More Airline Troubles

[kryos]

I wish United goes under as soon as possible. They should all be out of work.

You're not going to believe what they did to me this morning ... and what took me close to two hours to get straightened out.

I get a nice little email in my queue early this morning. One departure flight was changed, one arrival was changed, one flight was cancelled. Huh?

Turns out they had me leaving San Diego at like 10:15 on the day I return from my HAL cruise (on the 25th of October.) Isn't that kind of early? They had changed this before, and I had fought and gotten the original time back. Now these idiots went and changed it again.

But here's the real sweet one. They had me on a connecting flight to Los Angeles (I had originally booked a direct one). I fly from Philly to Chicago, and then Chicago to LAX (to catch a Carnival cruise on the 15th of September). Well, seems they cancelled the Chicago to LAX portion of my flight. So what does the brain trust at United do? Well, they see that I am flying from LAX to Vancouver on the 19th (for my HAL cruise on the 20th), so they just said, "you know what? We'll just route her through to Vancouver on the 15th!") What a bunch of idiots.

I spent two hours on the phone with a very helpful customer service representative at a large airline consolidator that starts with an "E" getting everything straightened out.

What a bunch of crap. And, I need this?

Anyone else getting jerked around by these idiots at the airlines these days?

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kakalina]

You know I don't fly. But Oh! I do feel for you.:( I mean, you didn't really want to go to LA did you?:rolleyes:

After all, after they re-routed you I imagine it looked so pretty on someone's spreadsheet! :D

Personally, I think they government needs to step in a re-regulate the airways. JMO. :eek:

[twinkletoes4445]

Wow, just when you think you've heard it all. It's no wonder they're going to go under...it's just a matter of time.

[lorekauf]

I wish United goes under as soon as possible. They should all be out of work.

You're not going to believe what they did to me this morning ... and what took me close to two hours to get straightened out.

I get a nice little email in my queue early this morning. One departure flight was changed, one arrival was changed, one flight was cancelled. Huh?

Turns out they had me leaving San Diego at like 10:15 on the day I return from my HAL cruise (on the 25th of October.) Isn't that kind of early? They had changed this before, and I had fought and gotten the original time back. Now these idiots went and changed it again.

But here's the real sweet one. They had me on a connecting flight to Los Angeles (I had originally booked a direct one). I fly from Philly to Chicago, and then Chicago to LAX (to catch a Carnival cruise on the 15th of September). Well, seems they cancelled the Chicago to LAX portion of my flight. So what does the brain trust at United do? Well, they see that I am flying from LAX to Vancouver on the 19th (for my HAL cruise on the 20th), so they just said, "you know what? We'll just route her through to Vancouver on the 15th!") What a bunch of idiots.

I spent two hours on the phone with a very helpful customer service representative at a large airline consolidator that starts with an "E" getting everything straightened out.

What a bunch of crap. And, I need this?

Anyone else getting jerked around by these idiots at the airlines these days?

Blue skies ...

--rita
The last time a flew with United it was ordeal. I flew out the day before my cruise and for a bit I thought I wasn't going to make it. They did nothing to assist me. I hope if they go out of business they take Air Canada along with them. Hate them both!

[Krazy Kruizers]

We don't like United -- have been on them a couple of times -- Pittsburgh -- they don't have a lot of flights we like -- and they are way over priced (first class).

For the last couple of years we have been getting schedule changes all the time from American, Delta and US Airways -- and we are still getting schedule changes for upcoming trips.

More schedule changes are to take place in September.

A couple of times Delta and American changed our flights where we landed after our connecting flight had already taken off -- computers can not read.

And a few times we haven't even gotten an e-mail from any of the airlines about schedule changes. I just check every couple of weeks to see what is happening.

We always book our own air.

[ColoRockiesFan]

United & "Customer Service" = Oxymoron:D

[Alaska05]

If they would just call or e-mail you when there is a cancellation so that you can work with them on re-scheduling. It would save a lot of time and bad feelings in the long run.

I live near CVG (a Delta hub for now) and I check our flights often. I have flights booked thru next March already. I keep waiting for my non-stops to be changed to 1-stop and then I will be really ticked off.

I know all airlines are in trouble, but they bring a lot of customer dissatisfaction on themselves when they treat customers like this.

After all they can send me a gazillion "marketing" e-mails on partner promos, buy miles, etc., why not e-mail me when there's some drastic change on an upcoming itinerary.

I'll get off my soapbox now.:D

[Krazy Kruizers]

The majority of our non-stop flights from Pittsbrugh to Ft Lauderdale have all been cancelled!!

[casavaha]

If Southwest does not fly to my location, I do not fly. I know this does
not work for everyone. 3 bags, no charge, no charge to change or cancel.
The other airlines should adopt this.

[Charliesmom]

You can get a one-stop on Southwest each way to Fort Lauderdale. You can also fly on JetBlue via either NY or Boston for a reasonable price. You might want to check it out.

I think both are reasonable airlines. I like them a lot better than Delta or American. I almost never fly United, so I can't compare with them.

We are booked on JetBlue for our December cruise. So far, they have not cancelled any flights that I can see. They have not announced their February schedules or fares yet. It will be interesting to see what will happen then.

There is a LOT of service from Boston to Fort Lauderdale on Jet Blue.

Roberta

[sapper1]

The last time a flew with United it was ordeal. I flew out the day before my cruise and for a bit I thought I wasn't going to make it. They did nothing to assist me. I hope if they go out of business they take Air Canada along with them. Hate them both!
I read the comment before I looked at the screen name, but I just knew it had to be you and it was!!!!:D I took great pains to avoid AC on our flight next summer to Copenhagen. Instead of an easy drive to Halifax to catch the AC flight we are going to TO to catch Lufthansa. The catch is ---guess who Lufthansa is going to pass us off to for the return flight from Frankfurt to TO.? You guessed it!!! In order to avoid that ,we would have to sit all day in the Frankfurt airport and get a flight out that night and we would be exhausted. There is no avoiding those people!!!!

[lorekauf]

I read the comment before I looked at the screen name, but I just knew it had to be you and it was!!!!:D I took great pains to avoid AC on our flight next summer to Copenhagen. Instead of an easy drive to Halifax to catch the AC flight we are going to TO to catch Lufthansa. The catch is ---guess who Lufthansa is going to pass us off to for the return flight from Frankfurt to TO.? You guessed it!!! In order to avoid that ,we would have to sit all day in the Frankfurt airport and get a flight out that night and we would be exhausted. There is no avoiding those people!!!!
Sapper you make me laugh! One of my colleagues is going to fly A/C to NY and I asked him don't you always find there is issues with them or they are always late. He said...not really. Something tells me he doesn't fly much. Everyone else I know goes out of the way no to have to deal with them. I secretly hope his flight is late or cancelled:D :eek: .

[leoandhugh]

both AA and United have pulled a number of their non-stop or one stop flights from SunDiego to the east coast, so if you want one, you generally have to go to LAX to pick it up. As they cut flights and consolidate others, I feel we are going to be faced with this more when wanting to fly coast to coast non-stop or direct. So it does not surprise me that United routed you through LAX:(

[Bramcruiser]

The last time a flew with United it was ordeal. I flew out the day before my cruise and for a bit I thought I wasn't going to make it. They did nothing to assist me. I hope if they go out of business they take Air Canada along with them. Hate them both!

As much as we have personal feelings towards other companies I have visitors coming in a few weeks flying in on United Airlines. Also, my partner and I are flying Air Canada to England in October for our transatlantic trip. I rather not see them both go under in the next little while.:mad:

David

[sapper1]

Sapper you make me laugh! One of my colleagues is going to fly A/C to NY and I asked him don't you always find there is issues with them or they are always late. He said...not really. Something tells me he doesn't fly much. Everyone else I know goes out of the way no to have to deal with them. I secretly hope his flight is late or cancelled:D :eek: .
Oh, now that's just nasty!!:p :D

[sos1720]

I travel for work often and I will only fly Southwest Airlines!

[lorekauf]

Oh, now that's just nasty!!:p :D
:D :D

[satchiesmom]

As much as we have personal feelings towards other companies I have visitors coming in a few weeks flying in on United Airlines. Also, my partner and I are flying Air Canada to England in October for our transatlantic trip. I rather not see them both go under in the next little while.:mad:

David

Daviid,
We have United tickets to Seattle for our Alaska cruise May 2009. I also hope they stay afloat for awhile. Let's face it - dealing with any airline now is a royal pain. With airlines cutting staff, eliminating routes and charging for everything that used to be complimentary; I doubt very much that anyone truly enjoys flying.
Susan

[Taxguy7]

I read the comment before I looked at the screen name, but I just knew it had to be you and it was!!!!:D I took great pains to avoid AC on our flight next summer to Copenhagen. Instead of an easy drive to Halifax to catch the AC flight we are going to TO to catch Lufthansa. The catch is ---guess who Lufthansa is going to pass us off to for the return flight from Frankfurt to TO.? You guessed it!!! In order to avoid that ,we would have to sit all day in the Frankfurt airport and get a flight out that night and we would be exhausted. There is no avoiding those people!!!!

We flew Lufthansa (booked by the tour co.) one time. I was looking forward to it, but it was the only airplane my wife has not had legroom:eek: She's only 5" tall, so guess what other people felt like.:confused:
PS: Since then I've used cruise line air and paid a little extra to change to better flights or airlines. Last year & this, I'm doing my own booking.:)

[kryos]

The last time a flew with United it was ordeal. I flew out the day before my cruise and for a bit I thought I wasn't going to make it. They did nothing to assist me. I hope if they go out of business they take Air Canada along with them. Hate them both!
Apparently they are somehow tied to Air Canada. My flight to Vancouver on the 19th has a United flight number, but it's on Air Canada. They suck too?

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

Daviid,
We have United tickets to Seattle for our Alaska cruise May 2009. I also hope they stay afloat for awhile. Let's face it - dealing with any airline now is a royal pain. With airlines cutting staff, eliminating routes and charging for everything that used to be complimentary; I doubt very much that anyone truly enjoys flying.
Susan
I told this customer service rep from the consolidator "E" that I hated flying anymore. Liked it much better when I skydived. My idea of the perfect flight is to get up to 15,000 feet and then get the h*ll out! I'll take my own chances getting down safely.

It's funny, I have absolutely no problem with the airlines charging me extra for that piddley glass of soda they give me in flight. I have no problem being charged for a blanket or for a snack. I realize their profit margins are shrinking and those things can't be given away free anymore. They need to save money and I would imagine all those cans of soda can sure add up over the year.

But what does scare me is that if the airlines are scimping on stuff like food and soft drinks, are they skimping on maintenance too? Think about it. That can be a high ticket item, far more expensive than cans of soda.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

I live near CVG (a Delta hub for now) and I check our flights often. I have flights booked thru next March already. I keep waiting for my non-stops to be changed to 1-stop and then I will be really ticked off.

I don't know if this is true or just a load of crap I was being handed by the consolidator, but ... when I was working with the customer service supervisor from "E" this morning, I asked him if there was any way I could get my direct flight from Philly to LAX back. That's what I had originally booked, but they changed me to a connecting flight about a month later. According to him, the airlines have really reduced non-stop flights, preferring to route everything through their hub cities now. He said that non-stop flights now carried a hefty premium and that's why the consolidator is yanking people off of them and giving them connecting flights. He said that sure, he could give me back my direct flight, but I would have to pay something like $300 additional to get it.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

Personally, I think they government needs to step in a re-regulate the airways. JMO. :eek:

I'm sure that will happen one day soon ... as more and more airlines start going under. They are just not making a profit at all on many of their flights because of the highly competitive nature of the industry and the need to keep prices low.

But here's the rub. Regulation isn't going to help the airlines at all. In fact, it may hasten many of their deaths.

"Back in the day" of airline regulation, it didn't matter which carrier you booked your flight on. You paid the same amount for the ticket. The prices were higher, but the experience of flying was much more pleasurable. You were actually served a meal on many flights. You got the whole can of soda, not just a small cup like today. That can of soda has to spread out among four passengers.

However, back then, the airlines didn't need to depend on the leisure traveler to stay afloat. If the price of the ticket was too high for Joe Blow and his family to fly to Florida, guess what? They didn't fly. They either drove or they vacationed closer to home. It was the business traveler that kept the airlines afloat, and back then I remember companies routinely sending whole contingents of managers and other executives to conventions, meetings, etc. In fact, the company I worked for would even allow managers to fly first class if they were going coast to coast ... and sometimes there were three or four of them going together!

Today, however, things are different. While people still travel for business, they don't travel nearly as much. Many companies have drastically reduced their budgets for travel. Many companies don't allow their employees to attend trade conventions anymore, or only send a couple of high ranking executives to them. Today it's a world of teleconferencing, videoconferencing, and instant messaging instead of face-to-face meetings. It's a lot cheaper for the company that way.

So, if the airlines price the leisure traveler out, who is going to take his place? The leisure traveler doesn't necessarily "have" to fly. If he finds out the price of his airline ticket will be too high, he'll just find an alternative. Maybe he'll take the train instead, or drive, or maybe change his vacation plans to something much closer to home.

Sure, there will be some people who will still fly for vacations, but they will be the ones who can afford it. For the vast majority who can't, though, they will just have to come up with a plan B. So with regulation, probably everybody will lose ... the airlines won't have enough bodies to fill their planes and many people will have far less options for vacations since for many of them, driving or taking the train may not be feasible due to the added time required to do so.

So, I don't know what the solution is ... but somehow regulating the airlines ... at least in the same manner as they were before ... wouldn't seem to be the answer.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[jschm27]

If Southwest does not fly to my location, I do not fly. I know this does
not work for everyone. 3 bags, no charge, no charge to change or cancel.
The other airlines should adopt this.

I'm going to start this discussion by stating that I am not employed, nor have I ever been employed by Southwest Airlines. None of my relatives or friends are employed by Southwest, and I do not own stock in the company. With that being said....

I've flown Southwest many, many, many, many times for both personal reasons and for business. I rate this airline A+++ for service, on time performance, and generally making travel a little more enjoyable. Sure there has been an infrequent late bag (never lost) or late flight, but I've NEVER had a flight canciled. They don't charge for checking bags, pillows, or water! About the only add on charge I am familiar with is if your bags are over weight. AND they generally have the best fares.

If you fly a lot, take a look at their frequent flyer program. It's excellent. Its not uncommon for me to have two free flights available at any time. That alone has saved me a bundle of $$$$.

And for those of you who fly first class, one time when I was boarding a flight, I told the flight attendant that I had a first class ticket. She replied "Thats right! All of our seats are first class! You can sit anywhere you want."

It's great to fly first class!

John

[world~citizen]

Apparently they are somehow tied to Air Canada. My flight to Vancouver on the 19th has a United flight number, but it's on Air Canada. They suck too?

Blue skies ...

--rita

They are both members of Star Alliance.

I suppose an airline is only as good as the last experience you have had with them.:cool:

Truly sorry about your battles.

smooth sailing...

[Bramcruiser]

I suppose an airline is only as good as the last experience you have had with them.:cool:

Truly sorry about your battles.

smooth sailing...

Finally, the most intelligent thing I heard!

David

[Bramcruiser]

Let's face it - dealing with any airline now is a royal pain. With airlines cutting staff, eliminating routes and charging for everything that used to be complimentary; I doubt very much that anyone truly enjoys flying.
Susan

I 100% agree Susan. I think its the same problem across the board too. I, who loved to go off to the airport and fly off on some exotic vacation now think that the whole experience has turned into a big pain what with the increased security measures and the economic hit they are taking with fuel prices and the business community tightening its belts. Margins have always been slim, at best, during the era of deregulation. Its no surprise that they are all tumbling economically.

I don't think we can make this argument a "one airline" over another issue based on personal feelings which some posters have clearly made this. The ones who do collapse in the future are the ones who simply don't have the cash or credit any longer to keep going.

I don't think the OP's issue is that unusual in this day and age and I truly feel sorry for her in that some of the re-routing makes no sense. Cancelled flights are a reality in both Canada and the US as all airlines have dramatically scaled back. Seats are fewer. We're being nickeled and dimed. for services. Its an exercise in frustration. Hopefully she will get something of a good compromise to get her where she is going.

Not living easily near ports makes flying a reality to me. Where I once thought nothing of booking I am more extra cautious about being so willing to do so unless I REALLY want to go.

David
Who knows of other airlines that he would pick United over any day but is not saying simply because that is not what this is all about!

[westboroatty]

But what does scare me is that if the airlines are scimping on stuff like food and soft drinks, are they skimping on maintenance too? Think about it. That can be a high ticket item, far more expensive than cans of soda.

Blue skies ...

--rita

Rita:

The airlines are skimping on something far more important than food, drink & maintenance. They are skimping on fuel.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2008100018_webairlinefuel08.html

They are ordering the pilots to load just enough fuel to get to the destination, an alternante and 45 minutes of reserve. This is the bare FAA mandated minimum.

I've encountered a bit of fuel related grief. On the day of my departure to Europe for my most recent cruise, a thuderstorm parked itsself over Boston's Logan airport. This briefly closed the airport. I was flying to London on Continental via Newark. The inbound aircraft (the one that was going to take me to Newark to meet the one that was going to take me to London) diverted to Manchester, NH. It was delayed in Manchester becasue they had to load fuel to fly the 45 miles to Boston.

Rick

[lorekauf]

Apparently they are somehow tied to Air Canada. My flight to Vancouver on the 19th has a United flight number, but it's on Air Canada. They suck too?

Blue skies ...

--rita
They share flight #'s all the time. Too me United and Air Canada are tied more then in the Star Alliance but who knows. Like I say...they both suck.

[2bout2c]

If Southwest does not fly to my location, I do not fly. I know this does
not work for everyone. 3 bags, no charge, no charge to change or cancel.
The other airlines should adopt this.
Southwest now charges for the 3rd bag. Also if you book other than senior fare, there is a charge to rebook your flight. In fact most of there fares charge for a standby for an earlier flight on the same day of travel.
All airlines have their rules.

[Jade13]

Apparently they are somehow tied to Air Canada. My flight to Vancouver on the 19th has a United flight number, but it's on Air Canada. They suck too?

Blue skies ...

--rita

We have not had a problem on Air Canada. We have flown them a couple of times to Canada.

[KLLund]

Southwest now charges for the 3rd bag. Also if you book other than senior fare, there is a charge to rebook your flight. In fact most of there fares charge for a standby for an earlier flight on the same day of travel.
All airlines have their rules.

When the new schedule came out I looked at my Nov flight to Las Vegas and there was a sale .. so I rebooked .. saved $113.00 for one ticket .. and there was no charge for this. Not sure where you got that information. It is true however that if you go to the airport and want to fly earlier you may pay more.. because the fare is not priced with an advance purchase.. but that has always been the case and is not a change.

[lorekauf]

We have not had a problem on Air Canada. We have flown them a couple of times to Canada.
I think you have to be a Canadian to truly appreciate how much Canadians dislike Air Canada. Any airline can "appear" to be good when you have flown them once or twice.

[sapper1]

I think you have to be a Canadian to truly appreciate how much Canadians dislike Air Canada. Any airline can "appear" to be good when you have flown them once or twice.
I'll second that! Unfortunately they have almost a captive audience here and therein lies the problem. They don't have to even try. It is mostly a case of "take it or leave it".
Where I live, in Saint John, we are often fogged in and Air Canada used to divert to Fredericton or Moncton and then bus passengers to Saint John. Now they just dump them in a city they didn't ask to go to and tell them they are on their own--regardless of the time of day.

[JimVrhovac]

When you deal with companies like this you have to keep in mind the definition of the word STRESS

THE OVERWHELMING DESIRE TO SMACK THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF SOMEONE THAT DESPERATELY DESERVES IT....

Hope this gives you a chuckly and improves your day...

Ruth & Jim

[Bramcruiser]

We have not had a problem on Air Canada. We have flown them a couple of times to Canada.

Not everyone speaks for all Canadians. We had no problems with Air Canada.

David

[kryos]

Southwest now charges for the 3rd bag. Also if you book other than senior fare, there is a charge to rebook your flight. In fact most of there fares charge for a standby for an earlier flight on the same day of travel.
All airlines have their rules.
I will say that I've heard Southwest is a great airline. It just has never worked out that I could use them. In fact, I've heard they are about the only airline in the industry that is making money today, and that's saying something.

As for a fee to check a third bag, I would have no problem with that. If you need three bags checked, I guess you should pay for it. That's a lot of luggage!

Blue skies ...

--rita

[TCF]

I can remember the last time I flew with Air Canada/United Airlines. They left our bags in Chicago and sent us on to Ft.Lauderdale. We almost got to cruise the Caribbean in our underwear!!

That's when we found Westjet. A Vancouver based airline that has given us good rates and good service on every flight we have done with them. It may take them a little longer to get you there...but it's not a painful flight!

We just booked our homeward bound flight from Tampa in November on Westjet. We got two seats for $499....we have to stay overnight in Toronto (our choice)....but we are getting the hotel on points.

This airline is facing exactly the same challenges as every other airline, but it seems they are not beating the hell out of their customers and ARE making money!!!

We're just lucky the go to and come from where we need to get cruise ships!!

[lorekauf]

Not everyone speaks for all Canadians. We had no problems with Air Canada.

David
Oh pardon me....there is one person that likes Air Canada:rolleyes:

Gee do you work for them?

[lorekauf]

I can remember the last time I flew with Air Canada/United Airlines. They left our bags in Chicago and sent us on to Ft.Lauderdale. We almost got to cruise the Caribbean in our underwear!!

That's when we found Westjet. A Vancouver based airline that has given us good rates and good service on every flight we have done with them. It may take them a little longer to get you there...but it's not a painful flight!

We just booked our homeward bound flight from Tampa in November on Westjet. We got two seats for $499....we have to stay overnight in Toronto (our choice)....but we are getting the hotel on points.

This airline is facing exactly the same challenges as every other airline, but it seems they are not beating the hell out of their customers and ARE making money!!!

We're just lucky the go to and come from where we need to get cruise ships!!
Love Westjet...now that is a good airline!

[jmk22574]

Being a Southwest Airlines employee, it's nice to see the positive remarks about WestJet. By late 2009, WestJet will become SWA's first international codeshare partnership. No airline is perfect, but it looks like these two will be a great match.

Jill

[Taxguy7]

But what does scare me is that if the airlines are scimping on stuff like food and soft drinks, are they skimping on maintenance too? Think about it. That can be a high ticket item, far more expensive than cans of soda.

Blue skies ...

--rita

You're a scarey lady:eek:

Note: Not a scared lady, I wouldn't jump out of an airplane, even though my son did in High School.

