Flown charter recently, what was the experience like?

[Next Generation PSR]

So often scheduled carriers are the focus, so how are the charter carriers doing in comparison.

What are the good and bad points, things you loved, things that drove you nuts.

Safety, punctuality, crew, food, aircraft, entertainment, premium cabins etc - value or not?

Particularly interested in charters with less know carriers like Air Atlanta, British World, European, Sabre, Spanair, Iberworld, Onur Air, Air VIA to name but a few.

[Squawk 8888]

Well, here on the better side of the pond I've flown with the best and the worst.

Best- Canada 3000 (http://www.canada3000.ca). Friendly crews, very good on-time performance, helpful agents, newish fleet (6x757, 6xA320, 3xA330). Downside- like all charters your face will be buried in the seat in front of you (their nickname is Cattlecar 3000). Bit of trivia here- they launched under the name Air 2000 and promptly heard from the lawyers for a certain then-new UK carrier.

Worst- Air Transat. Arriving the same day as scheduled is a 50/50 proposition, lots of clunkers in the fleet, rude employees, can't get through on phone. Whenever they're late the stock reply is "This is a Charter! Times are subject to change!"

Not the greatest but would use them again- Royal Airlines. Nothing special, but good value for money.

My experience has been that the good charters compare well to the majors but you'll have less legroom and you can't be as choosy about the departure times but in most cases it's well worth the 30-50% savings on airfare.

[deepee]

Oh those seats,I wish I was a vertically challenged person and not one of average dimensions.

------------------
"I don't suffer from stress.I'm a carrier".

[Avman]

I don't go anywhere near them unless they offer a Comfort Class. I arrange my own holidays including discounts and travel on schedule carriers. My policy is that my holiday starts from the moment I close the front door of my house - not when I arrive at my destination. The flights are therefore part of my holiday and I like to travel in comfort, even if it costs me a few more bucks.

[Xenia]

Not very kind on charters to be honest ;)
I find quite frustrating all this "buy a drink" "buy inflight-sales", "buy some water" for your journey to the resort, "buy game cards", "buy sweet and pringles", "buy headsets" for inflight entrateitment...
Cabin Crew are "flying sales persons" and it doesn't really look professional to me...but again...this is just my opinion.
Also found that the crew sometimes are nice...sometimes not...again...matter of luck?...It shouldn't be! However I made a decision...charters? No thanks...Never again!
Agree 100% with Avman...my holidays are my holidays! and they start since the moment I live my home sweet home :)
Can't stand either the feeling of my knees touching the pax in front kidneys! plus the bounch of holiday makers...ok... some are nice...again...but others... :rolleyes:
I have to say I deeply admire my collegues cabin crew working for charters...they work so hard,...for, sometimes, so little recognition!
So...if you decide to fly a charter airline try to be nice with the crew! they really deserve it!

------------------
*************************Happy Landings! :)
*************************

[Shanwick Shanwick]

I'd agree with Air Transat as being pretty dismal but I think American Trans Air (ATA) have to be even worse. Same punctuality problems, antique aircraft, awful food (just a single packed lunch box MIA-LGW) and charged me $300 in addition to my staff ticket......Never again!

The best I've used was just this year. Virgin Sun to the med. On time, brand new fleet, larger seat pitch than normal, seat back tv/games, good food. Overall excellent!

[TrueNorth]

Agree about Canada3000 - nothing but good things to say about them. Is it true they are going to become a scheduled airline?

[Squawk 8888]

Not sure about that rumour but it would make sense. They're pretty much indistinguishable from the scheduled carriers on some routes now and they've been reliable enough for a lot of business travellers (myself included) to use them for YYZ-YUL (it's like hopping on a local bus). Royal is also expanding with an eye to going scheduled- there's a bit of a feeding frenzy going on since the AC-CP merger.

[10W]

I thought Canada 3000 WERE set up by Air Two Bob (Air 2000) in the eighties. They had the same colour scheme (which Canada 3000 still wear), a similar name, a similar ICAO three letter code, and provided aircraft and crews to each other when required.

Air Two Bob then sold them off to concentrate on their core business. Anyone out there who can confirm ?

