First class travel [Archive]

AUTOGLIDE

14th Jan 2007, 19:59

Well that is totally subjective. It depends on how much money you have at your disposal, the more you have the less the relative cost of a 1st class fare will be to you. For some this cost will mean less than the cost of a charter package to Spain does to others. All relative.
Plus, it's not just about the lying down, you get that in any modern business product now, it's about the easy check-in, the lounges, the limo service etc.
The 2 1st class flights I've had were certainly nice, but then again it wasn't my money, and they each cost more than my car is worth.:eek:

Pax Vobiscum

14th Jan 2007, 22:14

is the experience worth the price?
Not on any rational cost-justification basis. If you're sufficiently loaded that spending £10k on a ticket doesn't impact on your ability to spend £10k on something else, then fair enough - but folks in that category can afford their own biz-jet (or at least rent one).

As SXB says, it's about exclusivity (I don't buy the flexibility argument - a fully flexible economy ticket will get you 90% of the flexibility at less than 10% of the cost). Rather like owning a Bentley - it won't (for 99% of practical purposes) do anything that a Mondeo won't at 10% of the cost, but it impresses the hell out of the neighbours (if that's what dings your dong).

Felix Saddler

14th Jan 2007, 22:18

What is ment by a fully flexible ticket?

Crepello

15th Jan 2007, 00:02

Fully flex - you can change your travel plans, or cancel and get a full refund.

For me, there's nothing exclusive about business class. But here's why it's worth it: I'm about to spend two weeks somewhere not-especially-pleasant, after which I've an overnight flight to a meeting elsewhere. I'll land at 7am, jump into a taxi and spend the next eight hours grafting. In Economy, I'd be lucky to get an hour of sleep. In Biz, I'll get three or four - and I won't have to pay for the "sleeping medicines". Easy decision!

HKPAX

15th Jan 2007, 04:03

But Crepello, Felix does have a point (someone else's money).
If, on any flight, I strolled up to business class and offered to pay each of the pax the difference in price to sit for a few hours in a tight seat, with one or two warm beers (if you are lucky), vile but harmless food and the opportuntity to queue up for 10 minutes for a pee every three hours, I'd bet you 80% of them would go for it.

Pax Vobiscum

15th Jan 2007, 14:34

HKPAX, I think you're entirely correct about business-class travellers, particularly those who haven't paid for their own ticket. If my theory is right, you'd get fewer takers in First.

there's nothing exclusive about business class
I tend to agree, Crepello (or may I call you 55012?), but we were talking about First. I think there's an argument for biz-class, although the existence of premium economy rather weakens it. (I may be biased, since I've never managed a satisfactory in-flight kip, even in F!)

Self Loading Freight

15th Jan 2007, 19:09

Why do people pay so much more to lie down?

In my mother's case, her arthritis means she couldn't travel to America any other way - and I had just enough FF points to get her and my father there and back in Upper Class for their 70th and what will doubtless be their last major adventure abroad. (Virgin CC could not have been better in handling them: the ground staff at JFK reduced her to tears. But that's another story.)

I'm really happy both that the state of the art in commercial aviation has progressed to horizontal travel, and that years of back-of-the-ship business trips paid off so handsomely. Even if my Virgin Galactic jaunt will have to wait for another couple of lifetimes.

It's not all well-paid people travelling on someone else's tax adjustment.

R

MyData

15th Jan 2007, 21:03

If I had to pay full 1st fare, then I certainly wouldn't. I might do biz at a push though, especially if booked in advance on some discount ticket.

However, I do have gazillions of Star Alliance miles. The majority of which are earned through business. So for our annual 'big trip' holiday we use these for 1st class tickets - using the part points/part cash option. For instance, last year we flew from Manchester to Beijing on Lufthansa in 1st. I think the total cost, including tax, was £1200 for both of us.

I'd argue that £1200 for two, including the flights, meals, beds, service etc. is decent value compared to the basic economy price which would still be in the £100s each.

I've also been fortunate to fly 1st for business on long haul. But this was directly as a result of promotional upgrades either for my company or those schemes where a trans-Atlantic biz fare grants you an upgrade on outbound or return leg.

I guess what I'm saying is that those in 1st probably haven't paid the fully published rate or anything like it, nor will their businesses. Same applies to hotels in London and elsewhere. I get a rate of £110 / night whereas the rack rate is advertised at £270 to give the hotel some degree of cachet...