[Typhoon1]

As much as we have personal feelings towards other companies I have visitors coming in a few weeks flying in on United Airlines. Also, my partner and I are flying Air Canada to England in October for our transatlantic trip. I rather not see them both go under in the next little while.:mad:

David

The experts claim we shouldn't see anymore airlines go under until sometime in 2009, Of course, one never really knows.

[lorekauf]

Being a Southwest Airlines employee, it's nice to see the positive remarks about WestJet. By late 2009, WestJet will become SWA's first international codeshare partnership. No airline is perfect, but it looks like these two will be a great match.


Jill

I am very happy about this alliance. More choice is always a good thing. Westjet is a great airline and very much loved in Western Canada. I look very forward to this happening:) !

[TedC]

United, Air Canada, Lufthansa - all part of the (fading) Star Alliance.

We were set to fly home from FLL Dec. 18 - that is until United annoucned it was no longer serving FLL.

Now we have to get to Miami after our cruise for our new flight on "Ted." (that's the END of UniTED! And I don't even get royalties )

[jschm27]

sBeing a Southwest Airlines employee, it's nice to see the positive remarks about WestJet. By late 2009, WestJet will become SWA's first international codeshare partnership. No airline is perfect, but it looks like these two will be a great match.


Jill


Hi Jill

Thanks for the update on the Westjet/SWA codeshare. I went to the SWA website and read the press release. I'm really pleased that Hawaii is a Westjet destination. I just hope when the routes are published, there will be a Calif or Nevada connection there.

If you can't tell from my previous post, I LUV SWA. Thanks for doing a great job and by keeping flying fun.

John

[iancal]

I don't want to see any airline go under. It negatively impacts too many people and families within the airline and within supplier companies. I would not wish this on any employee.

Until very recently, I flew several times a week- on both Air Canada and Westjet. I think that Air Canada has excellent service, as does Westjet. Fact is many Canadians are self depreciating and they like to put down the likes of Air Canada, CBC, whatever. It seems to be in vogue. I would not want anyone to get the notion that all those living in Western Canada dislike Air Canada and love Westjet. This is just not so with the frequent flyers...of which I am one. Those who also assume that Westjet always has less expensive flights are mistaken-it is not so. There are still some people out there who expect a bargain air fare, dinner, drinks, an empty seat beside them or an upgrade to business. Those days are gone.

[lorekauf]

I don't want to see any airline go under. It negatively impacts too many people and families within the airline and within supplier companies. I would not wish this on any employee.

Until very recently, I flew several times a week- on both Air Canada and Westjet. I think that Air Canada has excellent service, as does Westjet. Fact is many Canadians are self depreciating and they like to put down the likes of Air Canada, CBC, whatever. It seems to be in vogue. I would not want anyone to get the notion that all those living in Western Canada dislike Air Canada and love Westjet. This is just not so with the frequent flyers...of which I am one. Those who also assume that Westjet always has less expensive flights are mistaken-it is not so. There are still some people out there who expect a bargain air fare, dinner, drinks, an empty seat beside them or an upgrade to business. Those days are gone.
Ok just to clarify....the people I know....don't like A/C...and we like Westjet. Good for anyone who has had good service on A/C. No one I know ever has so consider yourself lucky. I'm really done with folks that get offended with any mention of bad service on A/C. I don't say it because it is in vogue:rolleyes: . It is because everytime I've been on A/C it sucks. I know you enjoy always stating the opposing view....so I'm really done with this.

[albanaich]

Apparently they are somehow tied to Air Canada. My flight to Vancouver on the 19th has a United flight number, but it's on Air Canada. They suck too?

Blue skies ...

--rita

United, Air Canada and Lufthansa are all in the Star Alliance.

For our Alaska cruise in July, my wife insisted on booking our Vancouver flights on Westjet, which has a more generous baggage allowance than AC. OTOH, on our outbound flight we were sent to the wrong gate, and only found out when I noticed just before boarding time, that the destination sign had not been changed from an earlier flight, no gate attendants had shown up, and queried someone at the next gate over - our plane was boarding halfway down the concourse from our assigned gate. Our return flight was delayed over an hour with no reason given. I was not impressed by this "service". Seems they're all having scheduling problems.

[world~citizen]

United, Air Canada and Lufthansa are all in the Star Alliance.

For our Alaska cruise in July, my wife insisted on booking our Vancouver flights on Westjet, which has a more generous baggage allowance than AC. OTOH, on our outbound flight we were sent to the wrong gate, and only found out when I noticed just before boarding time, that the destination sign had not been changed from an earlier flight, no gate attendants had shown up, and queried someone at the next gate over - our plane was boarding halfway down the concourse from our assigned gate. Our return flight was delayed over an hour with no reason given. I was not impressed by this "service". Seems they're all having scheduling problems.

You know, that is something that never happened, or almost never happened. Now I have experienced the same thing, and more than once in different airports (and different airlines). I really hate to see confusion like this in an industry where "getting it right the first time" is, well, important.

No doubt all of this is a result of administrative "streamlining" related to the industry's ongoing efforts to "serve us better". :eek:

[crusinbanjo]

If Southwest does not fly to my location, I do not fly. I know this does
not work for everyone. 3 bags, no charge, no charge to change or cancel.
The other airlines should adopt this.

Southwest is the best IMHO, My last 2 flights on UAL were Nightmares:mad:
UAL, I hope you are reading this post. I was a frequent flyer on UAL for years, but after the last 2 episodes, being lied to about the departure times, Lousy customer service, being stuck in Chicago overnight and being told "it might be better for you to rent a car & drive to Providence RI, because the next available seat is Next Thursday", 5 days away! Finally getting home via NYC and rushing to make 2 extra connections (12 hours of extra flights). NEVER AGAIN! If I cannot get a direct flight, I choose Southwest, or another airline with a direct flight. No more connections for me, ever! If I can't get a direct flight, I'm looking at going somewhere else.

The other thing I do is look at other airports in the general area of where I need to be, many times it is better to fly into a less convenient airport and get where you are going on time, in spite of the airlines best efforts to screw things up.

Good luck, fly SW whenever you can! Cruieing is great, flying to and from the cruise is making it really difficult!

[nimiq]

I don't want to see any airline go under. It negatively impacts too many people and families within the airline and within supplier companies. I would not wish this on any employee.

Until very recently, I flew several times a week- on both Air Canada and Westjet. I think that Air Canada has excellent service, as does Westjet. Fact is many Canadians are self depreciating and they like to put down the likes of Air Canada, CBC, whatever. It seems to be in vogue. I would not want anyone to get the notion that all those living in Western Canada dislike Air Canada and love Westjet. This is just not so with the frequent flyers...of which I am one. Those who also assume that Westjet always has less expensive flights are mistaken-it is not so. There are still some people out there who expect a bargain air fare, dinner, drinks, an empty seat beside them or an upgrade to business. Those days are gone.

Iancal

You are so right when you say Western Canada dislikes Air Canada this has always been even when Canadian Airlines was there.

But that is not the question here I think for people to say I hope this Airline or company closes and have all these people lose thier jobs to me is ridiculous.

We all have our diffrent opinions on airlines and even here on some Cruise Company and ships but please lets be resonable in our affimations.

I am very happy about all these low coast airlines such as Westjet and southwest ect ect to name a few. For some of us this has gave us the chance to travel for less but lets face it this is also why the Airlines such as United and Air Canada had to lower the standards to face the competion and in return that is why it makes them more vaulnerable in the publics eyes.

By the way now more and more of the standard Airlines price match the low cost ones.

rdsg

Sea ya
Eric

[crusinbanjo]

Rita:

I've encountered a bit of fuel related grief. On the day of my departure to Europe for my most recent cruise, a thuderstorm parked itsself over Boston's Logan airport. This briefly closed the airport. I was flying to London on Continental via Newark. The inbound aircraft (the one that was going to take me to Newark to meet the one that was going to take me to London) diverted to Manchester, NH. It was delayed in Manchester becasue they had to load fuel to fly the 45 miles to Boston.

Rick

The instance you cite her, although unnerving to you, I'm sure, is not that all an uncommon practice. The fact that they had to take on more fuel to finish the 45 min from manchester to Boston, (actually a 5 minute flight, but you have to follow the departure and then the arrival proceedures for the airports involved), is to be sure that the comply with the FAA rules that they must carry enough fuel to get to their destination, divert to an alternate airport, (if necessary), and still maintain a 45 minute reserve.

[iancal]

I flew home from Toronto last month because of a family situation. I showed up at the counter at 6AM to make sure that I got my ticket straightened out...I was going to a different city than I was originally ticketed to.
The customer agent was great. She was clearly very worried about her job. She had eighteen years of seniority, was a single mother, and needed her job. The rumor that morning was that the cut was 20 years and Winnipeg was disappearing as a hub. Her fear was being bumped, and then having to consider moving to a different city and bumping someone else, or just being laid off. She worked the early shift because she had someone to take care of the kids and get them off to school and she could be home when they returned from school and in the evening. She was concerned that her seniority may force her to a 4-12PM shift- or later. I cannot imagine anyone wishing that her employer go out of business or go through a significant downsizing. These are our neighbors.

[SF Cfan]

We flew Lufthansa (booked by the tour co.) one time. I was looking forward to it, but it was the only airplane my wife has not had legroom:eek: She's only 5" tall, so guess what other people felt like.:confused:
PS: Since then I've used cruise line air and paid a little extra to change to better flights or airlines. Last year & this, I'm doing my own booking.:)

It's probably been referenced already on CC. www.seatguru.com (http://www.seatguru.com) contains seating charts for most of the world's airlines with seat & legroom demensions along with specific seat/row comments.

You may be surprised that there isn't a huge difference in coach between international airlines. But, I did see at least on configuration of a Lufthansa wide-body that featured the dreaded minimum 31" seat pitch in coach.

[Himself]

UNITED used to be the best airline in the sky--they are not that anymore!
When Pat Patterson ran United, everyone from the baggage handler to the cabin crew treated each passenger like they were royalty. That is not true today! I used to fly UNITED all the time and ONLY UNITED. Today, I lean toward Southwest because they treat the passenger so well.

[m steve]

All airlines are cutting back on itineraries and other areas such as food, beverage and luggage and we will all be affected. My preferred airline is United but hate their customer service people as they are in either India or the Phillipines and can't think of any way to solve a problem unless it's on their screen. They don't compare to the International airlines like Singapore, Luft, etc but they seem to be improving business and 1st class as these are bought by their frequent business travelers who pay 3-10 times what an economy passenger pays. If you read the business section of newspapers United announced a long time ago that they were dropping TED and if you were to travel on that segment of United you should have contacted them at once to either cancel your ticket or change flights. Perhaps you will also blame them for Tuesday's air traffic computer problem.

[Juanita462]

After reading this thread I checked Westjet prices for our flight next spring - it was $500 more than the one we booked with AA and would take 20 to 24 hours each way instead of 12 and with two stops instead of one. I was shocked at the price as I had always heard that Westjet was a bargain airline.

Have only flown Air Canada once - which was enough!

[SF Cfan]

United, Air Canada, Lufthansa - all part of the (fading) Star Alliance.

We were set to fly home from FLL Dec. 18 - that is until United annoucned it was no longer serving FLL.

Now we have to get to Miami after our cruise for our new flight on "Ted." (that's the END of UniTED! And I don't even get royalties )

United's dropping of FLL & PBI is a real pain in terms of losing some convenient connections in and out of southern Florida. Will they rebook you on a US Air codeshare by chance?