------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]

[Squawk 8888]

Nope. It's illegal for a foreign carrier to hold more than a 25% stake in a Canadian carrier, with the exception that AMR was allowed to take a 33% stake in Canadian during one of its (many) financial crises. Canada 3000 was started up by a couple of Wardair executives after that airline was bought by Canadian, and they brought along Wardair's standards for passenger service.

[10W]

Squawk8888

Thanks for the info, but there must be more to this than meets the eye.

Here's the original Air 2000 livery

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=65454


And here's Canada 3000. And those ex Wardair guys wonder why they were sued ??

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=105015


There also used to be a heavy 'exchange' programme between the two airlines. Aircraft spending the summer on UK work for example as G-OOOB and the aircraft then operating in Canada over the winter as C-FOOB. Air 2000 look to me as though they had a lot to do with the operations of Canada 3000 !!

Glad both are still going strong though.




------------------
10 West
UK ATC'er
[email protected]

[Squawk 8888]

I'm wondering if you may be right- that Air 2000 jet looks exactly like the first B757 that Canada 3000 had. I'm wondering if they had some sort of partnership to get around the foreign ownership rules, and perhaps the name change was necessitated by the policy wonks and not the company lawyers. Maybe someone over at the Air 2000 forum could shed some light on this.

[boeingbuff]

About the questions of Canada 3000 and air 2000, they were once realated. I have forgoten the specifics on why they seperated, but it was. as was stated, a legal thing. The livery was to be changed slightly see 757-2 C-FOON, but no changes were made in the end.

88888 about C3 and your high ratings. Do you have any legs? I have flown C3 and TSC on long flights. The only reason I had circulation after my C3 flights is 'cause I flew jump most of the way. But the comments on TSC on time performance if right. Remember when flying charters... Time to spare... Go by air.

BB
If its not boeing.. I'm not going


[This message has been edited by boeingbuff (edited 10 November 2000).]

[Mr Benn]

I am biased as I work for a charter airline, but some people seem to think that charter = bad automatically. Having regularly flown long haul on the major airlines, I can say that many of the major airlines have seat pitches which are very similar to the charter airlines. (Virgin Atlantic springs to mind).
Most people seem to prefer the fact that with charter airlines you get much more in the way of service from the cabin crew - on Air 2000 on short haul, for example, you get regular drinks/ bar service, breakfast, hot rolls, duty free, ice cream, and more. The cabin crew work flat out. On regular scheduled flights with the majors I often find that back in economy you are lucky if you get more than your meal and one drinks service, thats on long haul.
As for this whole "charter-scheduled" debate, I find it quite amusing that people are so biased in their opinions.
Did you know, for example, that one of the airlines offering scheduled flights to a large number of destinations is..... Air 2000.
Same aircraft, same seat, same service. You pay a bit more, and you get free drinks and headset.
The flights are generally a mix of scheduled and charter passengers.
So where does that put your opinions?
Air 2000, I believe, are going to be offering more premium class seats next summer season too. Yes its extra money, but you get a much bigger seat, much more legroom and all the little extras, and still for less than the price of a standard economy ticket with a major non charter airline.

[boeingbuff]

To answer the question about C3 starting scheduled services. Yes, they are. They have 319's on order as well. Skyservice will also be entering service in partnership the Roots clothing people under the Roots Air banner. (this should be good) They were to start service now (November), but the launch was pushed back till the spring. Royal has picked up 4 737-2's to compete with CANJET. The people I've talked to seem to think that the CANJET-Royal battle will kill CANJET. Halifax is not a good site to make a hub. The last card which has yet to be played is the ACA start-up low cost carrier..The players are set...let the games begin.

As for service differences between charters and the others. It really depends on the carrier. I can sight both good and bad on both sides of the fence.

BB

[Avman]

Mr Benn,

You are quite right in saying that some scheds have as poor seat pitch as charters - at least on long hauls. I flew once with Virgin in Y class (to the U.S.) and swore never again. My earlier comments were actually more directed at European destinations. Generally seat pitch on the majors' European routes are are far better than the cramped conditions on the charters or "no-frills" scheduled operators. So, if I'm going to a vacation destination within Europe I'll choose to fly with one of the majors and perhaps even get myself a little upgrade too.