Haven't a clue

15th Jan 2007, 21:44

I must be in a serious minority 'cos I fly three + return trips a year in First, paid for by me. Why? Well I get some serious peace and quiet; I get looked after; I don't have to suffer my neighbour's enthusiasm for finding out who I am or why I am travelling; I am going 12+ hours for a very short stay and I need the sleep. Yes it's a heap of cash but look at how much people spend on boats, horses, fancy cars etc. I choose to spend it on travel. My choice. My money.

zed3

16th Jan 2007, 04:00

Clueless.....couldn't agree more . Mrs zed and myself are off to Australia next month for five weeks and are flying Emirates Business , well worth the fare , more relaxed . The holiday starts at the airport for me , if I can't pay the Business fare , then we don't fly , simple . You only live once .

left_to_first_class

16th Jan 2007, 16:00

I've travelled all classes for business and leisure and the reason you travel First is for the peace, and space.
If you travel to the Far East ffrom the UK or 48hrs, even Biz Clas can be painful for the body and mind if its a full cabin.

If you clock up 100,000 miles + a year you know what I mean.

Final 3 Greens

16th Jan 2007, 17:04

If you clock up 100,000 miles + a year you know what I mean.

Yep. Did over 150k miles last year, sadly much of it short and medium haul - less than 10 F sectors all year, lots of crummy C class - a big rip off in VFM.

The initial question must be one of the dumbest on SLF for quite a while.

TightSlot

16th Jan 2007, 19:07

The initial question must be one of the dumbest on SLF for quite a while.

LOL - left it up as shark bait :E :E :E :E :E

Globaliser

16th Jan 2007, 20:42

Though it really is difficult to comprehend the nature of true frequent flying if you only do one or two longhaul trips a year.

Personally, I think I only do between half a dozen and a dozen longhaul (return) trips a year, as it's all leisure travel - yet I still have a hard time convincing colleagues and friends that I am a mere tiddler in the pond of frequent flyers.

PAXboy

17th Jan 2007, 02:01

I enjoy flying and want to enjoy it as much as I can - so I make the trip as enjoyable as I can.

Last week, I had the chance for a long weekend in NYC but only in Y. It was not as much fun as in PE/WTP/C/F. It really is that simple. As Haven't a clue put it, people spend their money in different ways. I am reliably informed that some folks choose to spend several pounds a day on buying a product that seriously affects their health and might kill them. I choose not to smoke but I do ride in big seats anytime I can afford it.
Next? :p

chornedsnorkack

17th Jan 2007, 12:40

Not on any rational cost-justification basis. If you're sufficiently loaded that spending £10k on a ticket doesn't impact on your ability to spend £10k on something else, then fair enough - but folks in that category can afford their own biz-jet (or at least rent one).

Wait. Can anyone actually provide the price comparison?

Mind you, the routes where there is First Class with lie down seats tend to be the long-haul routes. Plenty of small biz-jets simply cannot match the range. And if you are renting BBJ or ACJ, or Global Express... how does the rent price compare with first class tickets on the same route in front of a conventional widebody?

J32/41

17th Jan 2007, 13:14

Just to give you an idea:

LHR-JFK-LHR 19th Jan-22nd Jan

Chartered Jet, non-stop. £48000

B.A First Class £6659

When you have a group all travelling in 1st then the Private Jet starts to make sense.

:) :)

flyblue

17th Jan 2007, 14:32

Very often in First we have pax who travel a lot and need to get to their destination in good shape(business people, actors, politicians). Sleeping (at 180°, in pijamas, with a duvet and real pillow)/having your meals/using the lavatory when it's convenient for you certainly helps :)
A number surely have their ticket paid for by their company (sometimes it's litterally their company ;) ), but there is also a large number who pay for the tickets with their money. It's often obviously very wealthy people who want peace and quiet, and the less disruption to their life possible.
First Class are usually the best and quietest passengers. I'm not saying the work CC have to provide is not hard: just that it's usually the kind of pax that know what they've paid for, and are happy when they get it. Believe it or not, in the couple of occasions when a F pax proved "difficult", it was always upgrades :O

Ancient Observer

17th Jan 2007, 14:46

I'm afraid that in my experience of 10-20 LH to A/P per annum, there is a lot of b/s in this thread. Most 1st passengers in BA and Quantas in Asia/Pacific are BA/Quantas staff.

teleport

17th Jan 2007, 15:10

Ancient Observer:
Same thing, coompany pays?:hmm:

Final 3 Greens

17th Jan 2007, 17:02

just that it's usually the kind of pax that know what they've paid for

D'accord.