I don't disagree with you or any of the other posters that United & US Air are weak on recovery when delays come in to play. Perhaps that's your reference to the Star Alliance "fading." However, now that Continental has applied to join the Star Alliance, it's still one of the more robust networks when you consider Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, ANA, & SAS just to name a few make up the international members.

As I read through the various bad experiences other posters have with the airlines a couple of suggestions come to mind. I realize that these may be old hat to many.

1. Consider arriving in your cruise departure city a full day in advance, even if you are only one or two hours by air to your destination. All airlines were flying with 85%+ loads prior to all of the coming post Labor Day cut-backs. If there is a problem with your outbound flight, you may need that extra day.

2. Go to your air carrier's website and see who the other players are in their frequent flyer program. Do a flight search on the domestic partner websites to find alternate connections to your destination city ahead of time. If there is a worst case problem with your booked flight(s) ask to be rebooked or "protected" onto the partner airline. It won't hurt that you can quote the alternate flight numbers when you make the request.

Don't hesitate to ask to be re-routed on a non-partner airline either. It's more of a long shot, but United can endorse a ticket over to Alaska or American for example. My recent experience is that this is more likely with mechanical delays and other non-weather based problems. There are a couple of airlines that do not exchange tickets including Southwest to or from most of the major legacy carriers, just be aware.

3. Get to the airport really early, 2 hours or more before departure. Look up your departure gate and then scan the arrivals board for flights coming into your depature gate. If the arriving flight into your departure gate shows with the generic "delayed" message or arriving after you scheduled departure time this is a red flag. Don't expect the airline to update the departure time with any sort of logic. If you have a tight connection start asking questions, especially if the "delayed" message is showing without a specific time. Ask a gate agent or ticket agent, is my inbound aircraft in the air? This information is not always given out without being asked for. The earlier you look for a solution including an alternate connection the better chance you have of finding a viable solution.

[Debi_D]

You can get a one-stop on Southwest each way to Fort Lauderdale. You can also fly on JetBlue via either NY or Boston for a reasonable price. You might want to check it out.

I think both are reasonable airlines. I like them a lot better than Delta or American. I almost never fly United, so I can't compare with them.

We are booked on JetBlue for our December cruise. So far, they have not canceled any flights that I can see. They have not announced their February schedules or fares yet. It will be interesting to see what will happen then.

There is a LOT of service from Boston to Fort Lauderdale on Jet Blue.

Roberta

We have flown on Jet Blue several times and we have never been canceled, re-routed or departing late and only slight arrival late (1 time by 20 mins). We have used them to fly out west also. Great airline!

[hammybee]

UNITED used to be the best airline in the sky--they are not that anymore!
When Pat Patterson ran United, everyone from the baggage handler to the cabin crew treated each passenger like they were royalty. That is not true today! I used to fly UNITED all the time and ONLY UNITED. Today, I lean toward Southwest because they treat the passenger so well.

Pat Patterson was president between 1934-1963. After that, he was named Chairman/CEO and he retired in 1966, more than 40 years ago.

Coinciding with Patterson's term, the federal Civil Aeronautics Board ( CAB) was created in the 30's to regulate air transport as a public utility. The energy crisis in the 70's was the trigger for the Airline Deregulation Act in the late 70's.

1995 was UAL's best year from both a shareholder and employee perspective and marked a begining for majority employee ownership and control. At that time, a round trip ticket between ORD and any NYC airport was running about $800. The cost of an OPEC crude oil basket was less than $17.

By 2000, UAL was plagued with tremendous labor problems and while employee ownership is generally thought to not be the blame for its problems, it did absolutely nothing to help UAL succeed. Revenues were off because of increasing competition from younger, no frill airlines, not saddled with labor baggage and hubs routing that made flying convenient. 9/11, bankruptcy and reorangaization followed.

Today, a round trip ticket between ORD and any NYC airport runs about $300+/-, 60% less than it did 13 years ago. The cost of a crude oil basket is more than 6X what it was in 1995.

The relative value of an $800 coach ticket, expressed in 2008 terms, ranges from $1100- 1500, dependent upon index used.

Do you think UAL would be in a different situation if consumers were willing to pay for the service levels , routes and convenience that existed, just 13 years ago?

Condeming companies for cost cutting (brought on by changes in consumer spending habits) has become the national pasttime.

[westboroatty]

The instance you cite her, although unnerving to you, I'm sure, is not that all an uncommon practice. The fact that they had to take on more fuel to finish the 45 min from manchester to Boston, (actually a 5 minute flight, but you have to follow the departure and then the arrival proceedures for the airports involved), is to be sure that the comply with the FAA rules that they must carry enough fuel to get to their destination, divert to an alternate airport, (if necessary), and still maintain a 45 minute reserve.

Yeah.... Its just annoying that they did not load enough fuel to spend a few minutes holding. It was a fast moving New England summer storm. It was gone 10 minutes after it arrived. As much as I hate holding, it is faster than diverting to MHT.

Shame the captain could not dispense with the SIDs, STARs and other hooey and file VFR. :)

Rick

[crusinbanjo]

All of what you stated is true of course, and I for one am willing to pay for service. As I tell all of my venders, "You are no good to me if you are losing money". Having said that, I still need to be competative in the market to stay in business, and cannot accept venders with bloated costs and High overhead because that would make me uncompetative and out of business. I look for innovative ideas and companies, that find ways to hold down costs and still be profitable, those are the companies I want to do business with. Southwest Airlines can seem to manage all of the factors, still be profitable and keep it's customers happy.

What I fail to understand is why the "Big Guys", with the high priced exec's, can't seem to learn from the Southwests of the world and improve their own company's situation.

Pat Patterson was president between 1934-1963. After that, he was named Chairman/CEO and he retired in 1966, more than 40 years ago.

Coinciding with Patterson's term, the federal Civil Aeronautics Board ( CAB) was created in the 30's to regulate air transport as a public utility. The energy crisis in the 70's was the trigger for the Airline Deregulation Act in the late 70's.

1995 was UAL's best year from both a shareholder and employee perspective and marked a begining for majority employee ownership and control. At that time, a round trip ticket between ORD and any NYC airport was running about $800. The cost of an OPEC crude oil basket was less than $17.

By 2000, UAL was plagued with tremendous labor problems and while employee ownership is generally thought to not be the blame for its problems, it did absolutely nothing to help UAL succeed. Revenues were off because of increasing competition from younger, no frill airlines, not saddled with labor baggage and hubs routing that made flying convenient. 9/11, bankruptcy and reorangaization followed.

Today, a round trip ticket between ORD and any NYC airport runs about $300+/-, 60% less than it did 13 years ago. The cost of a crude oil basket is more than 6X what it was in 1995.

The relative value of an $800 coach ticket, expressed in 2008 terms, ranges from $1100- 1500, dependent upon index used.

Do you think UAL would be in a different situation if consumers were willing to pay for the service levels , routes and convenience that existed, just 13 years ago?

Condeming companies for cost cutting (brought on by changes in consumer spending habits) has become the national pasttime.

[m steve]

Just ask the passengers stranded for 9 hours on one of their planes and weren't allowed to return to the gate or get any help from the crew. All the airlines are having problems. Some are trying to find ways to correct them. I just tried using United miles to book Air New Zealand business and there were no seats for 2 months. I guess I should have known my daughter would need my help 330 days ago.

[hammybee]

What I fail to understand is why the "Big Guys", with the high priced exec's, can't seem to learn from the Southwests of the world and improve their own company's situation.

The greatest advantage Southwest has over the Big Guys" is that it is the only major carrier that does not belong to a national union. Southwest's pilots are paid less and fly substantially more hours than pilots represnted by a national union.

.

[timothy998]

I'm a regular traveler on UA. Have been 100K since 1996 and am a million-miler so am about a weekly traveler. I also have traveled many airlines, from USAir to American, to Delta, Northwest, British, Alitalia, etc. No one airline is going to be perfect 100 pct of the time. Many times the FAA/Air Traffic Control goofs things up for the airline, or the weather, or the equipment. The problem is there are so many variables that airlines & their employees can't control.

That said, there are things they (and we) can control. When something goes awry, I start "working" the system, regardless of the airline. And if I don't get the answer I believe is possible, then I make another call or talk to another agent until I've exhausted my options. Plus, as I am able, I dose it all with a big helping of honey, as most agents are dealing with cranky passengers.

I also try to pre-empt any problems. I fly to appointments a day ahead, as feasible. When going overseas I build in at least a full buffer day. For our March 09 Westerdam cruise we're going in a day early. And, as people have mentioned, if it is a big vacation trip, I purchase travel insurance. It helped us out when Continental stranded us in Cleveland last month....covered our taxi to the only available hotel downtown, and back. Plus the other incidentals.

I know it is frustrating, but many airline employees want to help and sometimes I offer them suggestions that in their harried state they may not originally consider. They're fallible people too!

We were frustrated with UA pulling out of Ft Lauderdale and transferring all their service (actually not really adding many flights) to Miami for our March cruise. We like many others had to rebook and it took me three times with United before I found the right agent to do what I needed them to do. Frustrating? Absolutely, but with persistence I got what I needed.

Happy travels.

[Boytjie]

Just ask the passengers stranded for 9 hours on one of their planes and weren't allowed to return to the gate or get any help from the crew.

Frequent occurrence or one time incident? I assume you are referring to that dreadful day at JFK in Feb 2007. They apologized and paid out a lot in refunds and credits, and I am sure they learnt a lesson.

JetBlue is our preferred airline out of New York and we have not had any bad experiences yet. That has not been the case with our second choice airline, American.

[kryos]

The relative value of an $800 coach ticket, expressed in 2008 terms, ranges from $1100- 1500, dependent upon index used.

Do you think UAL would be in a different situation if consumers were willing to pay for the service levels , routes and convenience that existed, just 13 years ago?

Condeming companies for cost cutting (brought on by changes in consumer spending habits) has become the national pasttime.
I have no problems with the airlines cost-cutting. My fear is that they are cost-cutting in the area of safety and that's scarey.

We take flying for granted today. We are so used to taking our seats and then magically appearing at our location several hours later. We don't take the time to consider the technology and skill required to get us there. To me, flying is risky business and it always will be. But you can minimize those risks to an acceptable level with taking certain safety precautions. My fear is that the airlines are letting those safety precautions slide in the interest of keeping planes in the air, and not grounded in the maintenance hangar.

As for charging me for a soda, or charging me for a blanket and pillow ... that's fine. I understand the airlines can't afford to give those things away.

My beef is when they crowd people in like cattle with no "personal space" whatsoever, and risk fights breaking out (believe me, I've seen one or two) when someone gets too close to someone else's space. I think the airlines need to put some rules into effect regarding carry-on baggage ... virtually restricting it to one small item of a personal nature ... like a purse or a laptop bag ... and then requiring that item to be stored in the overhead bin ... and not under the passenger seats. I think that measure alone would create a lot more room in the coach cabin because people would have a bit more room to stretch out since there wouldn't be a stuffed bag under that seat in front of them, requiring them to slide their feet over into the space of someone else who also has a stuffed bag under the seat in front of them. I think more airlines need to also follow Southwest's policy of making a passenger buy an extra seat if he is larger than normal. This has nothing to do with discrimation. It has to do with the space you are paying for, and the fact that you are using more than your one seat ticket entitles you to. It's not fair that another passenger has to be uncomfortable for the entire flight because the person sitting next to her is encroaching on what little space she has. Airlines have to be more proactive about this, requiring these "passengers of size" to either move up to first class (and pay for the privilege) or purchase a second seat in coach.

