SWISS Airbus A340, not impressed

[Torneyboy]

Hi

 

Sorry you had a bad time on your flight.

The airlines have to work on a bums on seats theory.

The costs of running an airline are huge.

The fuel alone..let alone staff/landing rights/new security taxes and on it goes.

 

I get these sort of comments/complaints all the time ...i do pass them on to the airline reps...but that is the way it is ...not enough pax to pay for bus/first class.....you pay and you get the ""class"" you paid for.

 

I cant see any end to this type of pricing/seating..just sit back have a drink and wait ...and wait ..untill you land

[shygye]

[color:"green"] I cant see any end to this type of pricing/seating..just sit back have a drink and wait ...and wait ..untill you land [/color]

 

More airlines should have the Deluxe option that EVA has.

[thalenoi]

TB,

 

I used to fly almost every monday and friday for work over a 30 year period of time. I flew with most european and some american airlines including Pan Am, Eastern, Alaska.

 

Since I am belgian I used to fly Sabena a lot. Quality of service was up and down, depending on market (if just one company flies a specific route, service gets down)

 

SWISS is in financial trouble and their service suffers from this, as a result they will loose customers.

 

On a plane you do NOT get what you pay for: as you know even in cattle class some people pay 3 x the price of the guy next to you.

 

One of the worst things to me is the lack of quality of food, it was awfull, I did not eat my meal, on a 12 hours flight it makes a difference. Next is quality of service on board, if that fails I am not a repeat customer. It takes some training and commitment to do a few inexpensive things right.

[Old Hippie]

jp1 said:

OH,

 

this is a bit exaggerated, don't you think so? Airbus in meantime is the biggest producer of civil aircrafts and is not more subsidized than Boeing. AB doesn't have a military section that is subsidizing the civil aircraft sector. Please take this into consideration and as for crap. This lousy crap is ordered by more and more companies and they're happy to fly these aircrafts.

 

No, not exagerated at all really. Airbus gets all kinds of subsidies from the government that Boeing doesn't get do to differences in the laws, resulting in a lower cost product. Boeing does have military contracts, but they do not subsidize the commercial sector of the company. These contracts are bid on a competative basis, and Boeing has lost quite a few over the years. True some people feel the military sector of Boeing subsidizes the commercial, but not true. Why would Boeing take profits from the military side and lose it on the commercial?

 

As for who orders this crap and why, the answer is simple, money. With the subsidies, and cheaper labor costs, AirBus can build a plane cheaper, and make a better profit. Additionally, Airbus has great lease options, and maintaince plans that make them very cost effective. The down side is, they use a lot of new technology, that has problems. No one really knows the life of the composite materials, many fail before the planned time, the fly by wire systems often fail, a few A300's tried to land them selves, servo failures etc... All this technology though new to aircraft perse, has been tried before, and it was decided the direct cable/hydrolic system is better, more reliable etc...Boeing played with this technology before, and didn't like it. As for the new A??? double decker, again, Boeing introduced this over 30 years ago. The hump on the 747 was intended to be stretched as far back as the customer wanted. Problem was/is few airports could at the time accomodate the sudden influx of passangers. Not to mention ground service equipment needed to reach and service newer bigger planes. While Airbus is more comfortable than a Comparable Air Bus in many cases, they still suck compared to Boeing! Now, if you want to compare Air Bus to the old Lockeed or Mac Donnell Douglis...I Might go with Airbus...by the way, in the industry Airbus is refered to as "Scare bus" and "Boeing" is the sound the parts make when the fall off and hit the ground! A little air craft mechanic humor to end on!

[chilli13]

2 things here:

 

1. swiss is definitely not doomed I think as they are entering the oneworld alliance beginning of next year.

 

2. I dreaded a lon-zrh-bkk-zrh-lon RT last month as my company screwed up so I couldn't get any direct or other *alliance not to mention oneworld seats

 

well facing a choice between air france or swiss(pest or chlolera really) & me being swiss member already & them having slightly better schedule & cheaper fare made me go for SWISS!

 

now first shock was the european connecting leg being all p4p catering so all I get was a few refreshments in the diners club heathrow lounge the swiss one being closed

 

next leg was the new airbus & the newest I guess I've flown so far. impressed with the largest in seat screen & on demand entertainment featuring vast amount of choices, but agreed not a lot of quality in the bunch

 

as for the comfort/catering nothing much different from the rest of the competition I guess as you can get drunk as a skunk for free & that way sleep a bit on the way

[jp1]

OH,

 

As for the subsidies of AB industries: several European governments do still subsidize AB, that's correct. AB does not have a military production line as Boeing has. The US government through military contracts subsidizes Boeing. That's called cross subsidy. The balance sheet is made for ONE Boeing Corporation and it really doesn't matter which part of the company receives the tax payer's money. Fact is that both major commercial aircraft manufacturers receiver either directly or indirectly state subsidies.