Sometimes, you just wish to sleep ad be left alone - F buys that level of understanding.

Atishoo

17th Jan 2007, 17:51

Anyone whispering snobbery?

Saying that I'd like the opportunity. I have a friend who manages to get upgrades nearly every flight !! I have never had one !! I'm tall nd I have to fight tooth n nail to get a leg room seat. BA are stingy and seem to hate ppl getting anything for free. Emirates were kinder!

2U5A

18th Jan 2007, 18:07

Just returned from a business boomdoggle (oops) trip in the far east and experienced a quality of travel and luxury that puts BA, VS, LH and everyone else to shame. The new first on SQ 773ERs' is just incredible, I have never felt so comforted and relaxed in my life, (well there was this girl in Mexico once!!!!). For those that can go first, try SQ and these new aircraft, it is a complete pleasure. No I do not work for SQ, I am a civil servant (that will put the cat among the pigeons!!!!) using points to upgrade, in my own defence.

MyData

19th Jan 2007, 16:50

2U5A

My word. Have just had a peak at the site:

http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/exp/new/firstclass/seatfeatures.jsp

Nice. Looks like we will have to plan another trip to the Oriental / Oz again...

Haven't flown SQ in the Star Alliance but have always heard good reviews.

raejones

29th Jan 2007, 13:38

Why do people pay sooo much more just to lie down?
because they can ;)

Flip Flop Flyer

29th Jan 2007, 19:59

I've only had the pleasure of flying F once, with GF and the company paying. Catch was, however, that a F-class ticket BRU-LHR-BAH-FRA-BRU was cheaper than BRU-LHR-BAH-LHR-BRU in C, both with GF. Our travel agent contacted me, asking if I would mind an upgrade to F (at a lower cost) though it would entail me only going via LHR on the outbound leg. That was, without any shadow of a doubt, one of the sillier questions anybody has ever asked me. I'll lie, cheat and steal to avoid LHR - and if it entails an upgrade to F that's the no-brainer of all times.

It was, incidentially, almost an enjoyable experience - the difference from C-class being much bigger than I had anticipated. If it wasn't for the fact that my job has left me with a deep aversion to flying, and if I had the dosh, it would be F for me any time, all the time. As it is, I avoid getting anywhere near an aircraft when I'm due for vacation. Would actually rather eat cold puke than subject myself to flying in my spare time! Sorry, but that's what upwards of 150 travelling days a year for the last 5 years will do to you ...

I don't dislike any airline in particular, I just detest the whole airport/airline combination in general. Quite a change from when I was a kid, and the highlight of the vacations my parents took me on were the flights to and from. I used to love to fly just as much as I hate it today; that's what overexposure will do to you.

tezzer

30th Jan 2007, 09:39

I too used to have a sleepless week, before our annual trip to the med, just because of the excitement btought on by the prospect of flying. Sadly enough, I can still remember the registrations of the Dan Air Comet (G-APDJ) and subsequent flights back in the late 60's, now I can't rememeber WHERE I went last year, without looking at my passport !

Now, it's just a pain in the a:mad: e. Over exposure, (34 long haul trips in 35 weeks last year) has now left me so jaded that I am dreading next week's trip to BKK and KUL.

However, I've found that spending the miles to take Mrs. Tezzer and myself F class to Thailand last summer, and sending my Daughter and her boyfroend to New York C class, and myself and Mrs. Tezzer in a round USA C class holiday this year has dented the balance, a little, so need to top up the freebies account a bit more !

warkman

30th Jan 2007, 10:52

For me its a no brainer.
If you are travelling from, say Vermont back to LHR, it can be 12 hours of travelling from leaving your hotel/villa.
Even from Orlando back to LGW, its almost 16 hours.
If you cannot get any sleep, and there is NO WAY I can sleep in those awful economy seats, you then try driving back up to the Midlands.
I know from previous experiance that you can be a danger on the roads.
These days, in a flat bed, even a few hours sleep lets me drive home in a refreshed condition, especially after going into a revivals lounge before taking that journey

CHIVILCOY

30th Jan 2007, 11:13

[B]
The initial question must be one of the dumbest on SLF for quite a while.

Could maybe have been worded better but it is an interesting one.

Can't compare the First product but my wife and I have just returned from a Business Class trip to South America paid for by myself albeit at a discounted rate (double the economy fare).
It turned out okay but nothing mindblowing and we shall be returning to our usual economy seats next time we go without much anxiety,although we would always travel in Business if we had the money.;)

Space and relaxation is what you are paying extra for, food does not match the £1000's extra paid to be honest just served differently, nor the attention you get especially on an overnight flight.
I suspect First Class will be phased out by most airlines matching KLM over the next few years as the Business Class cabins keep improving.Trip reports I read mostly report the first cabins as being empty anyway.

Final 3 Greens

30th Jan 2007, 11:49

CHIVILCOY

The First Class cabins are not empty, I speak from personal experience.
There is a whole world of difference between business and first.

It's not about "mind blowing" experiences - after all you are stuck inside an aluminium tube at 35,000 feet, it's rather more about a more relaxed environment and the service that you need, when you need it.... which may be very little, ranging to quite a lot.

I wouldn't pay first prices on leisure trips (though I will pay J on long haul), but on longer business trips it is well worth the money, if you are in a job where you need to arrive in good condition.

IMHO, until you have traveled first a few times, it is hard to understand the quid pro quos and so, whilst I understand your opinion, I don't think it is made from a position of knowledge.

I expect the F cabin to stay and become more niche, e.g. the EK mini cabins on the A340-500.

silverelise

30th Jan 2007, 14:20

Anyone whispering snobbery?
No, why? If people can afford to pay for the service why is that snobbery?
I have a friend who manages to get upgrades nearly every flight !! I have never had one !! I'm tall nd I have to fight tooth n nail to get a leg room seat. BA are stingy and seem to hate ppl getting anything for free.
Why should you get something that you haven't paid for? I'm sure if you search the archives you'll find plenty of debate on the whole upgrade scenario. The "Big BA Foxtrot Oscar" is them protecting their premium product.
For me its a no brainer.
If you are travelling from, say Vermont back to LHR, it can be 12 hours of travelling from leaving your hotel/villa.
Even from Orlando back to LGW, its almost 16 hours.
If you cannot get any sleep, and there is NO WAY I can sleep in those awful economy seats, you then try driving back up to the Midlands.
I know from previous experiance that you can be a danger on the roads.
These days, in a flat bed, even a few hours sleep lets me drive home in a refreshed condition, especially after going into a revivals lounge before taking that journey
I guess it's a cost vs time thing. You could save the money on flying back club world and spend 100 quid on a hotel room on arrival so you don't fly drive home tired. Or get the train. Or a taxi. Or a lift from a friend..etc. etc.

chornedsnorkack

30th Jan 2007, 14:56

Space and relaxation is what you are paying extra for, food does not match the £1000's extra paid to be honest just served differently, nor the attention you get especially on an overnight flight.

How much would you pay extra to get longhaul Business seat but with ordinary coach food and service? (Quite often airplanes do not bother to cater for a business class because of lack of demand on the route, yet cannot rip out the seats just for that route).

CHIVILCOY

30th Jan 2007, 15:16

Not quite sure what you mean chornedsnorkack?
My point as a travelling fare paying passenger and not travelling on a company account is that I cannot justify paying three times or more for a business class seat over an economy seat.
I am a person of average weight and height, so can survive in a economy seat as I usually do and have for many flights of 11 to 14 hours duration.My recent experience of business class food was not all that much different from economy,just an extra choice and served by course on fancy chinawares,the food didn't taste all that much different.

If my bank account didn't have an inferiority complex I would pay for business class all the time for the extra room alone.

Atishoo

31st Jan 2007, 22:36

whatever u say Chiv....

I would pay it if i had the money, of course i would, who wouldnt ? i think the airlines should give us plebs in economy more leg room and give those up there less, why the heck dyou need a bed then abt anuther 6 foot beyond your seat? if they wanna lie down, lie down next to someone else pay a little more not a lot more than pleb class, and give us long legged spiders in economy, less cramp and less chance of getting DVT thankyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaau:ugh:

Atishoo

31st Jan 2007, 22:38

ooop Silver

chornedsnorkack

1st Feb 2007, 10:21

pay a little more not a lot more than pleb class,
Is the pleb class subsidized by first class?

PAXboy

1st Feb 2007, 14:24

When this subject has been discussed on here before, the answer has always been: YES - F & C subsidise Y.

CHIVILCOY

1st Feb 2007, 14:53

When this subject has been discussed on here before, the answer has always been: YES - F & C subsidise Y.
Hornets nest that one.
On some routes yes but not all routes.Why would KLM do away with F class if that was the case?
Why would BA do away with C class on the domestic shuttles?
Not having yield figures for each route in the world it is an impossible sweeping statement to make.Some Y flexible fares can be just as expensive as some non flexible C fares.
Depends a lot on the airline and route as well I would guess.

chornedsnorkack

1st Feb 2007, 15:14

Hornets nest that one.
On some routes yes but not all routes.Why would KLM do away with F class if that was the case?
Why would BA do away with C class on the domestic shuttles?

Well, looking at history...

Once upon a time, planes used to be single class on long and short haul. Layouts like 3 abreast on DC-3, 4 abreast on Constellation and DC-6.

Then Pan Am invented economy class - 5 abreast on Constellation, DC-7, Boeing 377. So long and short haul were 2 classes, first and economy on most airlines.

I understand that the DC-8 was supposed to have, and initially did have, 40 inch pitch all the length. 4 abreast in First Class, 6 abreast in Economy. Boeing 707 was more flexible, but in good old times, the economy pitch is said to have stayed around 34...36 inches. I think economy pitch shorter than 34 inches was actually forbidden...

And when the widebodies came, Boeing 747 used to have 9 abreast in the rear, DC-10 and Tristar had 8 abreast in the rear, 6 abreast in First Class. But I have heard that the First Class seats in the front of old 707 or DC-8 or 747 were not actually very beddy...

In 1970-s, 8-abreast Airbus 300, 10 abreast in 747 and 9 abreast in the back of DC-10 and Tristar appeared.

Now, at the very end of 1970-s, Business Class was invented by several airlines - who thus came to have 3 classes on long haul. Short haul stayed 2 class. The first Business seats are said to have been as narrow as 10 abreast on 747!

SAS is said to have been one of the first airlines to have lost first class and started flying 2-class with just economy and business, in 1990 or so.

But sundry airlines have come up with Premium Economy classes.

So, the airline offerings may be:
Long haul:
1) of old, airlines had 2 classes, Economy and First - do any still have such?
2) some airlines have 2 classes, but call them Economy and Business
3) some have 3 classes, calling them Economy, Business and First
4) some have 3 classes, but call them Economy, Premium Economy and Business, like Virgin and bmi
5) some have 4 classes, Economy, Premium Economy, Business and First.
Short haul:
1) many have single class planes
2) some airlines have 2 classes and call them Economy and First
3) some have 2 classes but call them Economy and Business

Pax Vobiscum

1st Feb 2007, 16:37

Is the pleb class subsidized by first class?
I'm not sure if a meaningful answer is possible. I'm sure the carriers aim to make a profit on each seat sold. If the margins were the same, you'd obviously make a lot more profit on an F seat at £5,000 than on a Y seat at £500. But then again there are a lot more Y seats than F (on most configurations!).

It might be interesting to know on a 100% full 747 travelling from (say) LHR to JFK, which class delivers the greatest profit to the carrier. But since there are so many possible ways of dividing up the fixed overheads between the various classes of seats, I'm pretty sure that any competent beancounter could make the answer turn out any way they wanted it to :{

Final 3 Greens

1st Feb 2007, 17:28

CHIVILCOY

1st Feb 2007, 18:02

Why would BA do away with C class on the domestic shuttles?
The shuttles started as all economy services.
In fact you could turn up at the airport and buy a ticket and BA would guarantee that you would fly. They used to have turnstiles at LHR to access the flights in the 70s/80s and you picked up a refreshments pack as you boarded.
Traditionally internal fares were very high (and still are sometimes), so in effect, it was a premium cabin, per se.

Yes I remember flying down on a Trident,there was always a backup on standby incase of an overflow,even one extra pax was guaranteed to be flown down on the standby aircraft. Didn't take them too long before they done away with that idea!!

C class was done away on the shuttles a while ago as they decided it wasn't worth it,only BMI still have it on the GLA,EDI-LHR routes.

PAXboy

2nd Feb 2007, 01:45

Chorned Thanks for the interesting summary. Of course what we see is a constant reinventing of the wheel.

