How bad can it get in cattle class?
Whatever is left for the airline, the employees, and the manufacturers ?
I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that airlines are enablers in the same way that the canals, railroads, interstates, power grids and other infrastructures have been throughout modern history - not profitable per se, but with massive leverage and potential for wealth generation.
Unfortunately not necessarily for airline shareholders...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1989 I flew LHR/HKG/LHR for just under 600GBP (on some sort of super Apex, I guess). 20+ years later you can still buy return tickets for the same money if you book in advance.
In the mid 1990s I used to pay just over 3,000GBP for LHR/HKG/LHR in F for a full fare flexible ticket. Now it's around 9,000GBP.
Maybe it's time for the boys and girls in the back to pay their way
In the mid 1990s I used to pay just over 3,000GBP for LHR/HKG/LHR in F for a full fare flexible ticket. Now it's around 9,000GBP.
Maybe it's time for the boys and girls in the back to pay their way
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 152 Likes
on
95 Posts
I must agree with HAC as I can not see how the Y class prices are sustainable during this next oncoming recession for the airlines. Also all the comments about airline profits ignores the fact that airports are also feeling the pain and some of the regional UK ones I beleive will be lucky to survive this next year. Anybody care to open a "book" on airport closure.
They're only sustainable if the demand for unrestricted fares in Y and C holds up.
That's applying rational economic theory, of course, but as soon as you have irrationality (a carrier under Chapter 11 protection with a vital interest in cash-flow and bugger the debt levels, any state-owned carrier, any state-subsidised airline) then they set the market price and you'll have to have pretty good USP to compete at higher fare levels.
That's applying rational economic theory, of course, but as soon as you have irrationality (a carrier under Chapter 11 protection with a vital interest in cash-flow and bugger the debt levels, any state-owned carrier, any state-subsidised airline) then they set the market price and you'll have to have pretty good USP to compete at higher fare levels.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, the Airbus has some shoddy finishing, but the design of the back of seat pocket by your shins on the A340-600 is something else.
I strongly suspect that Airbus have nothing to do with the seat design. Normally a customer specified item, from their seat manufacturer of choice. B/E Aerospace, Britax, Recaro, Sicma, Contour etc.
I strongly suspect that Airbus have nothing to do with the seat design. Normally a customer specified item, from their seat manufacturer of choice. B/E Aerospace, Britax, Recaro, Sicma, Contour etc.
Even more importantly, are flyers prepared to fund the alterations via increased ticket prices ?
No, seems to be the answer for short haul, and almost certainly not on long-haul.
No, seems to be the answer for short haul, and almost certainly not on long-haul.
Are increased ticket prices the centre of the solution ? One thing immediately noticed by regular pax is that the flight attendants who are paid the most (those from the unionised legacy US carriers) are probably those who overall have the worst attitude to service and the pleasantness of the passengers' journey. Service standards seem almost inversely related to how much worldwide-located staff may be paid.
Paxing All Over The World
A fair point WHBM but I think the clue is more in the words 'legacy' and 'new'. Legacy companies are called that because they carry a legacy and that is often not the kind of legacy the company thinks it has - or wants!
For example, a couple of years ago I went into an old fashioned umbrella and walking stick company in London. Had they not have had the very thing I wanted (and at a good price) I would have walked out. From the moment the staff clapped eyes on me, it was an obvious 'He's not one of us'. They were lousy adverts for the shop. As it happens, I walked past the shop on tuesday and remembered all over again what terrible staff they had. I shall certainly not return or recommend them. That's a legacy company for you.
For example, a couple of years ago I went into an old fashioned umbrella and walking stick company in London. Had they not have had the very thing I wanted (and at a good price) I would have walked out. From the moment the staff clapped eyes on me, it was an obvious 'He's not one of us'. They were lousy adverts for the shop. As it happens, I walked past the shop on tuesday and remembered all over again what terrible staff they had. I shall certainly not return or recommend them. That's a legacy company for you.
Last edited by PAXboy; 9th Dec 2011 at 10:35. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just returned from Bangkok,Kathmandu,Lhasa and Paro [ Bhutan] flying with various airlines.Being a 194cm "freak",it was "adopt the prayingmantis position" and pray for arrival at ones destination.Best result for me was Royal Thai BKK-KTM on a B777.Had some knee room and was quite comfortable.However with most airlines these days in cattle class the wine-glass is eye-wash size.Maybe something to do with Responsible service of Alcohol?
The other airlines we flew with ,Air China [A319] Air Asia [A330] were only for smaller species of human.Air travel sure aint what it used to be,Aye!!!!?
Gotta go now and apply liniment to me shins!!!!
The other airlines we flew with ,Air China [A319] Air Asia [A330] were only for smaller species of human.Air travel sure aint what it used to be,Aye!!!!?
Gotta go now and apply liniment to me shins!!!!
WHBM,
You would agree with me that airlines were fairly unsuccessful at avoiding additional costs on airfares decreasing the portion of the money paid by the pax they keep. When a new tax, an increase on APD, or any other fee comes along they smile (or frown) and they pass it to the customer.
However I do agree completely with your comment that service attitude should not depend on money paid.
You would agree with me that airlines were fairly unsuccessful at avoiding additional costs on airfares decreasing the portion of the money paid by the pax they keep. When a new tax, an increase on APD, or any other fee comes along they smile (or frown) and they pass it to the customer.
However I do agree completely with your comment that service attitude should not depend on money paid.
In 1989 I flew LHR/HKG/LHR for just under 600GBP (on some sort of super Apex, I guess). 20+ years later you can still buy return tickets for the same money if you book in advance.
In the mid 1990s I used to pay just over 3,000GBP for LHR/HKG/LHR in F for a full fare flexible ticket. Now it's around 9,000GBP.