There are other ways the airlines can make the flight experience a better one ... even in coach. They can treat passengers like human beings, and not like cattle. Sure, charge for sodas ... that's no problem. Charge for snacks. Fine. I honestly don't think anyone would have a problem paying for those things. We are not stupid. We know these things cost money and our tickets are cheaper today than they ever were. I can't imagine anyone being against paying for those things. But when people have to fear that the airplane they are on maybe hasn't received a maintenance check in over a year, that's something else entirely ... and I honestly don't think given the choice that people would prefer to fly in an airplane that could be faulty just to save a few bucks on the flight.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

The greatest advantage Southwest has over the Big Guys" is that it is the only major carrier that does not belong to a national union. Southwest's pilots are paid less and fly substantially more hours than pilots represnted by a national union.

.

Now that scares me.

What kind of pilots are they getting then?

I would imagine that if I'm top at my game, I'm not gonna say "gee, think I'll work for Southwest since they pay less." I'm gonna want to take my top skills to the airline that is willing to pay for them.

I would imagine Southwest is getting mostly the newer, less experienced pilots who can't get a job with one of the other airlines?

When pilots get their commercial certificate, they normally start out with the regional airlines ... the smaller carriers who I presume also are not unionized. They make less, but they are willing to take that in order to build hours and experience. As soon as they have it, though, off they go to the big leagues. I guess Southwest is sort of an alternative to a regional carrier ... a place for pilots to build their hours and experience before moving on? LOL ... wonder what the passengers would think if they knew that the pilot up in their cockpit was maybe on his first "paid" flight?

Blue skies ...

--rita

[crusinbanjo]

Hmmmmmm....... ....Does that say something? Do the Unions have a suicide mentality?

The unions could do a lot just by changing some of the work rules to make many of the problems go away and help the airlines be more competative & profitable, to say nothing about the payroll. Don't get me wrong, I think the unions are a very important part of the airline business, but they just seem to be representing their members right out of a job with some of the stuff they demand.

However, I don't believe that unions are the only reason the airlines are in trouble, Just one piece of the puzzle. I can think of about a million other reasons, (well maybe not a million). Southwest does a lot of other things right, like fuel hedging, getting the passengers to help with the cabin clean up, etc that help them keep costs down and stay profitable.

The greatest advantage Southwest has over the Big Guys" is that it is the only major carrier that does not belong to a national union. Southwest's pilots are paid less and fly substantially more hours than pilots represnted by a national union.

.

[jmk22574]

True that the SWA pilots do not belong to a NATIONAL union, but they do belong to a smaller union. Each position (customer service, maintenance, flight attendants, pilots, etc.) is represented by a union.

Maybe the pilots at SWA get paid less than the other airlines, but there's something to be said for working for a company that treats the employees well and that hasn't/isn't laying off its employees left and right for the past number of years.

Yes, I will once again offer the disclaimer that I am a Southwest Airlines employee. No company/employer is perfect, but it is quite rare to work for a company where the majority of the employees are truly happy and appreciative on a daily basis.

[hammybee]

To me, flying is risky business and it always will be.

--rita

Do you think you might be projecting your "fear of flying" on an entire industry?

[hammybee]

My beef is when they crowd people in like cattle with no "personal space" whatsoever, and risk fights breaking out (believe me, I've seen one or two) when someone gets too close to someone else's space. I think the airlines need to put some rules into effect regarding carry-on baggage

There are other ways the airlines can make the flight experience a better one ... even in coach. They can treat passengers like human beings, and not like cattle. Blue skies ...--rita

Let's turn this around.

Consumers choose to be cattle, or not.

Consumers may choose to pay for extra leg room, when/where offered.

Consumers may choose to pay for Business or First Class and get more personal space and attention.

I have thought for the past 30 years that carry-on should be restricted.
As to the oversized passengers, it makes sense, if you need or want more room, you pay for it.

[hammybee]

Now that scares me.

What kind of pilots are they getting then?

I would imagine that if I'm top at my game, I'm not gonna say "gee, think I'll work for Southwest since they pay less." I'm gonna want to take my top skills to the airline that is willing to pay for them.

I would imagine Southwest is getting mostly the newer, less experienced pilots who can't get a job with one of the other airlines?

Blue skies ...--rita

Southwest is able to achieve greater efficienies because their pilots work more hours than pilots in the national union. Thus, Southwest needs fewer pilots than the other airlines.

The legacy carriers are reducing flights and unprofitable routes to reduce their cash hemmorhage. Reducing flights and routes means laying off pilots.

This is not the case at Southwest.

[hammybee]

However, I don't believe that unions are the only reason the airlines are in trouble, Just one piece of the puzzle. I can think of about a million other reasons, (well maybe not a million). Southwest does a lot of other things right, like fuel hedging, getting the passengers to help with the cabin clean up, etc that help them keep costs down and stay profitable.

Labor is the number one expense at all airlines.

The benefits of Southwest's fuel hedge are ledgendary and carried the company for many years, when routes were not profitable.

Southwest's forward fuel hedges have been dwindling and are much closer to coming online to current fuel prices than it has been in any recent year.

Those that follow this closely believe that Southwest will no longer have any advantage by the end of this year.

Southwest does many things differently than the legacy carriers. They fly point to point and do not have the domestic and international connections dependencies that the legacy carriers/hubs do. It's a different business model.

That guy who just arrived at ORD, in the nick of time, after a 12 hour overseas flight, is probably not too keen to learn that the only seat left on his connecting flight is a middle seat and when he gets to his final desination, he is being asked to help clean up the plane. Know what I mean?

[hammybee]

Maybe the pilots at SWA get paid less than the other airlines, but there's something to be said for working for a company that treats the employees well and that hasn't/isn't laying off its employees left and right for the past number of years.

Yes, I will once again offer the disclaimer that I am a Southwest Airlines employee. No company/employer is perfect, but it is quite rare to work for a company where the majority of the employees are truly happy and appreciative on a daily basis.

The Southwest Pilot's Union seems to get the need for balance. By accepting less compensation and working more hours, they contribute to the success of the company who in turn, can offer them a more secure and substantially less stressful working enviornment, which makes everyone happy. They have been able to do this without compromising safety. It will be interesting to watch how this proceeds once Southwest's fuel hedging advantages become history.

Who knows, by then, they may be the only domestic game left in town and can charge whatever they need to for a seat.

[hammybee]

Just picked this up from the WSJ:

The Morning News says the carrier’s recently published winter schedule represents a net decrease of 190 flights, or about 5% to 6% of Southwest’s 3,400 flights daily. It quotes Southwest Spokeswoman Brandy King:
“The changes we are implementing are wide-ranging but relatively minor in magnitude. They are in part necessitated by holding the fleet count steady as we enter the first part of 2009, with the one-two punch of nasty winter weather and low traffic,” Ms. King said. “That being said, we have mentioned that we will be taking steps in 2009 to adjust our capacity growth rate in response to a slowing U.S. economy and added fuel cost pressures,” she said.

[Debi_D]

True that the SWA pilots do not belong to a NATIONAL union, but they do belong to a smaller union. Each position (customer service, maintenance, flight attendants, pilots, etc.) is represented by a union.


Maybe the pilots at SWA get paid less than the other airlines, but there's something to be said for working for a company that treats the employees well and that hasn't/isn't laying off its employees left and right for the past number of years.

Yes, I will once again offer the disclaimer that I am a Southwest Airlines employee. No company/employer is perfect, but it is quite rare to work for a company where the majority of the employees are truly happy and appreciative on a daily basis.





Well said! I was a flight attendant for AA for several years and the bickering between management and union was stressful many times, especially after 9/11. I loved my job as a flight attendant and after reading this thread I can understand everyone's point of view. Flying use to be a exciting way to travel, now it is just a big bus in the sky going from point A to point B with the littlest disruption.

It is a tough job. Please keep in mind that we as flight crew have to put in very long hours without pay. We have up to 3-4 legs a day and serving 100 - 150 per leg and it can be quiet tiresome to say the least. When you fly and encounter delays we too as flight crew have to endear them as well. I have been stuck on the ground for over 9 hours and not having a gate to return to, but we were lucky enough that we had a captain that kept everyone up to date every 20-30 mins.

I do agree that most airline customer service agents need to go back to nice school and be a bit more understanding of people and their feelings with that said people too need to be a bit more understanding when something happens out of our control.

[kryos]

Do you think you might be projecting your "fear of flying" on an entire industry?
I honestly have no more fear of flying than the next person. I spent three years of my life not only flying in airplanes, but flying in ones that, quite frankly, I wouldn't get into without a parachute on my back. They were small, probably poorly maintained, but they got me up to 13,500' so that I could jump out, and that's all I cared about.

I just think we all take flying for granted today. We think it's a given that we should be able to have a safe flight. No, that's not a given. It's something that requires good equipment, good personnel, and good judgment.

Every single time I deplane an aircraft, as I walk past the cockpit on my way out, I always lean in and thank the pilots for a safe flight. I don't take that for granted and I sure do appreciate it. Frankly, I'm surprised more people don't do the same, but from the look on the flight attendant's face, I doubt they do.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

Let's turn this around.

Consumers choose to be cattle, or not.

Consumers may choose to pay for extra leg room, when/where offered.

Consumers may choose to pay for Business or First Class and get more personal space and attention.

I have thought for the past 30 years that carry-on should be restricted.
As to the oversized passengers, it makes sense, if you need or want more room, you pay for it.
No, we do not choose to be cattle or not. We are paying our money and should be treated like human beings. And, we can be by just implementing a few changes in the way we fly ... i.e., restricting carry-on luggage, strictly enforcing the size of the space you are entitled to, etc.

No one chooses to get lousy service, and what's more it doesn't cost one dime more to give good service. I never said the airlines should take out seats to give us coach passengers more space. No, if we choose to get a discounted seat, then we have to expect space will be at a premium. I'm just saying that the airlines need to enforce certain rules to ensure everyone gets the space they pay for, and they can only do that by limiting the amount of carry-ons allowed in the cabin and my requiring oversized passengers (or at least those who are not sitting in a row of two with a traveling companion who does not mind being squished) to buy a second seat.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[jmk22574]

The decrease in flights for Southwest Airlines winter schedule was released on Monday. Luckily (so far) no jobs have been affected. The hope is that some of these flights will be reinstated in the spring. :)

[sapper1]

I have no problems with the airlines cost-cutting. My fear is that they are cost-cutting in the area of safety and that's scarey.

We take flying for granted today. We are so used to taking our seats and then magically appearing at our location several hours later. We don't take the time to consider the technology and skill required to get us there. To me, flying is risky business and it always will be. But you can minimize those risks to an acceptable level with taking certain safety precautions. My fear is that the airlines are letting those safety precautions slide in the interest of keeping planes in the air, and not grounded in the maintenance hangar.

As for charging me for a soda, or charging me for a blanket and pillow ... that's fine. I understand the airlines can't afford to give those things away.