I have read that the current Premium Economy are about equivalent to the first Biz seats, when they were devised. I thought that the development of PE was one of the smartest things that the airlines did in the 1990s. They get biz pax that cannot afford Club and personal pax that can afford a bit more. VS have just widened the seats a little but not the pitch. They are now 38" x 20" with BA at 38" x 18.5". (No, I don't work for any airline related company!)

I think that First vanished in many places because Biz got to be far better than the old First and that companies could justify 'Business Class' to their shareholders but not 'First Class'. Not to mention that the Chairman had to be in First and the staff in Club. :rolleyes:

chornedsnorkack

2nd Feb 2007, 09:38

I'm not sure if a meaningful answer is possible. I'm sure the carriers aim to make a profit on each seat sold. If the margins were the same, you'd obviously make a lot more profit on an F seat at £5,000 than on a Y seat at £500. But then again there are a lot more Y seats than F (on most configurations!).
It might be interesting to know on a 100% full 747 travelling from (say) LHR to JFK, which class delivers the greatest profit to the carrier. But since there are so many possible ways of dividing up the fixed overheads between the various classes of seats, I'm pretty sure that any competent beancounter could make the answer turn out any way they wanted it to :{

Show a possible way of assigning 10 times the share of fixed overheads to a F seat than Y.

Real estate/cabin volume share? 10 abreast Y at 32 inches compared to what, 4 abreast in the rear of nosecone... you would need 128 inch pitch to occupy 10 times the area. Actual F pitches are around 80, 90 inches.

Weight? No way a F passenger can weigh 10 times a Y passenger. Actually, they probably do not weigh much more. The checked and cabin baggage allowances might be slightly more, but not 10 times more, and anyway F passengers would not want to carry so much.

Seats, perhaps. The bulkheads and moving seats can be heavy. But still, I suspect that passenger and seat together would weigh less in F that in Y over similar area.

pacer142

2nd Feb 2007, 09:53

As I can't sleep on planes at all (the noise and light is a problem even if I can get horizontal - similarly I can't sleep in a room with a PC on) I personally wouldn't. However if my company is paying who am I to refuse a better class of service and (as I'm very tall) more legroom?

I imagine that there are people who can sleep in business/first class and not in economy, so they might be well advised to spend their own money on it if they don't want to effectively lose the next day.

PAXboy

2nd Feb 2007, 12:24

With regards to pricing in F and C, irrespective of what overheads they load against them, the price is determined by what people will pay.

If an accountant was given the job of assigning 'actual' costs to the carriage of each pax in each cabin - they might find that the charges do not really balance so, look at the price charged and then divvy accordingly. In other words, weigh the costs and profit as needed. As long as they are making the overall margin they want to achieve. Of course, some routes are designated 'kill' and so you shift more cost on to them. This is all SOP to management.

chornedsnorkack

2nd Feb 2007, 12:37

With regards to pricing in F and C, irrespective of what overheads they load against them, the price is determined by what people will pay.

But also what the F and C capacity costs to provide. If people were willing to pay more than it costs, someone would add capacity until everyone who is willing to pay the costs will get tickets (at what they cost) even if they were willing to pay more.

Globaliser

5th Feb 2007, 15:36

But also what the F and C capacity costs to provide. If people were willing to pay more than it costs, someone would add capacity until everyone who is willing to pay the costs will get tickets (at what they cost) even if they were willing to pay more.But you'd also have to look at the profitability of the capacity you were reducing on the aircraft.

For example, BA has said that World Traveller Plus is the most profitable cabin on the aircraft, per square metre.

If you could maintain that level of profitability per square metre irrespective of the number of seats on the aircraft, then the only sensible thing would be to strip out all the economy seats and all the first and business seats.

But, of course, in real life there is only a limited market for WT+, which is why it's the size it is.

Monkeytoo

8th Feb 2007, 05:35

Firstly... Pacer............try earplugs - I have been using them and what a difference they make :ok:

Secondly...........I would love to fly First Class, most of the time I get on an aeroplane I am looking at 18 - 19 hours of flying time ahead of me (that doesn't include transit hours) so I pay (out of my pocket) for business class seats just purely because of the extra space I get, not particuarly interested in the service or the food just the space. However If I could get an empty row in economy I would go for that as well, but most of the flights seem pretty full nowdays :*