SWISS Airbus A340, not impressed

[chilli13]

fair enough i got no inside knowledge except what I've read on their web & inflight magazine

 

still I've noticed swiss has consistently been the cheapest of the carriers to bkk from europe except from the usual russian & middle east rates

 

so yeah they may well be doomed & so be it, but it's definitely not gonna mean cheaper fares I'm afraid

[Old Hippie]

"...so yeah they may well be doomed & so be it, but it's definitely not gonna mean cheaper fares I'm afraid.."

 

When a doomed carrier finally goes under, it often means less competition in the long run, and thus higher prices. In truth, these low cost carriers are a thorn in the ass of every serious airline, and should be stopped. In the case of the US domestic market, the government should stop allowing the market to get saturated to the point no one can make a profit.

[thalenoi]

ib13 said:

still I've noticed swiss has consistently been the cheapest of the carriers to bkk from europe except from the usual russian & middle east rates

This statement is not correct: BA, Finnair, China Airlines, Air France and Eva have been offering the best promotions last autumn ex-Europe (sept to nov)

[rickfarang]

"Ahhh, so Airbus make their money on spare parts. "

 

No, they didn't sell any spare parts to American Airlines flight 587. Give me the tried and tested 747 any day, if you make past the first 45 mintues without the plane falling apart, you are good to go for the rest of the flight.

 

 

RickF

[Old Hippie]

"...No, they didn't sell any spare parts to American Airlines flight 587. Give me the tried and tested 747 any day, if you make past the first 45 mintues without the plane falling apart, you are good to go for the rest of the flight..."

 

This is sort of my point! Air Bus has a lot of good ideas, and cool innovations, but they are just not as of yet reliable, or trouble free. Read an interesting article that said technology was rapidly out pacing man's ability to repair it if something goes wrong. Same is true with airplanes, that can now out perform the human body. Also predicted, in the future commercial aircraft piloted by drones! Doubt I'd get on a plane like that!

[pattaya127]

Doubt I'd get on a plane like that!

---------------------

hey, if old Dead heads old hippies are trusted to repair the damned planes, i don't see why we should worry about drones flying them. As long as the OHs don't pilot them, i am fine!

[ranma500]

A few observations.

 

British Airways quite openly and pompously announced a few years ago that they were concentrating on the lucrative business market. This meant that their policy was to give business class passengers luxury and treat the economy class passengers like cattle.

 

This was also reflected in their frequent flier scheme. I flew identical business flights with a colleague. He was part of a different Canadian airline's scheme. He got enough miles to go to Canada and back. I got zero - yes - zero. Because all the flights were not totally full fare economy. I flew about 50,000 miles and got nothing.

 

I won't fly with BA again, and it seems from their continuing poor performance that a lot of other people won't either. They have had to admit now that their 'business' policy coming with a world recession, SARS, September 11 etc. was not a success.

 

Of course price is a factor, but I think that with increasing international travel, passengers will become more selective.

 

It only takes one bad flight, as the original author has noticed, to put you off an airline.

 

Thai Airways gives you three more inches of legroom than BA, Qantas or KLM. That three inches makes a difference to me. It's the reason why I am happy to sometimes pay 100 pounds more for a ticket, and I suspect one of the reasons why their flight from London is almost always very full.

 

It was only after a very cramped Qantas flight, then what felt like a much cosier Thai flight that I realised the difference.

 

Now when anybody asks me about flights to Thailand, I point this out to them.

 

ranma

[Old Hippie]

"...British Airways quite openly and pompously announced a few years ago that they were concentrating on the lucrative business market. This meant that their policy was to give business class passengers luxury and treat the economy class passengers like cattle..."

 

Sadly, this was the attitude of many US carriers as well, all of whom are now sucking major dick to get any passanger they can...

[Guest]

I saw a piece that said business class is the ONLY class of service airlines make money on. Economy is offered at cut throat rates and loses money. First class gives so much space and amenities away it loses money.

 

I don't totally understand that because I don't think first class is double the space as business, yet it costs about triple. Amenities in first class? Sure, there's $100 bottles of spirits you can tap, but that doesn't take much out of a $6000 ticket. Wonder how much all the free upgrades play a role in losing money. Surprisingly, some airlines will honor free upgrades to their frequent flyers ahead of people who want to pay cash for the seat.

[Old Hippie]

Basically, a first class seat (if it is a full recliner/bed style seat) costs about $1000,000 to install and maintain for it's cycle life (time between overhaul/ service) Many airlines are adding them, so doubt they lose money. These seats take up the same space as 3-4 coach seats, at about 6-8 times the price, again doubt they are losing money. On many flights (EVA from SFO is famous for this) the freight actually pays for the trip (EVA reconfigured a few airplanes with an upper cargo deck, so they carrya 1/3 more cargo), the passangers thus make up the profit. Eastern Airlines used to do this on several routes with it's "Moonlight special service." SOme airlines used to offer a few really low fares as a loss leader, tro draw in new business, but I don't think many do that now a days. I seriously doubt they lose money on a sold seat, rather the seats they don't sell.