My beef is when they crowd people in like cattle with no "personal space" whatsoever, and risk fights breaking out (believe me, I've seen one or two) when someone gets too close to someone else's space. I think the airlines need to put some rules into effect regarding carry-on baggage ... virtually restricting it to one small item of a personal nature ... like a purse or a laptop bag ... and then requiring that item to be stored in the overhead bin ... and not under the passenger seats. I think that measure alone would create a lot more room in the coach cabin because people would have a bit more room to stretch out since there wouldn't be a stuffed bag under that seat in front of them, requiring them to slide their feet over into the space of someone else who also has a stuffed bag under the seat in front of them. I think more airlines need to also follow Southwest's policy of making a passenger buy an extra seat if he is larger than normal. This has nothing to do with discrimation. It has to do with the space you are paying for, and the fact that you are using more than your one seat ticket entitles you to. It's not fair that another passenger has to be uncomfortable for the entire flight because the person sitting next to her is encroaching on what little space she has. Airlines have to be more proactive about this, requiring these "passengers of size" to either move up to first class (and pay for the privilege) or purchase a second seat in coach.

There are other ways the airlines can make the flight experience a better one ... even in coach. They can treat passengers like human beings, and not like cattle. Sure, charge for sodas ... that's no problem. Charge for snacks. Fine. I honestly don't think anyone would have a problem paying for those things. We are not stupid. We know these things cost money and our tickets are cheaper today than they ever were. I can't imagine anyone being against paying for those things. But when people have to fear that the airplane they are on maybe hasn't received a maintenance check in over a year, that's something else entirely ... and I honestly don't think given the choice that people would prefer to fly in an airplane that could be faulty just to save a few bucks on the flight.

Blue skies ...

--rita
Kyros--I agree with what you are saying except for the idea regarding putting purses in the overhead bin. My purse is where I carry my wallet, passport,tickets, meds etc. ---things I simply could not afford to lose.

Putting them in the overhead bin puts them at risk if the owner happens to be asleep or not paying attention when someone else is accessing the bin during the flight. Everytime you went to the washroom you would have to fish through the bin for your purse as you wouldn't want to leave it unattended. I don't think that idea would fly with too many people ---but the rest of what you say is very true.

[Taxguy7]

I would like to comment on 2 of your remarks, though I agree with almost everything you have posted on this thread.
1. No bags under the seat in front. My wife's legs don't touch the floor if she's sitting up. Putting her bag under the seat in front allows her a more comfortable position for those long TA flights, and never encroaches on my seat. I prefer an aisle so I can put one leg out in it and sprawl. People who bring 2 or 3 big carryons on board should have to pay for the time to move them to the baggage compartment.
2. SWA and beginning pilots. I have two friends flying as commercial pilots. One went to flight school and paid for it himself, started as co-pilot and worked long enough to be promoted to Capt. He flys for a major legacy airline. The other was a Navy pilot, carrier qualified and picked for the Top Gun school. He was talked into resigning his commision by his wife and in-laws. When their business went bad, he started flying for SWA and still does.
Pilot #1 told me it was very frustrating when sitting at a gate being with boarding started, and seeing SW come into the next gate, unload & load, and wave goodbye. Working hours for pilots don't include any time not in the air. Southwest pilots may only spend as much total time in the cockpit as legacy pilots. They sure get more experience in takeoffs and landings due to their (mostly) shorter flights.

[hammybee]

No, we do not choose to be cattle or not. We are paying our money and should be treated like human beings. And, we can be by just implementing a few changes in the way we fly ... i.e., restricting carry-on luggage, strictly enforcing the size of the space you are entitled to, etc.--rita

I have logged millions of miles over the years and have thought carry-on junk should have been nipped in the bud, decades ago. It takes time to schlep all that junk on and off.

I concluded that the practice remains because passengers can't seem to be separated from their junk and that it costs more for an airline to check it in, transport it and track it. The lines to check in and retrieve luggage would be even longer than they are.

Probably the only way it could work is for passengers to pay to check what they used to be able to carry on.

I stand by my statement that we have a choice to be treated like cattle or not. Most of us however, can't afford to pay more.

I am paying about $300 for a coach seat that used to cost me $800 which adjusted for inflation, should run $1100-1400, in 2008. How could I expect it to be the same experience it once was, given how much less I am paying? I am grateful to arrive safely. Everything else is gravy.

[kryos]

I would like to comment on 2 of your remarks, though I agree with almost everything you have posted on this thread.
1. No bags under the seat in front. My wife's legs don't touch the floor if she's sitting up. Putting her bag under the seat in front allows her a more comfortable position for those long TA flights, and never encroaches on my seat. I prefer an aisle so I can put one leg out in it and sprawl. People who bring 2 or 3 big carryons on board should have to pay for the time to move them to the baggage compartment.

Your wife obviously is an exception because of her height. She perhaps needs something on the floor in front of her to put her feet on, and if it wasn't luggage, perhaps it would be a pillow or a footstool.

But most people have more crap under that seat that it is virtually impossible for them to put their feet under there, thus requiring them to "drift" over into the space of the person sitting next to them. If that person is a traveling companion, fine ... but when it's a stranger, that can get annoying.

I don't see what the point is for the airlines to begin charging for checked baggage, yet allow people to bring all manner of stuff onto the airplane with them. Obviously, to save a buck, people will just stop checking luggage and will attempt to carry everything onboard with them. That's gonna cause delays as everyone fights for overhead bin space for their huge carry-ons, and then spends more time trying to cram the rest of it under the seat in front of them.

I only discovered what a pleasure it was to fly coach without all that crap when I took a flight from Venice to London. The airline only permitted one small carry-on ... "item of a personal nature." Nothing else. The item had to be placed into the overhead bin. You could not have say a laptop, plus a purse. The purse had to go into the laptop bag or one of them had to be checked. I couldn't believe the difference in comfort level without stuff crammed under the seat in front. There was actually adequate leg room in coach to have a fairly comfortable flight. Here in the U.S., though, space is at a premium because we bring everything onboard with us. The overhead bins are crammed solid, and I hate to think what might happen if the flight hits turbulance if any of those latches are not properly secured.

Then, to make matters worse, when it is time to deplane ... if you are toward the back ... you might as well put your head back and take another 15 minute nap, because that's how long it is going to take all those people in the seats in front of you to retrieve all their stuff from the overhead bins and clear out of the aisle so that you can get off. There's no excuse for that.

The only reason I don't like putting my feet out in the aisle is because it interrupts my sleep. The cabin attendants coming through with the beverage carts keep waking me up telling me to move them ... I'm in their way. So now I just take window seats so that I can lean against the window and sleep my way across country. A glass of red wine helps with that too.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

I concluded that the practice remains because passengers can't seem to be separated from their junk and that it costs more for an airline to check it in, transport it and track it. The lines to check in and retrieve luggage would be even longer than they are.

Real simple solution to that. Passengers either will be separated from their junk or neither they nor their junk will fly. As for it costing more to check, the airlines are charging for that privilege now, are they not. Passengers will have no choice but to check the stuff, and pay to check it. If they don't wish to do that, then they will just have to learn to travel with less "junk."

Simple as that.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[Flick]

Pray for us....we fly today to San Diego, California from Sarasota. On our last flight in July it took 5 days for our luggage to catch up with us!!!

[Boytjie]

But most people have more crap under that seat that it is virtually impossible for them to put their feet under there, thus requiring them to "drift" over into the space of the person sitting next to them. If that person is a traveling companion, fine ... but when it's a stranger, that can get annoying.

I am 6' 2". I sometimes stuff my backpack under the seat in front of me for easy access to whatever is in there. If I want the leg room, I move the backpack back against my seat so my legs go over it and under the seat in front of me.

I haven't encounterd someone next to my drifting onto my leg space, nor have I drifted into someone else's. OK, once in a while I'll drift into my partner's leg space but he is shorter and doesn't need it all. ;)


The only reason I don't like putting my feet out in the aisle is because it interrupts my sleep. The cabin attendants coming through with the beverage carts keep waking me up telling me to move them ... I'm in their way.

Feet sticking into the aisle also can trip someone else walking by. And being struck by a cart can hurt! Keep feet out of the aisles, please.

[m steve]

I've been on flights where people bring on big boxes, giant duffle bags, several roll abouts, along with sample cases, computers and big shopping bags. They get on and obviously the check in clerk and the flight attendants never stop them. It looks like one of those movies where the locals (another country) get on the train or bus with everything they own plus a few chickens, a goat and a basket of salami. It's funny in a movie but hell on a plane. Why do they have those measuring racks for carry ons when noone cares?

[Debi_D]

[quote=m steve;16049653]I've been on flights where people bring on big boxes, giant duffle bags, several roll abouts, along with sample cases, computers and big shopping bags.

with everything they own plus a few chickens, a goat and a basket of salami. quote]

Don't forget the Mexican Hats. Now those were tough to get in the overhead bin without getting cunched.....

Wedding dresses can really cause an uproar especially when the flight is full and the bride wants the entire overhead bin so that the dress will not wrinkle.

[kryos]

Kyros--I agree with what you are saying except for the idea regarding putting purses in the overhead bin. My purse is where I carry my wallet, passport,tickets, meds etc. ---things I simply could not afford to lose.

Then once the airplane is airborne, put it on your lap. A purse shouldn't take too much room. On the international flight where I saw this nothing on the floor rule, people pulled down their laptops and whatnot once we were airborne. No reason you couldn't do the same with your purse.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

Feet sticking into the aisle also can trip someone else walking by. And being struck by a cart can hurt! Keep feet out of the aisles, please.And that's exactly why the flight attendants normally wake you up and tell you to move them. And, frankly, I don't blame them.

I'm not trying to be a smart alek here ... but if someone needs that much more legroom, then they should be purchasing a first class seat where they will get it. Same goes for the larger passenger as well.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[lorekauf]

Then once the airplane is airborne, put it on your lap. A purse shouldn't take too much room. On the international flight where I saw this nothing on the floor rule, people pulled down their laptops and whatnot once we were airborne. No reason you couldn't do the same with your purse.

Blue skies ...

--rita
Great...people getting up and down a few more times to drag stuff out of the overhead bin. That's awesome:rolleyes: .

[Boytjie]

... but if someone needs that much more legroom, then they should be purchasing a first class seat where they will get it. Same goes for the larger passenger as well.

So, can two small people fly in one seat and pay half price?

I'm trying to be a smart alek here. :D

[lorekauf]

So, can two small people fly in one seat and pay half price?

I'm trying to be a smart alek here. :D
:D :D

[kryos]

So, can two small people fly in one seat and pay half price?

I'm trying to be a smart alek here. :D
Be a smark alek all you want, the fact is you ask a very valid question. I can't for the life of me understand why two small children cannot share one seat. What? They can't add a seatbelt? Is the technology for doing that so complicated?

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

Great...people getting up and down a few more times to drag stuff out of the overhead bin. That's awesome:rolleyes: .
Rather see them do that than hold everyone up when the plane lands ... pulling down all manner of crap stored in multiple bins ... while everyone in the seats behind them has to sit and wait for them to clear out. I couldn't get over how quickly that flight from Venice to London emptied. With everyone only being allowed to have one carry-on, it really made a difference.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[crusinbanjo]

I concluded that the practice remains because passengers can't seem to be separated from their junk and that it costs more for an airline to check it in, transport it and track it. The lines to check in and retrieve luggage would be even longer than they are......

........I stand by my statement that we have a choice to be treated like cattle or not. Most of us however, can't afford to pay more.

I am paying about $300 for a coach seat that used to cost me $800 which adjusted for inflation, should run $1100-1400, in 2008. How could I expect it to be the same experience it once was, given how much less I am paying? I am grateful to arrive safely. Everything else is gravy.