[pax domina]

Could start a new thread on this, but seems just as well to add to this one - since the answer may very well also answer the topic question.

I intend to fly MCO-AMS (or, depending on what is on offer, EIN, ANR or RTM - ultimate desitination Tilburg) sometime in the next year. Only one lot flies non-stop MCO-AMS. Others can get me there with at least one connection and sometimes three stops.

I'm flying for a holiday, so price matters - but having just suffered through an hour in a tiny seat in cattle class on a DL 757 (after arriving in ATL the a/c was continuing to Sacramento - four plus hours in those seats is horrible to contemplate!) I'd like a bit of comfort.

Any suggestions, experiences?

Ta very much!

PS - Outfit offering non-stop is charter, other options are scheduled.

[This message has been edited by pax domina (edited 12 November 2000).]

[Avman]

pax domina: I guess it must be Martinair you're considering. They do offer a comfort class on their US routes at a reasonable price in comparisson to the majors' Business Class fares. If it has to be Economy, I understand that one of the best is Continental Airlines in terms of service. I haven't used them myself so I have no idea what their seat pitch is - and they use a B757 from EWR to AMS.

[kaikohe76]

Without wishing to be controversial at all, would it be in order to suggest that, some of the problems and difficulties in flying on a charter aircraft are some of the passengers themselves? Often when leaving the sharp end walking back through the cabin to leave the aircraft, the cabin looks as though the battle of Waterloo has been fought all over again!, not a nice enviroment in which to spend the odd four/five hours or so.
I would agree that, on charter flights you do not get the leg room, not the same class of meal, often a very full aircraft etc. But in the end it`s down to the choice of the passenger, with more and more tour operators sending be it smaller groups of holiday makers by scheduled carrier.
P.S. I plus one other flew Spanair MAN / TFS last month on holiday, very nice journey indeed in all respects.

[pax domina]

Without wishing to add to the controversy . . . it can be just as bad on scheduled!

When I flew MCO-LGW on Virgin it was a night flight, about 75-80% full. Everyone generally ate and then went to sleep. A/C looked fine upon arrival.

On the return - day flight. Full up. By the time we arrived at MCO the entire a/c looked like a rubbish tip. Told FA the same (cue astonished voice) on the way out the door. She wordlessly gestured to a nearby row - there was so much litter on the floor you could not even see the carpet.

I may not have been as attentive back then, but the times I flew (also eight hours) HNL-ORD in the late 1970s, I *cannot* recall the a/c ever looking like that.

Pilots are not "glorified bus (coach) drivers", but I often think that many of the pax belong on a bus instead of an aircraft! :mad:

[Evanelpus]

Travelled with Air 2000 from Stansted to Palma last month on A321. Outward journey left a bit late but the flight was smooth, aircraft clean, cabin crew were helpful and the food was not bad. There was a two hour delay on the return leg (eventually left at 2am!) once again everything was fine until I tried to plug in my headset.

Now I know that I'd been up since 9am the previous morning but I remembered where the socket was on the outward leg but was it in the same place on the way back, no. Was one of the aircraft an 'inherited' machine as a result of a merger?

The worst experience of recent times was a trip with Eurocypria from Luton to Papthos. The aircraft was A320, appearance was flaky to say the least, the food was yuk, miserable cabin crew and non existant in flight entertainment. We were also treated to a very short final into Papthos over the sea and a big bang landing. Nice way to start off a holiday.

Going back to Papthos next year with Monarch, what are they like??

[Next Generation PSR]

EVANELPUS, you shouldn't have any problems with Monarch, the only critisism with Monarch I have is that they have a good in flight service package, but it almost always is delivered by frosty cabin crew who do not seem to want much to do with their customers on flights - good service, but not necessarily with a smile.

