Misleading (nearly) Advertising

[Guest fountainhall]

I loathe advertising that leads you to believe one thing but then, on examination of the small print, you realise it's usually not that at all - or there are major catches.

 

Today I got an email message from British Airways about its new A380 service from London to Hong Kong. To "celebrate", special fares are offered in all classes from now to December 31 provided you book by March 20.

 

 

As it's a celebration, you'd have thought the service would be starting around the start of this period. So I checked various dates through to October - all served by B747s. It was only then I noticed an asterisk in the copy. After the message, there is in small print - "We will start operating the A380 aircraft between Hong Kong and London from 16 November."

 

 

[Rogie]

From what you say, someone could book a flight for travel before16/11/13 - without checking - and find himself on an older plane, not the one pictured.

 

I have yet to fly on the 380 but have the impression it's fine for business class but just more of the same in cattle, i.e. awful multiplied by 2 in terms of the amount of suffering plus longer Q's at immigration.

 

I was booking flights yesterday from Manchester and noticed some flights were 380 but the majority were 777's. There were 380's MAN - DXB and DXB - BKK. (I suppose DUB is Dublin so Dubai has to make do with DXB).

 

I was going to book the airbus but in the end that flight wasn't available at the right price so I'm stuck on 777's again. Would anyone recommend the airbus for economy flights?

[Guest scottishguy]

To answer your specific question, I have found that the Emirates 380 offered little to no advantage over their 777s, in Economy class.

 

Of course, Emirates manage to squeeze an extra seat in to every row on their 777's - 10 seats across  as opposed to the normal 9 seat configuration -  so the 777 seats are (for me) very cramped in width although the legroom is fine - and although it is alleged there is a whopping 1" extra seat width on their A380's - I can't say I noticed!

[Guest fountainhall]

BA seems to have about the worst 'pitch' with only 31" between your row and the row in front. On the new A380, I see it will split economy with 2/3rds downstairs (at the back) and 1/3rd upstairs (at the back). Upstairs seating will be 8 across in 2-4-2 configuration whereas downstairs is the usual 10.

 

I haven't flown TG economy for a couple of years, but it seems to have the best 'pitch' at 34" in almost all aircraft types, and 9 seats across on the 777s. Qatar's 777s have the best width at almost 19" with 32" - 34" 'pitch'. But its A330s have just 17" width. I guess in time they're all going to reduce everything until they are only suitable for slim, short Asians!

[Guest scottishguy]

Well again speaking personally - I don't have a problem with the "pitch" (although I understand fully that others do), it's when the width is so restricted that one can barely move one's elbows to eat, that annoys me!!

 

Whilst the Western air-travelling population gets fatter and fatter, it seems that the airlines serving those areas want to cram us all into narrower and narrower seats!

 

Business Class at 3 or 4 times the price of Economy, is not an option for most. If it were only double the price I'm sure many people would be tempted to pay the extra on long-haul, but the Airlines have obviously ruled that out as uneconomical for them.

[NIrishGuy]

leading on nicely to the whole debate then about should very large people ( I mean fat of course) but asked to pay for TWO seats on a plane, the No\s of course state human rights etc which is a fair point however if I'm the person stuck wedged in in the middle of two fat people on a long haul flight and find I can't move either arm for fear of elbowing someone at that point I would be an advocate for non voluntary euthanasia never mind charging more ! lol

 

Mind you I guess the simple answer is the airlines should provide us all with a seat that's comfortable and roomy no matter WHAT for the prices they charge  !  

 

Oh and to stay on topic I TOTALLY agree re the advertising, especially re the airline trade where it seems to be rife, i get an email from "cheapflights.co.uk" once a week with some GREAT deals such as London - Bangkok for £300 etc - until you actually ring and try to book and then it seems that flight has "just been sold" ( always) and turns on they have one a year at that price and the others involve crazy layovers and are only available if you are accompanied by people over 125 years old or something and of course the next "normal" fare you get is actually dearer than the standard airline price !!   SOOOO annoying ! 

[Guest fountainhall]

I think the size and weight of any passenger is a reasonable point. Anyone weighing 120kgs or more not only takes up more space, they burn up more fuel than, say, a 13-year old or an adult Asian weighing 60kg. Let's face it, bags are weighed and charges are made for over the limits. Since fuel is the major item of expense for airlines and we all pay the same surcharges if we are sitting in the same section of the plane, why not a charge for large bodies?

 

Mind you, if we go that far, how about a charge for smelly feet or a mandatory $5 for underarm deodorant? I'm not joking! I've been on flights where the smell from the adjoining passenger's socks and shoes was so foul I could not get any sleep at all!

[NIrishGuy]

I take it you've flown air India / Jet Airways before then :-) OH MY GOD deodorant people, it isn't that difficult and surely can only be considered good manners to your fellow passengers when travelling !

