The cost of an Airline Ticket has little to do with the cost of a barrel of oil. That's why I can fly to Sydney Australia for the same price as I can to New York. That's 3500 miles to New York or 10,500 miles to Sydney. Same price. It's solely based on the principle of how much juice you can squeeze from an orange.
While it's true that competition and cupidity rather than cost are the basis of pricing, fuel does factor in: when fuel is high, the airlines add surcharges, and when fuel costs drop, they seldom remove them!
Airlines and many other companies are determined to squeeze the public to the last drop of juice. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing_cases and see that there's no honour amongst thieves. Steal from one man and its theft. Steal from a thousand and its Corporate Policy.
I think that seating arrangement would work well in zero gravity. Think of the PanAm space cruises in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Unless planes will be designed in a flying saucer shape, I can't envision what the Europeans are planning.
The Daily Telegraph conducted a poll after the first 2 incidents on "Should Reclining Seats be Banned" and 70% of the respondents said yes. The lack of leg space is a big issue and I hope airlines enact more reasonable legroom space for coach. If the reported stories are true though, some passengers weren't acting mature or reasonable at all and really should face stiff penalties for their actions http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tra...seats-be-banned.html
I think on short domestic flights (let's say 3 hours or less), we could do away with the reclining seats. For longer duration flights, more legroom would be a great addition and keep the reclining seats. But I can't see the airlines going this route. Space is so tight I can't even see the screen of my netbook if the traveler in front of me reclines their seat.
Looking at the picture, it appears to me that the business class option is a far cry from the direction upper class has been going of late, more and more comfort. Does this mean it will be more comfortable than currently is the case for economy passengers or less comfortable for business class? Maybe the arc has peaked for upper class comfort and this indicates the start of a slide down the other side.
I would presume the wider seat arrangement would more likely be "Economy Plus" rather than business class. Say two large people buying a 3 row seat and the third seat would get squeeze down by the wider adjustment of the above. International business class nowadays is almost universally lie flat bed seats. To not have these would mean a loss of this lucrative market for the airlines.
Maybe the trend will be to 3, rather than 4 classes, with econ+ going by the wayside and the flat bed option called first. Who knows. Business started out looking something like econ+ does now. Four options seems like about 1 too many to me.
Keep in mind that the picture is the patent model...tricked out with real upholstery it may look very different. Other than fitting big people better, I think this may mainly be used on smaller airliners that fly as one- or two-class, as British Air does on a lot of European flights....business class there is pretty much just empty middle. This would allow flexibility. Be my guess...
I like the image of Boeing handing over a set of keys to AA executives for a jumbo jet. I'm glad to see more of these planes come in to service and hope within the next year or so to have the opportunity to fly one.
Originally Posted by PortMoresby: All my miles in one pile this morning, enough to go anywhere, and I still can't decide, a truly terrible problem. But an enviable problem, PM. If it's the worst thing you have to deal with this week, you're having a pretty fine week.
Nice to hear of something positive for consumers. As you know Alaska Airlines sparked this, as they've done this for at least a decade. But less waiting for a bag is a positive thing for travelers and I applaud them for doing so.
What I dislike are when fees are not used for what they're charged for. If airport improvement fees really are used to fix up and improve airports, I think most consumers are fine with that. But when they just get put into the general revenues of a city's cash pool, that bugs most of us. What a find far more unreasonable than this are the fees to change or cancel a flight. Often they approach or exceed the value of a ticket. That's really gouging the consumer.
The other fees that especially bother me are the ones you never see in tickets, because they come out the back door. Compare airport car rental prices with off-airport of the same brand; compare the price of gum or candy at the airport or a neighborhood store. That’s airport revenue, too, either through a direct charge (car) or super-high-rents (newsstand)
On leaving Cuba last year our flight home to the UK was delayed. We had to wait on the plane for 4 hours. The airport had run out of Jet Fuel A1. So a fuel tanker was dispatched to fetch some. I do hope the US embargo stops before I go again. I'm not fighting American Airlines for the last drop of Jet Fuel !!
I happened to stop by the store today. it's really is a tourist attraction now. It's huge and a lot of the merchandise has never been used and their original tags are still on. I didn't think the prices were that cheap ,but I was amazed at the high end merchandise people have lost including lots of electronics.
I favor standardizing, but think the seven inches depth is too skimpy. Nothing is more frustrating than having a bag that is okay as a carry-on with one airline, but to large with a connecting airline. Still, overall it looks like we're getting screwed again!
Good news for people traveling on Canada's two major airlines, Westjet and Air Canada. They will not adapt these new standards to their markets. The old baggage rules still apply. More on this story in the Vancouver Sun .
So far, it appears, all the North American majors are staying out of it. Perhaps if this could be rethought so the depth could stay at 9", and the other two change, it would get more love from us customers...
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I like the idea of passenger's time having value, but the fines seem pretty steep to me. I'm not sure this wouldn't hurt the viability of several smaller airlines or cause increased fares for everyone.
Yes, the fines are steep. That's intentional...if they were set very low, the airlines would have no incentive to make the improvements and arrangements necessary to avoid them! Remember...these fines only apply to situations in which the airlines could have avoided the delay but didn't.
I agree with DrF, the fines seem unnecessarily steep, especially when multiplied by a plane-load of passengers. Stuff happens, all we well-maintained car owners know. Not surprising the airlines are balking. The definitions could certainly be more clearly defined and the fine amounts reduced to an amount that deters but isn't quite as medieval in proportion to the crime.
I'm going to take the contrary view. First, remember that the short clip above doesn't reflect the detailed regulations or the deliberations of the court. But remember the circumstance quoted “which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken,” Reasonable measures guarantee that crews are scheduled so that even if illness befalls the scheduled crew, it does not take over 3 hours to bring a replacement crew on line. Reasonable measures to avert mechanical...
Rules that may be perfectly reasonable for a large airline, the crew issue for instance, may be less reasonable for a small airline or a low-fare airline that needs optimally efficient practices to make money and continue to offer us the low fares. That may not include extra crews hanging around "just in case". As passengers, we can't have everything - low fares and no occasional delays, although those airlines appear better at avoiding delays than any others, of necessity. At the same time,...
I'd agree with those expectations...but I also think that if the penalties are too harsh, then the airlines should move to have them changed, and enlist passenger support, not just stiff the passengers by evading the rules. And passengers CAN be won to support campaigns; it was not British Airways' lobbying, but a broad popular sentiment, that has begun dismantling the Air Passenger Duty.
Really good news, because some of those partner flights are hard to book online even when you know they exist. This should make it easier to make connection to a number of areas in Europe without having to do Heathrow...
There is no excuse for collecting money for fuel surcharges. That's not what it is being used for. That's just dishonest and fraudulent. Which is what we expect from people who think they have a better use for other peoples money. It's just like taking unemployment benefit after you've gone back to work. Just not acceptable.
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .