Getting squeezed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who refuse your demands are the wise ones.
Those who don't have more money than sense.
Those who don't have more money than sense.
I, too, have more self-respect than to be beaten down to the lowest level....an employee may have no choice, but a freelance or self-employed most certainly can and should make sure their skillset is adequately recompensed.
If a better grade of air-travel is part of your percieved reward, so be it.
I once told an employer that his offer of a new car"a" was no incentive....I didn't like car"a" so it was a paid duty to drive it, and the company's wares from client to client.......however, if he would consider the supply of a car"c"....I really liked the "c" product, and therefore would consider that a true enhancement of the package on offer.
Aircraft don't take off overloaded.....packing pax as tight as possible into a given space is more cost-effective than charging the higher price for more room.....i'd wager that the W and B. determines where the pax are packed in tighter, plus the load-factor on regular routes.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paying first long haul is also a waste of money given the quality of business these days.
Paxing All Over The World
MathFox
Indeed it does - but the client often has rules to please the shareholders that prevent certain levels of staff, or contractors / consultants from getting a good night's rest. Consequently, they waste the shareholders money BUT on paper? They saved money.
I recall in the late 1980s when I was working for an American Merchant Bank - that we were told on journeys of a certain number of hours, we were now demoted from C to Y. Since we still needed flexibility, we had to book full fare Y - which was often more expensive that some C tickets BUT on paper? The report showed that we were not wasting money on C.
I have always maintained that, if the shareholders knew how much money was hosed into the gutters - then heads would roll. But, of course, every company and govt is doing the same.
That makes more productive hours for the client.
I recall in the late 1980s when I was working for an American Merchant Bank - that we were told on journeys of a certain number of hours, we were now demoted from C to Y. Since we still needed flexibility, we had to book full fare Y - which was often more expensive that some C tickets BUT on paper? The report showed that we were not wasting money on C.
I have always maintained that, if the shareholders knew how much money was hosed into the gutters - then heads would roll. But, of course, every company and govt is doing the same.
Back in the 1990s American Airlines introduced More Room Through Coach (MRTC), which gave greater legroom in economy seats. After a few years this was discontinued and the seating reverted to the previous standard. The reasons given were mainly "passengers do not take this into account when selecting an airline, only the price".
I was travelling by regularly by AA at the time, and felt this to be a complete nonsense. The additional legroom was constantly commented on by fellow pax, including a number who stated it was their reason for choosing the carrier. My hunch is that there was found to be some diversion of pax who were borderline between choosing economy and business (small businesses, middle levels of management, etc) for whom the less-cramped conditions meant they were not so ready to buy premium class. This sounds a very uncaring attitude to present, so the carrier PR team came up with the quite untrue "nobody notices" line. But many had done so.
If people really only buy on price, there would be no fine restaurants, no expensive cars, etc.
I was travelling by regularly by AA at the time, and felt this to be a complete nonsense. The additional legroom was constantly commented on by fellow pax, including a number who stated it was their reason for choosing the carrier. My hunch is that there was found to be some diversion of pax who were borderline between choosing economy and business (small businesses, middle levels of management, etc) for whom the less-cramped conditions meant they were not so ready to buy premium class. This sounds a very uncaring attitude to present, so the carrier PR team came up with the quite untrue "nobody notices" line. But many had done so.
If people really only buy on price, there would be no fine restaurants, no expensive cars, etc.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find astonishing is how these ultra dense seating configrations can meet the emergency evacuation criteria set by the certifying authorities... Doubtless it would require some heroic service by the cabin crew to get 'em all out.. Rule #1 - Pick out your seat online.
Ever since Ryanair's "stand up" seats were blown out a couple of years ago I can imagine Emirates beavering away trying to work out how they could anchor a seat-belt in an overhead bin... with a telly and feeding tube of course...
In Japan a few years ago (not sure about now) there were airlines using Boeing 747's in single-class configuration, on domestic routes and they were getting around 500 passengers squeezed in... Pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap... Works for sushi and hamburgers, why not for airline seats?
Ever since Ryanair's "stand up" seats were blown out a couple of years ago I can imagine Emirates beavering away trying to work out how they could anchor a seat-belt in an overhead bin... with a telly and feeding tube of course...
In Japan a few years ago (not sure about now) there were airlines using Boeing 747's in single-class configuration, on domestic routes and they were getting around 500 passengers squeezed in... Pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap... Works for sushi and hamburgers, why not for airline seats?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spiney,
They are squeezing only in the back. The pointy end has got more and more spacious at the same time.
Although, it does beg the question if the certification is still valid with increased density in the back. Obviously all the normal exits are still available but the average number of passengers per exit is going to change.
They are squeezing only in the back. The pointy end has got more and more spacious at the same time.
Although, it does beg the question if the certification is still valid with increased density in the back. Obviously all the normal exits are still available but the average number of passengers per exit is going to change.
Paxing All Over The World
can meet the emergency evacuation criteria set by the certifying authorities
Naturally, the test is always passed.
Naturally, I don't believe it.
Naturally, the companies can wave the test certificate in my face.
Naturally, I don't believe it.
We will only know the answer when too many people have died.
The evac criteria seem quite reasonable. The Air France A340 evac at Toronto after a major overrun and consequent fire, with all OK showed that it was quite an appropraite set of requirements.
The Japanese 747s with about 540 seats, with only a small business class, rest all-economy seated, were fine, and still inside the evac requirements with a margin. That margin is your assurance.
A commercial failure was the original 737-900. This looked at the 737-800, evac limit of 189 seats, noted that most mainstream mixed FY class operators in fact only had about 150 seats in it, and did a stretch which had about 180 mixed class and still met the evac limits without changing the exits, but squeezing that margin. Such an aircraft was not saleable (or re-leaseable) to the LCCs of this world, but theoretically would suit mainstream carriers. It was a sales flop (with good reason). The 737-900ER re-engineered the exits with larger doors etc which gave a standard evac limit, and has been notably more successful.
The Japanese 747s with about 540 seats, with only a small business class, rest all-economy seated, were fine, and still inside the evac requirements with a margin. That margin is your assurance.
A commercial failure was the original 737-900. This looked at the 737-800, evac limit of 189 seats, noted that most mainstream mixed FY class operators in fact only had about 150 seats in it, and did a stretch which had about 180 mixed class and still met the evac limits without changing the exits, but squeezing that margin. Such an aircraft was not saleable (or re-leaseable) to the LCCs of this world, but theoretically would suit mainstream carriers. It was a sales flop (with good reason). The 737-900ER re-engineered the exits with larger doors etc which gave a standard evac limit, and has been notably more successful.
Paying for Europe business class is a waste of money
If you're looking at expedited check-in, security, boarding and luggage retrieval, then it's anything but a waste of money.
And we're not yet talking about the use of the business class lounge for working.
The 737-900ER re-engineered the exits with larger doors etc which gave a standard evac limit, and has been notably more successful.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're looking at expedited check-in, security, boarding and luggage retrieval, then it's anything but a waste of money.
And we're not yet talking about the use of the business class lounge for working.
Paxing All Over The World
All lounges are now pot luck, I suggest. You might be there at a quiet time of day, or when there is a special promotion and lots of folks are in there. Worse, a sports team is travelling and they cannot travel quietly.
I have been known to walk out of the lounge and find a quiet corner of the concourse. It's just luck of the draw.
I have been known to walk out of the lounge and find a quiet corner of the concourse. It's just luck of the draw.
