For all non-Virgin travel topics, with subforums for popular common themes.
#96847 by VS045
03 Feb 2006, 20:34
My opinion has almost no fact/evidence/truth behind it, but my first reaction is to say the dark side...[}:)];)

Anyway, I don't really have a worst airline, but my worst experience has been on AF. Cooincedentally, this was on the same trip I mentioned in other thread.
Flying to REU, we were separted and each got stuck in the middle of a block of four on their ageing 742s.[xx(]

Also, the crew/food were awful. I saw one FA push this boy out of the way as he failed to move fast enough from her oncoming trolley. Not exactly world class service is it...[:(!][xx(][n]

Cheers,
VS045
#96850 by preiffer
03 Feb 2006, 20:37
BA, so I'm told, are actually quite good [:I]

Simple answer in my mind - Ryanair. Worst company ethos/practices/leader I've ever come across in the airline industry. And they're not even that cheap any more! [n]
#96862 by p17blo
03 Feb 2006, 20:52
Thomsonfly - And to top it all have the seen the taxes from CVT!?

Paul
#96863 by VS045
03 Feb 2006, 20:52
BA, so I'm told, are actually quite good


How dare you say such a thing on this forum, Paul!;)[8D]:D

Cheers,
VS045
#96875 by porsche911
03 Feb 2006, 21:05
yes ryanair is is pathetic. I know they are cheap, yes cheap and nasty
#96978 by Kryten
04 Feb 2006, 09:33
Ryaniar and Sleazyjt are up there as some of the worst for sure. I also flew Balkan a long time ago in a TU-144 which was really quite bad.

Also, I was not happy with Swiss when I took them to Zurich, they made me check my small case that I always take onboard with other airlines because it was 8KG in weight! Not happy there. Not tried them since merging with LH though so it may have chnaged with me being *A Gold?
#96997 by seany
04 Feb 2006, 12:04
There is a thread here on the same sort of topic
#96999 by Littlejohn
04 Feb 2006, 12:16
I'd go for ryan too. China Eastern have always been pretty good IMHO. They were my choice before VS for LHR PVG. Food Ok and 34" in Y has to be good in anyones book. And all for about £200 less than SAS at the time. Air China on the other hand was dire, especially as one had to take 4 hours in Bejing which is dire too.
#97006 by honey lamb
04 Feb 2006, 13:22
OK, while you're all knocking Ryanair (and I'm also in the queue) I have to say I have never had a bad flight on them. It does what it says on the tin - gets you from A to B. However what makes it nerve-wracking pre-flight is the anxiety of what will happen if something goes wrong, although my flights with them have been only to STN and DUB so that there have always been fall-back solutions, allbeit at a cost. In-flight the most annoyiing thing is the intensive marketing but an iPod and closed eyes can solve that problem
#97011 by mike-smashing
04 Feb 2006, 14:14
Originally posted by Kryten
Ryaniar and Sleazyjt are up there as some of the worst for sure. I also flew Balkan a long time ago in a TU-144 which was really quite bad.

Also, I was not happy with Swiss when I took them to Zurich, they made me check my small case that I always take onboard with other airlines because it was 8KG in weight! Not happy there. Not tried them since merging with LH though so it may have chnaged with me being *A Gold?


Well, a couple of interesting comparisons in our Swiss experiences. I'm UA Premier Exec (*A Gold).

Even though Swiss haven't formally joined *A yet, their staff are starting to soften around the edges.

The only time I've been on Swiss and asked to check-in or gate check a small carry on bag is when a sector involves an Avro RJ.

I have one of these small Samsonite roll-aboards. On the Airbuses, I've never had a problem with it on Swiss, I've always been allowed to take it in the cabin. I've even taken this bag in the cabin on the Avro RJs when the passenger load has been 50% or less.

I actually don't mind checking the bag on an inbound sector to London City, for example, because it only takes a couple of minutes for your bag to come out anyway! :D

On a recent trip through Zurich, the Swiss hadn't softened enough to let a A* Gold card holder in the Swiss lounge, so instead I headed over to the Star Alliance lounge, where I wasn't strictly entitled to use it (as I was departing on Swiss), but the Lufthansa person on reception considered the LH take over of LX a "done deal" and therefore of course I should make myself comfortable! [8D]