I think the Carry on excess is more because people want to be sure that when they arrive, their stuff arrives with them. Many of the airlines are not so good at makeing sure your luggage arrives with you, or even worse, we have all heard the horror stories about bags being rifled trough to find anything of value. My attitude is always "If I can not afford to loose it, better carry it on".

I do agree with you about the pricing. I think the airlines are foolish to think that they can continue to fly without charging a fair price for their service. If they continue to loose money in a big way, they WILL be out of business. Having said that, I think, as I have stated previously, that the airlines have many ways to cut their cost without cutting service. All needs to be done prior to any price increases, but in the end, the airlines NEED to be profitable, or we won't be getting arround by air.

As you said, "I am gratefull to arrive safely, Everything else is gravy" That is a statement I think we can all agree with!

[sapper1]

Then once the airplane is airborne, put it on your lap. A purse shouldn't take too much room. On the international flight where I saw this nothing on the floor rule, people pulled down their laptops and whatnot once we were airborne. No reason you couldn't do the same with your purse.
Blue skies ...

--rita
That is fine unless the person suffers from sciatica, as I do. The pain in my leg from sitting to travel gets quite intense and even though a purse may not weigh much, it is like adding a lead weight to my leg and causes the pain to be more intense. I cannot see the problem with my purse under the seat in front of me. It is out of everyone's way and accessable only to me. I never put any part of my body into another passenger's space. If I don't have enough legroom that is my problem and I will have to deal with it. If my purse is jammed into an overhead bin, then I would have to bother and upset people as I removed their stuff to get my purse.

Items that are needed during the flight should remain with the passenger so as to cause minimal disturbance to one's seatmates. You disturb them enough when you have to get out of your seat to go to the washroom. I also have to get up every hour and walk around to relieve the pain in my leg. Fishing in the bin everytime I need my lipstick, or something to nibble, or a pencil, or my pills, etc is ridiculous. Multiply that by every woman on the plane and the whole aisle would look like a giant jack-in-the-box the whole trip.:eek:

[m steve]

If they charged $100 for every oversize carry on or extra pieces above the allowed small bag and a personal item there would be alot less carry on. How about tagging the carry on with the seat asignment number so the inconsiderate ones could only put their stuff by their seat and not over yours.

[GmaPajama]

If they charged $100 for every oversize carry on or extra pieces above the allowed small bag and a personal item there would be alot less carry on. How about tagging the carry on with the seat asignment number so the inconsiderate ones could only put their stuff by their seat and not over yours.
I recently flew Allegiant Air. During boarding someone put a large carryon in the bin over one of the forward seats, then proceeded towards his seat near the back of the plane. One of the flight attendants hollered "no no no" and made him retrieve his carryon and take it with him. Amazing!

[lorekauf]

Rather see them do that than hold everyone up when the plane lands ... pulling down all manner of crap stored in multiple bins ... while everyone in the seats behind them has to sit and wait for them to clear out. I couldn't get over how quickly that flight from Venice to London emptied. With everyone only being allowed to have one carry-on, it really made a difference.

Blue skies ...

--rita
And if they had it at their feet rather then putting it in the overhead bins it would have been that much quicker. You are mixing apples and oranges here. If people would only be allowed one item....of course it would be quicker.

[lorekauf]

Be a smark alek all you want, the fact is you ask a very valid question. I can't for the life of me understand why two small children cannot share one seat. What? They can't add a seatbelt? Is the technology for doing that so complicated?

Blue skies ...

--rita
Two kids in one seat...c'mon. They can't manage to sit still when there is one in a seat. I don't have kids and I can see that wouldn't work for one minute. You are talking about being uncomfortable in your seat now.

[RuthC]

I recently flew Allegiant Air. During boarding someone put a large carryon in the bin over one of the forward seats, then proceeded towards his seat near the back of the plane. One of the flight attendants hollered "no no no" and made him retrieve his carryon and take it with him. Amazing!

Bravo! Bravo! Kudos to that flight attendant! May her tribe increase.

[Taxguy7]

One man's junk is another man's treasure.
One time my uncle gave me a table another uncle had given him. that he had purchased overseas. We carried it for 2 weeks in a rental car, and then tried to fly home with it. We boarded early (handicaped, usually don't use that classification:eek: )to find a place to hold it. The stewardess saw it and said "Sit up here, opposite each other, you'll have room for it and not bother other pax, don't let my supervisor see it). It was the only thing I have from that uncle except a token cash amout.:)
I agree that people spending a long time trying to stuff 2 oversized bags in front and holding up the entire boarding process are VERY low on my likeability scale:eek:

[Taxguy7]

But most people have more crap under that seat that it is virtually impossible for them to put their feet under there, thus requiring them to "drift" over into the space of the person sitting next to them. If that person is a traveling companion, fine ... but when it's a stranger, that can get annoying.

I don't see what the point is for the airlines to begin charging for checked baggage, yet allow people to bring all manner of stuff onto the airplane with them. Obviously, to save a buck, people will just stop checking luggage and will attempt to carry everything onboard with them. That's gonna cause delays as everyone fights for overhead bin space for their huge carry-ons, and then spends more time trying to cram the rest of it under the seat in front of them.

I only discovered what a pleasure it was to fly coach without all that crap when I took a flight from Venice to London. The airline only permitted one small carry-on ... "item of a personal nature." Nothing else. The item had to be placed into the overhead bin. You could not have say a laptop, plus a purse. The purse had to go into the laptop bag or one of them had to be checked. I couldn't believe the difference in comfort level without stuff crammed under the seat in front. There was actually adequate leg room in coach to have a fairly comfortable flight. Here in the U.S., though, space is at a premium because we bring everything onboard with us. The overhead bins are crammed solid, and I hate to think what might happen if the flight hits turbulance if any of those latches are not properly secured.

Then, to make matters worse, when it is time to deplane ... if you are toward the back ... you might as well put your head back and take another 15 minute nap, because that's how long it is going to take all those people in the seats in front of you to retrieve all their stuff from the overhead bins and clear out of the aisle so that you can get off. There's no excuse for that.

The only reason I don't like putting my feet out in the aisle is because it interrupts my sleep. The cabin attendants coming through with the beverage carts keep waking me up telling me to move them ... I'm in their way. So now I just take window seats so that I can lean against the window and sleep my way across country. A glass of red wine helps with that too.

Blue skies ...

--rita
Pleasure in Europe - I have also flown strict (Not as strict as yours) in E. and was very happy with that. When my wife flew from NY to LA to marry me, I took her 'purse' and it hit the tarmac!:eek: (long before skyways). Women can get plenty in a handbag or purse and we gents just have to get something to match.:p (DW has enough I only need to borrow).
Deplane - You're lucky, I don't sleep well at home on a super expensive mattress so guess how on a flight:eek: .
Feet in aisl - AND when
boarding, the other pax don't give a d--- where that 50# bag on their shoulders swings!:eek: I've tried window seats, but I try to stand up and bump my head.:(
Glass of wine - The only time I had a good sleep on a plane was on a TA from London to Houston. I met a man & we started a conversation, then moved to the rear of the aircraft which was empty. We had quite a bit (the stew asked us to quiet down a couple of times) and finally put downd some armrests and each had a 5-seat bed.:)

[Taxguy7]

Two kids in one seat...c'mon. They can't manage to sit still when there is one in a seat. I don't have kids and I can see that wouldn't work for one minute. You are talking about being uncomfortable in your seat now.
It could if the kids are small enough. 3 in a row, parents on outside, kids in middle would work.;)

[sapper1]

It could if the kids are small enough. 3 in a row, parents on outside, kids in middle would work.;)
Wouldn't you just love to be the poor guy who has to sit in the seat in front of that cozy arrangement?
Seriously, all the safety experts will tell you that it is extremely dangerous to put two people in one seat belt. In areas where there are car seatbelt laws, two people are not allowed to share a seatbelt because it is dangerous.

[Taxguy7]

Wouldn't you just love to be the poor guy who has to sit in the seat in front of that cozy arrangement?


Been there, done that. NO!:eek:

[kryos]

Two kids in one seat...c'mon. They can't manage to sit still when there is one in a seat. I don't have kids and I can see that wouldn't work for one minute. You are talking about being uncomfortable in your seat now.I'm talking very young/very small children. They would have to fit comfortably or they wouldn't be allowed to share.

As for sitting still, that's where good parenting comes in. You bring lots of activities to keep them busy and they won't squirm.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

Wouldn't you just love to be the poor guy who has to sit in the seat in front of that cozy arrangement?
Seriously, all the safety experts will tell you that it is extremely dangerous to put two people in one seat belt. In areas where there are car seatbelt laws, two people are not allowed to share a seatbelt because it is dangerous.There would have to be some re-engineering ... that's for sure. But I still say it can work ... and work safely.

I don't understand. Why would the guy in front have a problem? These kids would be very small ... toddlers to maybe four or five. Their legs probably wouldn't be long enough to kick the seat in front of them.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[lorekauf]

I'm talking very young/very small children. They would have to fit comfortably or they wouldn't be allowed to share.

As for sitting still, that's where good parenting comes in. You bring lots of activities to keep them busy and they won't squirm.

Blue skies ...

--rita
Well in Calgary there seems to be very few people willing to do good parenting. There too busy playing with all their gadgets and letting others deal with their adorable children.

[lorekauf]

There would have to be some re-engineering ... that's for sure. But I still say it can work ... and work safely.

I don't understand. Why would the guy in front have a problem? Blue skies ...

--rita
Hmmm...because they will probably be kicking the shi...... out of the back of the chair.

[kryos]

Hmmm...because they will probably be kicking the shi...... out of the back of the chair.These would be awfully young/small children. I doubt their legs would reach to the back of the chair in front of them.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

It could if the kids are small enough. 3 in a row, parents on outside, kids in middle would work.;)And don't forget, chances are those kids would come right out of the seat once the plane was airborne ... and into the parents' laps. I've rarely seen kids remain in their seats very long once the fasten seatbelts sign went off.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

And if they had it at their feet rather then putting it in the overhead bins it would have been that much quicker. You are mixing apples and oranges here. If people would only be allowed one item....of course it would be quicker.I wasn't trying to create dissention here ... I was just making an observation that I couldn't get over how much more comfortable my flight from Venice to London was with those rules in place. Plenty of leg room and I doubt the seats were any farther apart on that flight than they are here in the States.

If you feel better with your carryon under the seat in front of you, then fine ... the U.S. air carriers allow that, so you put it where you feel the most comfortable. I'm just saying that for me, I'd prefer the extra foot room so I'll keep my wallet in my pocket, and my Kindle and iPOD in the seat pocket in front of me, and my bag in the overhead. I shouldn't need to retrieve anything from it in-flight if I plan things correctly. To each his own. We can all be happy. :)

Blue skies ...

--rita

[m steve]

I believe it is a requirement to have them kick the seat in front regardless of how small they are. Also to put the back down so it is difficult to pass to the aisle for the passenger behind them. A solution is to put them in the overhead storage areas and leave to computers, pocketbooks and rollys on the seat in their place.

[CalGal777]

There would have to be some re-engineering ... that's for sure. But I still say it can work ... and work safely.

I don't understand. Why would the guy in front have a problem? These kids would be very small ... toddlers to maybe four or five. Their legs probably wouldn't be long enough to kick the seat in front of them.

Blue skies ...

--ritaOH MY!!! do you really think you could put a 3yr. old and a 4yr. old next to each other for even a 2 hr flight and they wouldn't start picking at each other? Everyone needs their space even children. and as for squirming I am 60+ and squirm on a long flight. LOL. just got back yesterday from a 2 hr flight and I squirmed.