 

Mind you I guess perhaps the Indian gentleman sitting beside me is probably sitting cursing the waft of soap shop and all over smelly stuff that's sitting beside him that's polluting HIS airways, each to their own and all that then i guess, but I know which smell I would rather have, washed and clean or 3 day old armpit ! :-( 

 

And going back to the weight thing when you think about it as you've mentioned they already charge your bags by weight once you're over the basic figure so why NOT charge by weight for the person to !  Ha I'd just need to be sure not to book my ticket too far in advance perhaps based on how my scales seem to go up and down with a mind of their own these days !

[Guest scottishguy]

There is merit of course is a debate over whether "larger" people might pay extra - but it ought not to be compulsory, nor ought it to be a simple doubling of the fare.

 

Although an obese passenger might be taking up twice the space - he or she is not receiving twice the service nor are they liable for two lots of Taxes, Airport Fees, Checked Luggage, Priority Boarding add-ons etc (which often make up the bulk of the fare). 

 

On the fuel issue - this is covered mostly by the base fare (I flew KLM recently and the base fare was £12 return!) although some airlines then impose a ludicrous fuel surcharge (on fuel they bought a year ago). Therefore I'm somewhat sceptical that the added fuel expended in flying a 120Kg adult (rather than an 80kg one)  within a 650 tonne fully-laden A380 is financially significant.   

 

I believe Ryanair <spit!> now allow you to voluntarily buy a extra seat and I think I noticed another airline doing something similar - but I'm quite sure they will be charging double the total fare including all taxes and add-ons which is (in my opinion) unjustifiable.

 

But the real danger of compulsorily charging fat people extra to fly is, as Founty suggests,  in developing a "where do you stop" mentality:

 

1. Might you might be charged per toilet visit -  lest some person with diarrhoea might be shitting more than their fair share?
2. Ought constipated passengers or those with Colostomy/Urine bags get a discount?
3. Might partially sighted or hard of hearing passengers demand a reduction on the in-flight entertainment?
4. Ought there to be a reduction for having a screaming baby within a 10ft radius of your seat? 

As Basil Fawlty might say "This is exactly how Nazi Germany started"

 

[NIrishGuy]

So just to clarify - are we blaming Ryan Air ( also spit) for the founding of the Nazi Empire and all that followed  -the crazy thing is is this was posted on facebook rather than be shocked and demand an immediate redaction that bugger O'Leary would probably run the story for a few days first to get the free PR out of it !  

 

And as for a reduction for having a screaming baby within 10 feet oh you - listen up airlines as he's a tip - I would pay EXTRA just to ensure there was no such annoyance with 50 foot of my on a long haul flight, creche areas / nominated baby areas on flights are WAY over due if you ask me to enable those of us who DON"T want to be tortured for 11 hours listening to someone else's kid brawling its lungs out to have the right not to !  

 

*  note - and the award for Gumpy Bastard of the week goes to ......NIrish guy it seems ! lol 

[Guest scottishguy]

...So just to clarify - are we blaming Ryan Air ( also spit) for the founding of the Nazi Empire.... 

 

YES!

 

  

 

 

[NIrishGuy]

ha and there I was fully expecting the " You started it"    "no we didn't"   " yes you did you invaded Poland" clip ! :-)

[Guest fountainhall]

I take it you've flown air India / Jet Airways before then :-) OH MY GOD deodorant people, it isn't that difficult and surely can only be considered good manners to your fellow passengers when travelling !

 

I have flown Air india - but not Jet Air. But here the issue of expectations surely comes into play. If you take an Indian airline, it is more than reasonable to assume that many of the passengers will be Indian. They are the ones that might find our bodily odours difficult to take! 

 

Westerners often forget that we have a very pronounced smell to most Asians, no matter that we take a shower before getting on to an aircraft. And most Asians don't realise that they also have a typical body odour. Inevitably it's to do with diet. The rather sweet odour that comes from a rice-based diet I find very pleasant - unless a person has been doing manual labour for a day before our paths cross! I think we'd all benefit from a free quirt of something as we get on to a plane!!

[Guest scottishguy]

I've flown Jet Air to India.

 

The people on the plane smelled fresh enough - maybe I was just lucky - but I found I could only stick India itself for 48 hours and had to get online immediately and flee to Thailand for the rest of my planned holiday. And after paying extra for a 12 month Visa - as I was so sure I'd have a good time in India, I'd want to go back!!

 

IMHO the worst people to sit or stand next to are British people who have eaten a curry - they positively reek!! 

[Rogie]

My senses are not the of the finest quality. My hearing is rubbish, that I know only too well, but now it seems my sense of smell also. I've been to India twice and the various smells, people and things, never bothered me. On flights I seem to be more often bothered by a person's deodorant (some smell vile - anyone still using Brut?) or a woman's cheap perfume than the opposite.

 

That's a good idea about the creches. I would suggest that at the first sign of obstreperous behaviour, the child will be whisked away by a smiling hostess and plonked into the creche to join those already revelling in such a suitable kiddy environment.

 

 

IMHO the worst people to sit or stand next to are British people who have eaten a curry - they positively reek!! 

 

Maybe a good reason any curry served on board is as bland as bland can be.

