Thread: Airline News

^ Getting kicked off a plane in Vienna is not exactly like being stuck in the middle of nowhere. When the media uses ridiculous terms like "held for ransom" they lose all credibility.

^I suppose it depends upon whether you have the cash to do anything about it when you get dumped.

Originally Posted by Strongarm

Passengers on a Comtel Air jet were forced to chip in for fuel. Picture: Comtel Air

Strange story, Comtel Air flies a Falcon 2000, the picture is a Falcon 900. Maybe you can fit 200 Indian passengers, but the aircraft can only seat 15.
Comtel Air is an on demand Charter Operator not a scheduled Airline. ????

Comtel Air probe after passengers 'told to buy fuel
BBC

Its a logish piece so I won't paste the whole thing; which simply covers whats already on the thread in more detail. But this is the bit that got me:

Bhunpinder Kandra, director of passenger services for Comtel Air, said: "I have heard what happened, it shouldn't have happened, and I will investigate why it happened.

I have worked on so many outsourcing migrations to india, this is like the stock answer you get out of every indian manager for every single fuckup.
Do you think its a phrase they rote teach in the schools?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

DUBAI - Oman's national carrier has ordered six units of Boeing's fuel-efficient 787-8 Dreamliner aircraft which recently entered commercial service, the two entities announced Monday at the Dubai Airshow.

If DUbi (SOCAL spelling) is looking for fuel efficient aircraft, this must mean they are running out of fuel.

Originally Posted by hazz

^Its all about creating an illusion of cheapness, as is treating the customers like shit. And yes they are cheap if you book well in advance and only a small percentage do. if you book within a month or so of flying when you look at their prices they are often not much cheaper than a full service carrier. But a lot of people don't check they just go to ryan or easy's web sites on the assumption they much be cheaper. Its kind of why these companies do what they can not to be on price comparison sites.

Its a classic in how marketing can be used to manipulate people in ways you would not think possible.

Never thought of that! So his free blow job pitch, went viral, passed around every guy in the office or pub. Massive free "fly Ryan Air adds" Crafty bugger, sounds just like a Dub from the North Side. lol

Originally Posted by Sailing into trouble

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

DUBAI - Oman's national carrier has ordered six units of Boeing's fuel-efficient 787-8 Dreamliner aircraft which recently entered commercial service, the two entities announced Monday at the Dubai Airshow.

If DUbi (SOCAL spelling) is looking for fuel efficient aircraft, this must mean they are running out of fuel.

Oman is not Dubai. And they fly really cheaply from the Gulf to Thailand, but at stupid times and with ridiculous layovers.

Two air travel questions:
1. Is domestic air travel to Nan (NNT) still available since Don Muang (DMK) is now closed? I believe there were two carriers flying from Bangkok to Nan, but with all the flooding and so forth this may have all come to a screeching halt. What about on-line booking and excess baggage fees for domestic flights?
2. Has anyone on this forum flown with SGA Airlines between Chiang Mai (CNX) to/from Nan (NNT)? Can one make reservations on line? Are those Cessna Caravans reliable or very noisy?
Any feedback or comments will be welcomed. Thanks in advance. My husband and I are scheduled to arrive on 1/19/2012 at Suvarnabhumi airport, and plan to do a lot of domestic air travel primarily in Northern Thailand - Nan, Phrae, Lampang, Chiang Mai, Mai Hong Son, Chiang Rai, etc.
Amina Christoph

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Oman is not Dubai. And they fly really cheaply from the Gulf to Thailand, but at stupid times and with ridiculous layovers.

Opps stand corrected!

On the evening news they state that it was a considerable amount of cash $30000 +

So do they get to take a seat home or a wheel ?

The first Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 flew in the latter part of 1958. Those initial aircraft had airspeed of close to 600 miles per hour and had comfortable economy seating. I know because I flew in one of the first B707s. Although today's aircraft have had a multitude of technical advancements that make flying safer and easier for the crew, they go no faster than 600 miles per hour. They also have economy seating that is only a little better than cattle stalls. So, in 53 years, aircraft have not increased their speed one mile per hour and have made their economy seating (which 98% of the traveling public utilize) 100% worse. Why are the engineers not doing R&D to determine what it would take to effectively increase an aircraft's speed from 600 MPH to lets say 3000 MPH and to effectively make the economy seating comfortable enough so that the traveling public is not made to feel like a dog in an animal carrier? After all, is it not an airline's job to get a passenger from point A to point B as fast as possible and as comfortable as possible? I thank them for all of the technological advancements that have made flying safer. But, all of that still does not get you there any faster or in any better comfort. If I had the funding to start up an airline I would buy or lease aircraft configured with only economy class seating at 38 to 40 inch pitch (similar to what Thai has in their Premium Economy section). First class and business class would be removed. I would rename economy class comfort class. I guarantee that I would fill up my aircraft every flight and would make money in the process. By the way, I know that the Concord was the European attempt at making faster airplanes. However, the Concord failed due to technology that was not as advanced as it is today. Today's technology could build a passenger plane that could do 3,000 mph.

Originally Posted by nigelandjan

Bit of good news for those using terminal 3 at Heathrow on Thai ,, next year later on in 2012 will be graced on that route by one or mabe two of their new A380,s ,, the other route to enjoy the big bird will be Frankfurt to BKK .

I think the plan is 3 in 2012 , then 6 in 2013 and 12 eventually.

The one going on the London BKK route is to be used domestically in Thai so the crew can get used to it before the long haul,, ( good to know were not the CTD,s )

There going to have to get people to fly with them again first,last three people i know who flew that route in the last 2 months said the outward leg averaged 80 passengers.