Cheers,
Mike
#97030 by porsche911
04 Feb 2006, 16:17
sailor
sorry i meant air china
getting my chinese airlines mixed up
keith
#97128 by williestott
04 Feb 2006, 19:36
Charters aside - Ryanair most certainly gets my vote.
Would agree, "does what it says on the tin", indeed I have had several "good" Ryanair flights (compared to say a KLM or BMI flight on a similar route) - however when I think up all the "worst" flights Ive had (package holidays aside), all are on Ryanair.
Maybe there is a touch of hindsight-comaparison & im being overly critical? [?]
Ive never had a flight I truly wished I hadnt been on, nevertheless Ryanair does get most bad marks.
Seating on Ryanair is my biggest complaint & for virtually no cost they could implement allocated seating. Surge to board is bad enough when your flying with allocated seats.
Also, when you compare final price - sometimes the compromise in quality isnt worth the LCC (more-so if your going on to another destination with another LCC flight, point-to-point they are usually cheapest option). I chose KLM to get me from Scotland to Vienna return (was going out to Bratislava to visit my brother for a few nights). 3 nights Vienna (train onto Bratislava for another 3) - this actually worked out as cheap as taking Ryanair to Stansted & SkyEurope to Bratislava , plus my baggage was checked through.
Id certainly fly Ryanair again if I had to (they`ve some new routes from Scotland to places Id like to visit [^][:(!][:0][:$][?]).
What they have done for air-travel in Europe has to be applauded (if not for Ryanair, Scotland might still only have 3/4 direct flights to Europea, instead of a dozen++ routes we now have).
Seating aside - customer service leaves much to be desired. Ive never had need for inflight-assistance , which is maybe just as well. When they do view you as a customer , tends to be from the moment you step onto the plane to the minute you step off. Yes, it "does what it says on the tin" - however with cust.service levels & seating arrangements etc , they would have to get my vote as worst airline Ive flown[n].
#97131 by AerJohn
04 Feb 2006, 19:39
Originally posted by preiffer
Simple answer in my mind - Ryanair. Worst company ethos/practices/leader I've ever come across in the airline industry. And they're not even that cheap any more! [n]


But you can't argue with the results. Profitablity year in year out by a long way (which some US airlines would die for). Cheaper tickets through out Europe, both with no-frills and fill airlines over the last few years. And a genius of a leader that knows how to conduct business for the best intrest of the business (even if it's not conventional)

Like HL said it does what it says on the tin and you can't argue with that. And i ain't no fan of Ryanair
#97179 by VS045
04 Feb 2006, 22:46
Whilst Ryanair may get you from A to B (sometimes), it leaves a lot to be desired and to get the cheap fares you have to book several decdes in advance.[:(!]

Cheers,
VS045
#97189 by Scrooge
04 Feb 2006, 23:39
Delta,bad seating,little or no IFE,pay for everything and still try and hit you with a full fare.
#97210 by Richard28
05 Feb 2006, 01:30
Agreed with everyone on Ryanair, but I have done easyJet a few times now, and despite some of my fellow v-flyers reservations about them ;), other than punctuality issues, I've never had a problem.

As for my vote, I think it would go to Iberia. I flew on a codeshare flight (BA to Madrid, and IB back), and whilst BA on an A319 was superb, the flight back on the IB A320 was attrocious.

To this day I still do not know, or want to know, what was in that sandwich!

Since I flew them they no longer do free catering on board, which is probably a good thing....
#97440 by AerJohn
05 Feb 2006, 22:40
Originally posted by VS045
Whilst Ryanair may get you from A to B (sometimes), it leaves a lot to be desired and to get the cheap fares you have to book several decdes in advance.


It isn't just Ryanair, most of the LLC are like this.
#97546 by willd
06 Feb 2006, 14:18
How do you define bad guys?

FR are one of the fastest growing airlines and clearly provide a service that is needed- cheap short flights that are frequent. If there was no demand then there wouldnt be an airline. Too many people slag off FR and EZY without remembering how much they pay for a ticket- if you get a ticket for £10 dont expect UCS service. It would be like getting in a Ford and expecting the car to drive and be finished like a Bentley- it just isnt going to happen. Just because you travel in a bentley the whole time doesnt mean that the ford is bad- its just different to what your use to. The majority on here fly in UCS it seems so therefore flying FR/EZY will be a shock to the system but if you expect the worst and not UCS service then you shouldnt think they are bad. Its all about ones expectations.

A number of legacy carriers are worse IMHO than a number of the LCC's. Look at AZ, IB, DL, UA, QF domestic...they are all offering a poor service with rubbish food.