[sapper1]

I believe it is a requirement to have them kick the seat in front regardless of how small they are. Also to put the back down so it is difficult to pass to the aisle for the passenger behind them. A solution is to put them in the overhead storage areas and leave to computers, pocketbooks and rollys on the seat in their place.
You forgot to mention the requirement that they raise and lower the table at least five times per minute. That is my personal favourite!!

[Taxguy7]

I believe it is a requirement to have them kick the seat in front regardless of how small they are. Also to put the back down so it is difficult to pass to the aisle for the passenger behind them. A solution is to put them in the overhead storage areas and leave to computers, pocketbooks and rollys on the seat in their place.
I thought so too, but found to my grateful surprise a young child behind me on a 3 hr flt who was not informed about that rule. In fact, a couple and 3 children with no disturbance to anyone.:) Some people take parenting as a given and raise kids to become responsible adults.

[kryos]

I thought so too, but found to my grateful surprise a young child behind me on a 3 hr flt who was not informed about that rule. In fact, a couple and 3 children with no disturbance to anyone.:) Some people take parenting as a given and raise kids to become responsible adults.And my hat is off to parents like that.

I have a friend who traveled by car extensively with her three children when they were young. They've driven from Philly to Florida, Virginia, the Poconos, and lots of other places. They also liked to stay on the road as much as possible, making very few stops ... only those for gas and "potty" breaks. They wanted to just get to their destination as quickly as possible ... and with her and her husband switching off the driving, that was entirely possible. Such a long car trip with few breaks would seem to be very challenging with three young children, but she said it really wasn't. She said that what she would do is stop at a dollar store before the trip and buy like $30 or $40 worth of toys and other diversions. She had her "goodie bag" up in the front passenger seat with her and the kids all in the back. When the kids would start to get rammy, she would pull out a couple of toys or activity type things, and hand them out. They would keep the kids busy for several hours. When they got rammy again, she would repeat the process ... until they were at their destination.

She said she never had a really bad car trip with the kids when they were young. She also said that they would leave the house at like 2:00 in the morning to get on the road, and the kids would sleep in the back of the van for half the trip.

All it takes is a little planning and not a whole lot of work. There is no reason any children should be a problem for their fellow passengers on a flight ... not if the parents are doing their job.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

I thought so too, but found to my grateful surprise a young child behind me on a 3 hr flt who was not informed about that rule. In fact, a couple and 3 children with no disturbance to anyone.:) Some people take parenting as a given and raise kids to become responsible adults.You were lucky. Kids like that are a pleasure to share an airplane cabin with.

I got a real winner of a mother on one of my flights home from Florida once. This woman was traveling alone with a little boy of about maybe five or so. She kept him in his seat for the takeoff, but as soon as the airplane was at cruising altitude, she unfastened his seatbelt and the kid was off. He was running up and down in the aisle, making it very difficult for the cabin crew to serve beverages. They had to constantly keep watching that the kid wasn't in the way for fear of hitting him with the cart or spilling something on him. When one asked the mother to please keep her child in his seat, the mother point blank told her that if she does that everyone in the cabin is going to have to deal with a child screaming at the top of his lungs for the rest of the flight. So, the mother would pick him up, put him in the seat, but two minutes later he was back up and running in the aisle again. It didn't seem to me that the mother was paying any attention to him. If she had just pulled out a picture book or something like that and maybe read to him or played with him, he would have been entertained and probably wouldn't have minded staying in his seat.

Frankly, had I been the cabin crew I would have immediately halted beverage service in that aisle and told the other passengers that it was too risky with a young child in the aisle. Then, if the passengers wanted beverage service, they would have had to entertain the child, since mom obviously was unwilling to.

Wonder what this kid will be like when he's grown up? With a mother like that, who knows?

Blue skies ...

--rita

[RuthC]

Frankly, had I been the cabin crew I would have immediately halted beverage service in that aisle and told the other passengers that it was too risky with a young child in the aisle. Then, if the passengers wanted beverage service, they would have had to entertain the child, since mom obviously was unwilling to.
So, you think it would have been all right to punish passengers who had done nothing wrong, and not take any action against the two who were doing something wrong.

Why not just notify the mother that you're going to continue pushing the cart up and down the aisle, and she'll have to confine the kid. Period.
Make mom and kid take responsibility for their own actions instead of making the other passengers do so.

[JimVrhovac]

Last April when we flew back from Vancouver to Orlando on the long leg we had a mother with two small children and you would not have known they were on the airplane. Well behaved and well mannered.

On the way out of the airplane made a point of complimenting the mother and her children for the manners and behavior. The mother thanked me but the kids just wlooked at me as if they did not understant me.

We all need to compliment good parents that take the time to discipline their kids and teach them good manners. A good word makes all the effort worth while

Just one couples opinion

Ruth & Jim

[kryos]

So, you think it would have been all right to punish passengers who had done nothing wrong, and not take any action against the two who were doing something wrong.

Why not just notify the mother that you're going to continue pushing the cart up and down the aisle, and she'll have to confine the kid. Period.
Make mom and kid take responsibility for their own actions instead of making the other passengers do so. Problem with that is that if the kid was hurt, say a cup of hot coffee was spilled on him, mom would have sued and would probably have won. The fault would have been considered carelessness on the part of the cabin steward.

True, I know that is not fair ... but it's just the way it is.

As for "punishing" the other passengers, again, you are right ... not fair. But sometimes you can't be fair, and if I had been the head cabin steward, that would have been my call. Either the child is kept in a seat, or the beverage cart is kept out of the aisle. I would have left the decision up to the other passengers what they wanted to do. If they wanted to "help" mom entertain her brat, and with mom's okay could keep him happily engaged and not running in the aisle while beverage service is going on, then fine. Otherwise, we have to stop the service and the people on that one window aisle are just gonna be out of luck.

Again, not fair ... but the safety of the child in this case has to be paramount. Believe me, if the kid is hurt, mom won't think "well, it really wasn't the cabin attendant's fault. I should have kept Johnny in his seat." No, she'll get a lawyer so fast it will make the airline's head spin. And you know what? She will probably win a nice settlement too. And it will be the cabin stewards on that flight who will suffer, and perhaps even lose their jobs. Mom will just come into some money, as will Johnny.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

So, you think it would have been all right to punish passengers who had done nothing wrong, and not take any action against the two who were doing something wrong.
And what "action," pray tell, do you suggest being taken against the two who were wrong? Takeoff was over, people were allowed out of their seats. Technically, mom wasn't doing anything that other passengers weren't doing ... letting Johnny get up and "stretch" his little legs.


Why not just notify the mother that you're going to continue pushing the cart up and down the aisle, and she'll have to confine the kid. Period. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Ummmmmmm ... and what if she doesn't and Johnny pops out of his seat again and is hit good and hard in the head with the beverage cart because the cabin steward didn't see him there on the floor? You think a court is going to say, "well, the cabin steward told her to confine the kid ... so it's too bad for Johnny?" You know they won't. Mom will sue, or will at the very least get some major concessions from the airline, such as free flight vouchers, etc. That cabin crew will get written up for "carelessness."

Make mom and kid take responsibility for their own actions instead of making the other passengers do so.
This one I particularly love. You're gonna hold a five year old "responsible" for his actions? Give me a break. If mom doesn't properly protect him, then it is the airline's responsibility (while he is on their airline) to do so. If mom claimed that she was letting him roam in the aisle so as to keep him happy and quiet, so he didn't disturb other passengers with "top of his lungs" screaming, whose to say she did anything wrong? The "fasten seatbelts" sign was off ... other people were walking in the aisle to use the restrooms, etc. Just because Johnny is small and maybe difficult for the cabin crew to see while they are pushing the beverage cart, well ... to me that just says the cabin crew needs to be extra careful. If they are not careful and Johnny is hurt, then the airline is at fault ... not mom. Plain and simple. Now if the "fasten seatbelt" sign was on and other passengers were told to remain in their seats, it would be a different issue entirely. But in this case, technically ... at least the way I see it ... mom may have been a lousy parent not to keep the child entertained, but other than that, she really wasn't doing anything wrong.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[RuthC]

Guess that's the difference between you and me, Rita. I have no problem seeing right from wrong.
In the example you site, the Mom is wrong. And she needs to be told so.

[lorekauf]

Guess that's the difference between you and me, Rita. I have no problem seeing right from wrong.
In the example you site, the Mom is wrong. And she needs to be told so.
No kidding.....that is why there are so many bratty kids. The parents let them do whatever they want and they know they will get away with it:rolleyes: .

[kryos]

Guess that's the difference between you and me, Rita. I have no problem seeing right from wrong.
In the example you site, the Mom is wrong. And she needs to be told so.
Then we just have a difference of opinion and will have to "agree to disagree."

Blue skies!

--rita

[kryos]

No kidding.....that is why there are so many bratty kids. The parents let them do whatever they want and they know they will get away with it:rolleyes: .Oh, I agree with you entirely. I never said mom was a good parent. And it's not just bratty kids, but delinquent teenagers, and even sometimes criminal adults.

But then, by the same token, I feel for the kid in a case like this too. A child that young needs to be somewhat entertained. Mom would have probably had no difficulty whatsoever keeping him in his seat if she had only put down her magazine and given him some attention ... perhaps reading or working a puzzle with him. So, when you get bratty kids like this, you often have to look no farther than the parents who raised them.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[gentlemancruiser]

I read the comment before I looked at the screen name, but I just knew it had to be you and it was!!!!:D I took great pains to avoid AC on our flight next summer to Copenhagen. Instead of an easy drive to Halifax to catch the AC flight we are going to TO to catch Lufthansa. The catch is ---guess who Lufthansa is going to pass us off to for the return flight from Frankfurt to TO.? You guessed it!!! In order to avoid that ,we would have to sit all day in the Frankfurt airport and get a flight out that night and we would be exhausted. There is no avoiding those people!!!!

You could try Lufthansa out of Boston, it would be closer for you. My neighbors in TO are flying to Boston to get to Barcelona on Lufthansa, but they are using points. But that's a really crazy connection for them. Lufthansa also code share flights, so be careful you are booked on to a Lufthansa plane.

[sapper1]

You could try Lufthansa out of Boston, it would be closer for you. My neighbors in TO are flying to Boston to get to Barcelona on Lufthansa, but they are using points. But that's a really crazy connection for them. Lufthansa also code share flights, so be careful you are booked on to a Lufthansa plane.
Yes, Boston is certainly closer to us but to fly from Saint John to Boston ,we would have to go through Montreal. We used to have a direct flight years ago but getting to and from the Maritimes to anywhere else is a challenge these days.
Since our cruise was chartered out and we had to change from the 20 day cruise on the Eurodam to the 26 day Northern Europe/Transatlantic, things have changed. With open jaw pricing for privately booked air so amazingly expensive we are now stuck with HAL's cruiseair to Copenhagen and from NYC. The only gateway cities they will offer us are TO and Montreal and we find TO a less confusing airport.
Since our flights won't be assigned until 30 days out, it is going to make timing our independently booked flights to and from TO a guessing game. We have decided to fly to TO the day before so we will be ready for anything they throw at us. On the way back we will just book the late night flight our of TO as we don't know when they will get us in from NYC.
This is the first cruise that we have had to arrange air for. We usually just drive down to Fort Lauderdale and back---four and one half days each way and I am beginning to think that is what we will do in the future. It is far less hassle and my husband doesn't lose my luggage!!! :D