Worst Airline

OK we have done the airports but lets now share trip reports on the worst airline anybody has travelled with - My vote would be China Eastern - just dreadful-
BA, so I'm told, are actually quite good
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?
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by sailor99Didn't VS' new Head of Customer Service used to work there...?
Sorry, did I hear someone say Aeroflot?