Maybe it's time for the boys and girls in the back to pay their way
In the mid 1990s I used to pay just over 3,000GBP for LHR/HKG/LHR in F for a full fare flexible ticket. Now it's around 9,000GBP.
Maybe it's time for the boys and girls in the back to pay their way
Some areas of service have gone down such as inflight catering, then again others such as IFE have improved over time. Virgin has declined more than most over the years.
Fares have gone down dramatically. I think that I paid c£350 in 1979 to fly London - Toronto. One reason is higher load factors, so if your priority is getting a free seat next to you - tough. Also the premium cabin subsidises the economy, so lets hope that there aren't too many all business airlines set up in the future.
Also remember there are other airlines apart from Virgin available. Most American carriers offer the same standard of service as VS, which leaves BA. If you are travelling eastbound you have a much better choice of quality airlines. Its not perfect but have a look at Skytrax.
Fares have gone down dramatically. I think that I paid c£350 in 1979 to fly London - Toronto. One reason is higher load factors, so if your priority is getting a free seat next to you - tough. Also the premium cabin subsidises the economy, so lets hope that there aren't too many all business airlines set up in the future.
Also remember there are other airlines apart from Virgin available. Most American carriers offer the same standard of service as VS, which leaves BA. If you are travelling eastbound you have a much better choice of quality airlines. Its not perfect but have a look at Skytrax.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanair Bad, I'm just under 6ft and their suicidal 28 inch seat pitch meant my knees dug into a strip of metal on the seat infronts frame. Also dirty cabin including chewing gum in the armrest(the front had been broken off of it) and a collapsing seat which would not stay in the upright position. The a/c (A320) was in an awful state considering it was meant to have the 'newer' seating which looked like it was straight from the mid 90's!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I flew manchester - orlando return with Virgin in November. Booked over 12 months previously, Virgin changed their baggage policy allowing our baby a 20kg suitcase that wasn't originally in the deal. A raise in standards there!!
Outbound was a 747, packed out, no free economy seats. The crew worked hard on that one, but still managed to provide everything 'in the book'. No frills, a REALLY cheap price.
Inbound was an Airbus, what can I say? More room, nicer seat, great skycot and the IFE was a million times better than the 747. The crew were in short supply, but once again everything was as 'in the book'. When I wanted extra booze, I went and asked at the galley, the crew were just too busy to serve it to the seat.
My holiday for three to a nice florida hotel cost about £1500, premium economy would have added £500ish quid to the price. I would rather slum it and have the extra spending money. However it is up to you............
Outbound was a 747, packed out, no free economy seats. The crew worked hard on that one, but still managed to provide everything 'in the book'. No frills, a REALLY cheap price.
Inbound was an Airbus, what can I say? More room, nicer seat, great skycot and the IFE was a million times better than the 747. The crew were in short supply, but once again everything was as 'in the book'. When I wanted extra booze, I went and asked at the galley, the crew were just too busy to serve it to the seat.
My holiday for three to a nice florida hotel cost about £1500, premium economy would have added £500ish quid to the price. I would rather slum it and have the extra spending money. However it is up to you............
Cattle class is definitely worse. The tech stuff's better, but the human side not. Sure it's cheaper than ever - but remember when if you wanted to change your return date by a week or two you just rang the airline....and did it.
All that aside, a 20 hour flight straight through has always and will always be just a dire experience.
All that aside, a 20 hour flight straight through has always and will always be just a dire experience.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mention of "Cattle" class got me thinking about what the rules were for transporting cattle. Regulation 1/2005 of the EU has these provisions:
Luxury!
Article 3
General conditions for the transport of animals
No person shall transport animals or cause animals to be transported in a way likely to cause injury or undue suffering to them.
In addition, the following conditions shall be complied with:
(a) all necessary arrangements have been made in advance to minimise the length of the journey and meet animals' needs during the journey;
(b) the animals are fit for the journey;
(c) the means of transport are designed, constructed, maintained and operated so as to avoid injury and suffering and ensure the safety of the animals;
(d) the loading and unloading facilities are adequately designed, constructed, maintained and operated so as to avoid injury and suffering and ensure the safety of the animals;
(e) the personnel handling animals are trained or competent as appropriate for this purpose and carry out their tasks without using violence or any method likely to cause unnecessary fear, injury or suffering;
(f) the transport is carried out without delay to the place of destination and the welfare conditions of the animals are regularly checked and appropriately maintained;
(g) sufficient floor area and height is provided for the animals, appropriate to their size and the intended journey;
(h) water, feed and rest are offered to the animals at suitable intervals and are appropriate in quality and quantity to their species and size.
General conditions for the transport of animals
No person shall transport animals or cause animals to be transported in a way likely to cause injury or undue suffering to them.
In addition, the following conditions shall be complied with:
(a) all necessary arrangements have been made in advance to minimise the length of the journey and meet animals' needs during the journey;
(b) the animals are fit for the journey;
(c) the means of transport are designed, constructed, maintained and operated so as to avoid injury and suffering and ensure the safety of the animals;
(d) the loading and unloading facilities are adequately designed, constructed, maintained and operated so as to avoid injury and suffering and ensure the safety of the animals;
(e) the personnel handling animals are trained or competent as appropriate for this purpose and carry out their tasks without using violence or any method likely to cause unnecessary fear, injury or suffering;
(f) the transport is carried out without delay to the place of destination and the welfare conditions of the animals are regularly checked and appropriately maintained;
(g) sufficient floor area and height is provided for the animals, appropriate to their size and the intended journey;
(h) water, feed and rest are offered to the animals at suitable intervals and are appropriate in quality and quantity to their species and size.