^ possibly due to the general situation in Thai mate mabe not the airline.

Having said that were coming over on Emirates in their new 380's via Dubai next visit ,, I fancy a bit of a break halfway and an hours mince about in the Dubai mall looking at things I cannot afford

Originally Posted by OhOh

^^99.999999% of airline passengers purchase decision is determined by price. More seats in a plane and optimal fuel economy/flight time determine the airlines cost.

Concorde was the trend setter and only US pique, because they did not have the airframes or engines to build their own, disallowed the overland supersonic flights. The sight of Concorde taking off, the kudos of supersonic travel and the PR gained by BA should never have been buried.

As for the rest of your drivel; all the other single/business class only airlines have gone bust very soon after star-up, but by all means try again.

Boy, don't you people ever stop being rude? What the hell is "as for the rest of your drivel" . I simply posed a scenario, that's all. But, leave it up to someone like you to expose your upbringing.

I did not say that an aircraft should be turned into a single business class. I stated that it should be a single economy class except with more leg room. If you take out business class and first class you would have plenty of room to expand economy class. And, what airlines have toyed with this idea and failed? I know of none. Maybe they tried all business class. But, never all economy class with premium economy room. Besides, practically no one pays full fare for either business class or first class. Most of these seats are filled with frequent flyers being upgraded or airline staff flying for free. That is the only reason you see these areas fairly full on flights.

As for the Concord, the United States built a couple of full scale SST prototypes called the Boeing 2707-300 in 1969. Original design had started in 1952. The first flight for the Concord was in 1969 and they entered service with airlines in 1976. The decision not to proceed with full production of the Boeing 2707-300 was due to many factors, one of which was environmental. The US was very capable of producing SSTs but decided not to due to the same reasons the Concord was forced to cease operation. It was not because Boeing did not have the airframe and engines. Where did you come up with that nonsense?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Floridathunderstorm

The first Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 flew in the latter part of 1958. Those initial aircraft had airspeed of close to 600 miles per hour and had comfortable economy seating. I know because I flew in one of the first B707s. Although today's aircraft have had a multitude of technical advancements that make flying safer and easier for the crew, they go no faster than 600 miles per hour. They also have economy seating that is only a little better than cattle stalls. So, in 53 years, aircraft have not increased their speed one mile per hour and have made their economy seating (which 98% of the traveling public utilize) 100% worse. Why are the engineers not doing R&D to determine what it would take to effectively increase an aircraft's speed from 600 MPH to lets say 3000 MPH and to effectively make the economy seating comfortable enough so that the traveling public is not made to feel like a dog in an animal carrier? After all, is it not an airline's job to get a passenger from point A to point B as fast as possible and as comfortable as possible? I thank them for all of the technological advancements that have made flying safer. But, all of that still does not get you there any faster or in any better comfort. If I had the funding to start up an airline I would buy or lease aircraft configured with only economy class seating at 38 to 40 inch pitch (similar to what Thai has in their Premium Economy section). First class and business class would be removed. I would rename economy class comfort class. I guarantee that I would fill up my aircraft every flight and would make money in the process. By the way, I know that the Concord was the European attempt at making faster airplanes. However, the Concord failed due to technology that was not as advanced as it is today. Today's technology could build a passenger plane that could do 3,000 mph.

Concorde failed?

Why do you think Branson wanted to keep it flying?

It brought in tons of premium cabin business for BA - people who flew across the Atlantic enough times got upgrades to Concorde, and flocked to BA because of it.

It didn't have to make a profit in its own right to add significant profits to the airline.

The Concord failed because there was no way that it could make a profit. Billions of dollars had been invested in the development by both Great Britain and some other European countries. These funds would have been impossible to pay back. I believe that there were only 20 Concords sold to airlines and they were sold at a huge loss. Putting aside the original funding, the Concords would never have been able to make a profit on their own. The costs associated with maintenance, fuel, and employees was astronomical and the price charged per seat was actually, I believe, much more than a first class ticket on a standard aircraft. Yes, prestige was a factor in keeping the planes flying for so many years. They were beautifully designed and it should have been the future of aviation. However, like I intimated, with current advances in technology as opposed to the 1960s, there is a good possibility that a viable SST could be built today.

Anyone here heard any such updates as to the continued operation and Thai doemestic start-up, Thai Regional Airlines??

Are they a go or not? Would be a great service for those of us that live in the middle of nowhere....and have a functional commercial airport that sits in cobwebs. TRA was [in theory] to serve those unmarketable locales [Surin was one] and direct connections to larger serving markets.

Any info and updates would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by Floridathunderstorm

The Concord failed because there was no way that it could make a profit. Billions of dollars had been invested in the development by both Great Britain and some other European countries. These funds would have been impossible to pay back. I believe that there were only 20 Concords sold to airlines and they were sold at a huge loss. Putting aside the original funding, the Concords would never have been able to make a profit on their own. The costs associated with maintenance, fuel, and employees was astronomical and the price charged per seat was actually, I believe, much more than a first class ticket on a standard aircraft. Yes, prestige was a factor in keeping the planes flying for so many years. They were beautifully designed and it should have been the future of aviation. However, like I intimated, with current advances in technology as opposed to the 1960s, there is a good possibility that a viable SST could be built today.

One more time: ConcordE (spell it right) did not fail. BA abandoned it because it didn't fit their business model, but it had 27 years of service when it was retired, and Branson wanted to keep flying it.

While you are correct that the bloated investment to build it was swallowed by its respective owner countries, the aircraft itself contributed to a great deal of profit for both national carriers, and would may be still flying today but for the crash in 2000 and BA's knowledge that Branson would have used it to steal customers from them.