I dont want to say one carrier is worse than another- and you must remember that so much of your experience is down to the crew, the aircraft type, the destination etc. VS have provided me with some shockers- but i havent done a runner from them. Its all about having an open mind and no preconcieved ideas- something which is very hard in todays age due to the influnece of the media etc.
#97602 by williestott
06 Feb 2006, 18:38
Originally posted by willd
How do you define bad guys?
FR are one of the fastest growing airlines and clearly provide a service that is needed- cheap short flights that are frequent. If there was no demand then there wouldnt be an airline. Too many people slag off FR and EZY without remembering how much they pay for a ticket- if you get a ticket for £10 dont expect UCS service. It would be like getting in a Ford and expecting the car to drive and be finished like a Bentley- it just isnt going to happen. Just because you travel in a bentley the whole time doesnt mean that the ford is bad- its just different to what your use to. The majority on here fly in UCS it seems so therefore flying FR/EZY will be a shock to the system but if you expect the worst and not UCS service then you shouldnt think they are bad. Its all about ones expectations.


Very true - however whilst Ryanair are quick to throw the "low fares" card in your face, they arent always the cheapest option.
"Creative Marketing" as a couple of my lecturers would have referred to it (Did Marketing & Management at Uni a few moons ago).
Key with any LCC is finding the cheap fares. I dont object to budget service when Ive paid budget prices , but I do have issues if Im paying a more premium fare & getting the same budget service. Was looking at a short break for this spring - cant get Barcelona or Florence for under £100 return pp (all in) with Ryanair. Once Im at that price level I am able to get offers with other carriers, albeit with a connecting flight. Bearing in mind that if I take BA to Barcelona im not getting dropped off 50miles away (although I might end up on an Iberia codeshare [:0] [:p] [:o)])

Its a simliar situation if you want to fly most LCC to London - its often just as cheap to fly BMI or BA, unless you plan a long time in advance. Esp. once you factor in the cost (and time!) of getting from airport to final destination.

As for "low fares" - all the LCC's are good for showing their low "fare" , but not the final cost to the customer - whereas full-service airlines advertised prices (usually) are the final price.
Also - with any airline, you generally do have to book in advance to get the lowest fares. I had to book last week to get low-fares to NYC in June, didnt matter what airline I wanted. Risk I could take was to hold on & hope for a last-minute deal, Id rather ensure my seats & route now though, that way I can work to specific dates & get all my hotels booked.

NB: Ive never flown UC & my first PE flight will be this June - Ive only ever flown economy & yes, full-service airlines economy service is better than the LCC's, and given the choice I would rather take a BA flight from GLA to Barcelona if it meant I was paying an extra £50 but ensuring a guaranteed seat (not a free for all) plus an extra couple of inches legroom. Given the costs of getting from Girona to Barcelona, the extra £50 doesnt seem so bad. The extra-time taken to connect at LHR drifts into the background when sitting on a bus for over an hour to get down the Spanish coast too.

LCC's arent bad, I am still a fan - infact GermanWings is one of my favourite airlines of any genre... Ive flown with them a couple times from EDI to Cologne & cant praise them enough.
Ryanair will continue to grow, because someone like me will continue to use them. Whilst I may not desire to use them - they at least are not ignoring the majority of the population who arent commute-distance to LHR or LGW.
I find it amazing that BA or Virgin for example have never even trialled flights from GLA or EDI - whilst in the last few years Emirates have started flights to Dubai, Continental from experimenting on GLA-NYC now have THREE routes (2x GLA, 1x EDI), AA fly GLA - ORD, Delta start a new service from EDI to Atlanta this year whilst US fly to GLA - Philly.

The LCC's have given regions the chance of direct flights to other places without having to go via London to get somewhere - Germanwings are now doing this in Germany & its been interesting to watch their growth in routes across Europe.
The growth of Ryanair has been fascinating too though - but you have to wonder would it continue were the likes of BA & BMI to start offering direct flights from regional airports to European destinations (whether matching them on a complete budget service, or offering slightly higher fares with a bit more service... "BAConnect" for example could be interesting if they decide to open up a couple of routes outwith the UK)

I dont really care about meals on any flights & have no preconceptions that I`ll get a nutrious & filling meal. I figure worse case scenario is Im somewhere between 6 and 12 hours until I can get roomservice! I often go from breakfast to dinner without eating (sometimes with only a Mars bar), so its not like the meal is essential.