[jp1]

1. swiss is definitely not doomed I think as they are entering the oneworld alliance beginning of next year.

 

IB,

 

They will join the 1World alliance, that's correct but that does not mean that all finacial problems are solved. There is a very good reason why British Airways did not want to buy shares of Swiss. They knew very well that they might get burned. Lets wait and see how Swiss will be doing in 2004. I can assure you I've first hand infos about the financial situation of this company.

[Old Hippie]

Bottom line problem with all airlines is, to much competition. Service and amenities have to be cut to compete with the low cost carriers, which seem to pop up everyday. While good for the consumer who wants a cheap seat and doesn't care about comfort. Not so good for airline employees, or passangers who prefer a little more comfort. Over all, air travel is cheaper today than it was 20 years ago, yet the costs are higher, leaving things like service to suffer...

[buffalo_bill]

old hippie,

 

to read such a lovely essay such as yours today can be a refreshing event on a rainy morning. What is reality against emotion . What you call subsidies from the government are repayable loans , subsidies they received during the eighties when Boeing was laughing about Airbuses to come. I admit that the various governments are still holding their hands over airbus but that you can easily compare with Boeings military business . >> Why would B. take profits fromthe military side and loose it on the comercial ? << : because otherwise they would be bankrupt. No government subsidies for Boing : did you read in the paper how much they receive not to move elsewhere from Seattle ?

 

Airbus cheaper labour costs ??? Oh dear oh dear , talk to a Boeing tecnician on their assembly plant what an Airbus man in Hamburg makes a month plus what he can expect from the labour legislation. Wroooooaaaammmm and he is off to the airport. Airbus comes from UK-France-Germany-Italy-Spain mainly and the turbines + electronics mostly from US .

 

What you forget to say in your article is that Boeing offers ancient tecnology which more and more people do not want any more . The 747 which you seem to think is a superior product against Airbus 380 has been offered in Long Range and stretched and whatever version and virtually nobody wanted it. Sonic Cruiser : promoted but forgotten. Now the new 7E7 is almost Boeing's last chance to survive in that market place and there are lots of concerns in the airline industry that they will go bust if that project fails. Boeing does not consider composite materials ?: that whole 7E7 thing is a single composite bubble where as you say Boeing has no experience because again they missed the train. What you must realise is that Boeing sells a reliable product but that is what Airbus does with lower maintenance costs. Do you think US airlines would ever buy a single airbus if there would be the slightest risk for failure.

 

Boeing further did not invent double-deckers , this was a German Junkers idea long before the Oldest Hippies were born.

 

Resale values of airbusses are higher, pilots need almost no training to fly various types and Singha is better than Chang.

 

BBill , on behalf of Airbus Industries

[Old Hippie]

"... Singha is better than Chang..."

 

Now sir, you have gone to far!!!!

 

O.k. whatever on aircraft, I have worked on both, and frankly, I think Airbus is junk, but just my opinion I suppose.

 

"... did you read in the paper how much they receive not to move elsewhere from Seattle ?..."

 

Yes, sadly, many cities offer "tax bribes" to large corporations to move to or stay in a certain area. Usually, when things get tight and lease start winding down the corporations make rumblings about moving, and the city/state governments tremble and give in.

 

Not sure where you are based, but I was told by Lufthansa mechanics I met, and I have read in several aviation publications, that European airline mechanics are paid less per hour in actual dollars, but it buys more than it does in the USA. Also, from what I've read, one of the key cost factors in the USA is medical insurance, which European employers may not have to DIRECTLY pay (I am assuming the goverment health plans in these countries are funded by tax dollars from the general fund? As opposed to an employer paying god awful amounts to an insurance company in the USA).

 

As I said, Airbus beats Boeing in comfort, and perhapes ease of flight for pilots (good for cross over pilots changing from one aircraft type to another little retraining is needed), and AirBus does beat McDonnel Douglis and the old Lockeed planes (now both gone), but in my professional opinion, for what it is worth, Boeing is a better airplane. On a related note, most of the Airbus I have seen were equiped with CFM engines, which I believe is also a European consortium? Good engines, but not quite Pratt & Whitney now are they? (subject of another argument!)