled to make a profit from transactions with their customers. We offer customers the choice of eating with us or of choosing not to do so and making their own arrangements. Free choice. I must admit that I struggle to understand why this might be viewed as iniquitous?
:)

[lexxity]

Thanks for the answer Tightslot, I just need to ask my guys now, although I'm sure they do too!

[10secondsurvey]

... In fact, given the extensive use of yield management software for manipulating fares, all passengers are subsidising each other to a greater or lesser degree. I don't feel bad about this, or about charging more for a hot meal than it is bought in for by the airline...


You are absolutely correct, tightslot, that the same point raised about food subsidising pax can be equally applied to other aspects of a ticket price. In fact, i have highlighted the same point myself in a recent post.

The point is, however, with the greatest respect, that the topic of this thread is about paying for meals on charters and whether it is a con, when those who don't pay still get a meal on some flights. It is that which may be percieved by passengers as 'iniquitous', not the fact that a charge is made.

Nobody here is suggesting that you personally should 'feel bad' about meal charging- as you didn't make the policy.

The original poster was asking a question, and now he has some answers.
Not sure about the baby food thing, as I would have assumed pretty much any decent airline with the facilities would do this if required, for the reasons you stated. No?

[TFlyguy]

Please also bear in mind passenger perception

In my company we seat the "meal pax" at the front and I have had pax complain that "everyones getting a meal" when in fact a large percentage of the pax at the rear were not but this is not seen by those at the front

[firstforfirstchoice]

Hi all,

I am only saying what I have experienced on TCX flights. I have flown with these guys many times over the last few years and every time they have just handed out meals free of charge to all pax. I recently came back from Gran Canaria and did not book an inflight meal, when booking on their Internet site and got one free of charge onboard, the crew did not check their lists, etc. Every single pax got one.

Might be a little cheeky, but saves on the £10!! or however much it was for the outward and return inflight meal.

Cheers. :ok: :ok:

[lexxity]

10SS one would hope so. I know a lot of places on the ground won't.