If I cant get a cheap LCC fare though, i dont use them - I dont want a budget service for a premium cost , and I think this is more of an issue with peoples dislikes of LCC flights. If youve only paid £30 to get from Prestwick to Barcelona(Girona), you dont mind so much - when youve paid £100 & still need to travel onward to get to the city itself, it is definately more of an issue. I think the bottom line is the perceived value for money, whoever you fly with.
#97605 by catsilversword
06 Feb 2006, 18:54
Air India gets my vote - because of the interminable delays. Only flew with them once (well, twice, I suppose you have to count the return flight too!) and it was delays all the way.

Curry served on board was good though - probably the bext food I've had on a flight! :D
#97607 by Richard28
06 Feb 2006, 19:01
Originally posted by williestott
I find it amazing that BA or Virgin for example have never even trialled flights from GLA or EDI - whilst in the last few years Emirates have started flights to Dubai, Continental from experimenting on GLA-NYC now have THREE routes (2x GLA, 1x EDI), AA fly GLA - ORD, Delta start a new service from EDI to Atlanta this year whilst US fly to GLA - Philly.


All to do with hubs.

It is easier for AA to fly to GLA from a hub, than it would be for VS/BA to base an aircraft in GLA permanently.

The reason for this is that with AA, they would have their whole network in the USA to back up the route, allowing pax to travel GLA-ORD-LAX for example, whilst if VS were to fly the route they would be relying more on O&D (origin and destination) traffic.

If there is sufficient O&D demand (eg MAN-MCO) then it can be done, however if it is questionable, then there is a financial risk in launching such a service.

An easier option is for the airline to maximumise trafffic/returns at its existing hubs first (eg LHR/LGW/MAN in the case of VS).

This is even more true when the yields (average people will pay for a seat) are so much higher in London because of the business demand.
#97818 by williestott
07 Feb 2006, 13:24
Originally posted by Richard28
All to do with hubs.
It is easier for AA to fly to GLA from a hub, than it would be for VS/BA to base an aircraft in GLA permanently.
The reason for this is that with AA, they would have their whole network in the USA to back up the route, allowing pax to travel GLA-ORD-LAX for example, whilst if VS were to fly the route they would be relying more on O&D (origin and destination) traffic.
If there is sufficient O&D demand (eg MAN-MCO) then it can be done, however if it is questionable, then there is a financial risk in launching such a service.
An easier option is for the airline to maximumise trafffic/returns at its existing hubs first (eg LHR/LGW/MAN in the case of VS).
This is even more true when the yields (average people will pay for a seat) are so much higher in London because of the business demand.


Major metropoli (is that the correct plural of more than one metroplis??) will always have greater demand & generally act as a international hub routes as much as final-destinations.
Re: Yields : this was more my point... Clearly there is a suitable enough yield for CO that they have gone from 1 to 3 flights in only a couple of years. I follow them closely in the hope of last minute specials etc & rarely can I get a fare cheaper than Virgin (at the point that were I 60miles from LHR instead, I would pay the extra £20-£30 to fly VS). The dates I wanted in June, it worked out about £25pp dearer to connect @ LHR & fly VS. However, if Id been 60miles from LHR instead - it would actually have been £75pp LESS.
Clearly VS will be happy for ppl to connect to their bases just for the VS experience. However, whilst a 2nd carrier flying the route would obviously create competition & impact yield - with the average CO fares I find being no cheaper than VS fares direct from LHR. Surely its something that ought to be at least trialled?
CO are also opening up routes to other regions & we`ll obviously need to wait longer term to see if this impacts VS yield at all - although with a 6th route being opened to NYC from London, clearly not so far.

Im fairly sure that VS would have a few dozen routes from LON and also MAN they would consider long before they added any from GLA/EDI.
The history of VS made some interesting reading & theyve cleary expanded slower than some other airlines (some of which admittedly have financial issues), at the same time bringing out a more profitable airline with a better reputation.
It frustrates me at times that a couple of these more presitigous airlines dont seem to consider a few more direct routes from places like GLA & MAN, there`s certainly a demand, even if it couldnt sustain daily flights to meet required yield (although I also think more would fly if they could get direct flights). We now have Emirates , but that wont get me to the USA quickly :)
#97845 by Littlejohn
07 Feb 2006, 14:25
Sorry, did I hear someone say Aeroflot?
#97846 by preiffer
07 Feb 2006, 14:29
Originally posted by sailor99
Sorry, did I hear someone say Aeroflot?
Didn't VS' new Head of Customer Service used to work there...?


Ah - That'd be the one... [:w]
Virgin Atlantic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Itinerary Calendar