[Mr Benn]

Evanelpus, I bet the flight crew were just wonderful :) :)
As for the headset plug being in a different place, nothing to do with any mergers, and usually it would be the same aircraft for both sectors, although occasionally the aircraft are switched around.
Both A321s? I have no idea why the plugs would be in a different place, very strange!
Interesting comment about the flight being smooth. I often wonder why passengers assume that we can somehow avoid all turbulence. A few weeks ago there was bad turbulence at all flight levels, we were doing our utmost to find a smooth level but there just weren't any. Every other aircraft on frequency was having the same problems, in the end I think everyone went down below 30,000' both ways because it was marginally smoother down there (like moderate rather than moderate occasional severe). We kept the passengers informed at all times, and when they disembarked one pax said "I'm never flying with this airline again! I have never flown in turbulence with (a.n.other) airline!" and they were serious!
There were a few comments like that.
Bizarre.
Of course, when someone invents a device that allows aircraft to fly through clear air turbulence and not be bumped around, I am sure they will make a fortune.
I understand that a smooth flight is more comfortable for pax, as it is for the crew as well. Up front we will be doing our utmost, getting info from ATC/ other aircraft and trying out different levels, but sometimes you just can't avoid it.

[Next Generation PSR]

Want to hear something more ridiculous - A customer recently on disembarking after a Gatwick-Zakynthos trip said as she got off "nice flight, but you can tell the captain he shouldn't lie to people" - a bit puzzled by this I asked what she meant?

She said " The captain told us the flight time was going to be 2hrs 40 minutes and we were flying for over 3hrs!"

I said I was sorry but the captain did say he was going into the holding pattern before landing and that was the reason why we were airborne for over three hours.

"Anyway here's the Captain" I said as he appeared from the flight deck. " perhaps you mightlike to ask him your question directly".

I think she understood very well once she had gotten off - even though she still had the balls to accuse him of lying to his face.

[bigseat]

Thinking of turbulence, I'm sure I read somewhere that the more modern airbuses have special flight software that eliminates some of the bumps and lumps of turbulence. But as I'm not an expert, this may be a pile of you know what.

[Evanelpus]

Next Generation PSR, Thanks for the comments, time will tell whether their FA's have defrosted by then.

Mr Benn, As a matter of fact the crew were wonderful. It takes a lot to impress me and the crew on both legs were great. Having spent many of my formative years flying business class on a number of airlines (mainly BA though) I found both crews as good ,if not better than previously experience. I do appreciate the turbulence issue, maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Far too often I have found that the guys up front want to dive off height at the end of the flight giving my ever sensitive ears a complete bashing. These were the first flights in a long time where I wasn't constantly squeezing my nose and clearing my ears so well done to the crews involved.

I would have no hesitation in recommending Air 2000 to anyone based on my experience of them.

[mik]

Evanelpus - the aviators or aviatrix at the front don't want to "dive off height", what they really want to do is at the right point in the flight bring the throttles back to idle and glide down. The engines are then spooled back up for the approach & landing. Big jets will glide a LONG way!

The "right point" depends on height, wind etc., but is usually about 90-120 miles from the airport. A good estimation is that height (in thousands of feet) x 3 + 10% gives the distance in miles to start the descent.

Staying high and then quickly descending (with airbrakes extended) is often the result of ATC requirements.

Modern aircraft do a better job of automatically changing cabin pressure more gradually than the manual system used on older aircraft. Air 2000's fleet (757s, 767s, A320s) can all change the cabin pressure automatically during ascent & descent.

Mik

p.s. Danny Fyne, alias Captain PPRuNe, is an Air 2000 757/767 first officer.

[This message has been edited by mik (edited 21 November 2000).]

[Evanelpus]

MIK - I stand corrected, whatever, 10/10 to Air 2000 for two pleasant flights.

[Parapunter]

I used to cater Mon, AMM & BY ex LGW & I had a pretty good insight into the service levels demanded by each airline. Air 2bob were very big on service - at the time I left the business, I had seen big plans for that carrier to up it's service to it's customers - they were serious. Brit was a reasonable standard - never much liked the crews though & Monarch or McMonalds as they are sometimes known were pretty cheap & cheerful, although most pax we met were fairly happy with the service rendered. However, it is true to suggest that all the charters I dealt with were hugely focused on squeezing all the dineros they possibly could out of your wallet - it's a tough world out there & you gotta make a living somehow.

We also did transatlantic carriers - American Airlines first class - now there's a service you would like...

[Biggles Flies Undone]

Have flown AMM a few times recently. Flights were on time and very well handled. Cabin crew not exactly rays of sunshine, but absolutely on the ball and the girls always picked out anyone not paying attention to the safety briefing.

The two flights I had with Airtours were horrible.