[Guest fountainhall]

as for a reduction for having a screaming baby within 10 feet oh you - listen up airlines as he's a tip - I would pay EXTRA just to ensure there was no such annoyance with 50 foot of my on a long haul flight

 

It's not just babies. I have been on countless flights where entire families come on board. Once up in the air, the younger children start running around the cabin as though it was their personal playground. If you're in Asia, don't expect the cabin attendants to do anything to stop them. As for the parents, they're most likely asleep. Even if you have an mask on and ear plugs in, the construction of cabins is such that you still hear the constant "thump . . . thump . . . thump" of sturdy legs running past your row.

 

Personally, I think every aircraft should have a baby and family only zone that is insulated from the rest of the cabin. It'll never happen, I know. Alternatively - and perhaps more effectively - every aircraft should have its own ejector seat. Parents should be told that any cheep out of their children - and off to the ejector seat. They also could be given a parachute with simple instructions on use. I'll bet that would keep cabins quiet 

[Guest]

Well not flying via India seems like an obvious move. At least we have the choice on that one.

 

There's no way to avoid kids on a flight though. Ideally there would be "child free" airlines. In the absence of those, why don't all these A380 operators test the water by having a "child free" floor?

Ensure all tickets are allocated properly and employ bouncers on the stairs.

 

As for the Emirates narrow seats, well so far the saving over a direct flight has always been too small to even consider taking one of their planes.

[Rogie]

 

 

As for the Emirates narrow seats, well so far the saving over a direct flight has always been too small to even consider taking one of their planes.

 

I like Emirates and some of the others like Etihad and Qatar as departures from Manchester to the airlines' hub in the Arab world avoid having to change in London. There are no direct flights Manchester to Bangkok that I am aware of, whereas passengers flying from London do have that option, for example with BA or Thai, making an Arab airline less convenient.

 

I'm not as bothered with the width of the seats as with the pitch, as I'm 6 ft and not at all obese!

[Guest fountainhall]

Ideally there would be "child free" airlines.

 

Or on routes where an airline has more than one daily fight (e.g. BA has a zillion between LHR and JFK, Emirates has 5 Doha/BKK, Cathay Pacific has 4 from HKG to JFK etc.), then surely at least one flight could be dedicated as child free - i.e. passengers must be 13+. 

[Guest scottishguy]

Unfortunately Fountainhall, attitudes have developed in such away that parents now believe it is their right to inflict their unruly brats on the rest of society, and it is our duty to accept their often appalling behaviour.

 

Anybody complaining about kids running around unsupervised is looked at with suspicion and branded a moaning old fart when all one is trying to do is have some peace and quiet.

 

In the UK, one haven from this sort of disruptive behaviour was the pub chain Wetherspoon's who previously did not allow children  on their premises. Alas, they crumbled some years ago and their bars are now awash with screaming kids running around.

 

Some bars even have play areas outside where parents can dump their kids unsupervised whilst the irresponsible parents sit inside in comfort,  getting blotto.

 

So I fear the chances of  "adults only" flights are probably zero. 

[KhorTose]

It's not just babies. I have been on countless flights where entire families come on board. Once up in the air, the younger children start running around the cabin as though it was their personal playground.

 

 

Unfortunately Fountainhall, attitudes have developed in such away that parents now believe it is their right to inflict their unruly brats on the rest of society, and it is our duty to accept their often appalling behaviour.

I know what you both mean. I once had some little darling sitting behind me, kicking my seat. When I finally got fed up and turned to ask the mother to get him to stop, she looked at me like I was some kind of monster.  She did stop him and it lasted for a whole ten minutes before he was back at it again. Times like these make me glad they won't let me carry a gun on the plane.

[Rogie]

 

 

. Times like these make me glad they won't let me carry a gun on the plane.

 

If they did allow it, it'd be like a saloon in the 'wild west' - they'd all wannabe Wild Bill Hickock, Doc Holliday and Jesse James!

[Rogie]

Or on routes where an airline has more than one daily fight (e.g. BA has a zillion between LHR and JFK, Emirates has 5 Doha/BKK, Cathay Pacific has 4 from HKG to JFK etc.), then surely at least one flight could be dedicated as child free - i.e. passengers must be 13+. 

 

An interesting idea FH. However, just supposing an airline restricted children below a certain age to certain flights nobody who wasn't a family with kids would go anywhere near it!

 

FH, I'm sorry to have to say I have spotted a most uncharacteristic mistake: Emirates fly to and from Dubai and it is Qatar who operate from Doha.

[Guest fountainhall]

You're right on both counts. A child zone only works if there are in fact kids on board. On the other hand, if I knew that one of several flights a day was guaranteed to be child free, that's the one I'd take.

 

Sorry about the confusion. Dubai is indeed the Emirates hub, not Doha.

[Guest]

Unfortunately Fountainhall, attitudes have developed in such away that parents now believe it is their right to inflict their unruly brats on the rest of society, and it is our duty to accept their often appalling behaviour.

Good to see I am not alone with these thoughts. Perhaps it's about time some of us responsible adults started campaigning for more control of unruly children, plus loads of child free travel options.