British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants

VainGlorious wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:23:43 GMT, Craig Welch
wrote:

said:

On Nov 14, 9:55 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

My wife and I flew back last weekend from Johannesburg
and London on BA. The 747 from JoBurg to LHR was full, but from there
to YYC the cattle-car section of the 777 was jammed, yet the snooty-
chairs were mostly empty. I endured 9 hours of discomfort; good thing
I didn't know until I got off that those comfy lounges were
unoccupied. Might have made noise about getting a better seat.

To what avail? Do you think they would have moved you just because
you complained?

Then the 'snooty' passengers would have made noise about being
joined by a free-loader.

This.

Like it or not, people will pay a logarithmically higher airfare in
the hope that they will have a greater likelihood of enjoying a
civilized flight. Any thinking airline would be foolish to allow the
riff raff to invade the rarified air of business and 1st class.

I just did a quickie glace at ba.com. A midweek fortnight RT in March,
JNB-LHR:

Steerage: £170
Business/Club: £1600
1st: £1817

So, let's say you paid £1600 for Business class: roughly 10x what the
commoners pay. You have an empty seat across the aisle from you.
Because some "drunken green grocer from Luton" decides he'd be more
comfortable up front, you get to spend 9 hours in abject horror as
this hideous, foul-smelling idiot drones on and on about how the Pakis
are making England a desert and coughing up phlegm, some of which
lands on your Simon Carter cufflink.


Rich people dont get drunk or misbehave???? I find that hard to believe
As for a foul smelling pax, coughing up phleghm, could be a slight
exageration on your part..


How long, do you suppose, those £1600 seats will retain their value?
The pricey seats pay for the flight. Everyone else just about covers
their share of the fuel costs.

No one likes steerage. I know I don't. I upgrade when I can, but I
understand why empty premium seats remain empty.

- TR
BTW: I find these BA airfares very affordable, all thing considered.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:57:22 +1100, Qanset wrote:



VainGlorious wrote:

So, let's say you paid £1600 for Business class: roughly 10x what the
commoners pay. You have an empty seat across the aisle from you.
Because some "drunken green grocer from Luton" decides he'd be more
comfortable up front, you get to spend 9 hours in abject horror as
this hideous, foul-smelling idiot drones on and on about how the Pakis
are making England a desert and coughing up phlegm, some of which
lands on your Simon Carter cufflink.


Rich people dont get drunk or misbehave???? I find that hard to believe
As for a foul smelling pax, coughing up phleghm, could be a slight
exageration on your part..

Of course it's an exaggeration. You can't look at the policy in
isolation or anecdotally. As an airline, you must look at the big
picture. Where's the value in business/1st class? Is it bigger seats?
Is it better food and service? That's part of it, sure. But five more
cm of seat width are not worth 10x the airfare, nor is a poached
salmon. The real value is primarily a psychological one: you are a
"VIP", and the amenities are an indication of your status. Once you
compromise that value, no one will pay for it anymore. In VIP seats,
you are more likely to have sedate seatmates and a less stressful
flight. It's not a guarantee (as anyone who's flown Alaska Air 1st
class will tell you), but you are statistically more likely to have a
civil flight in business or 1st than you are in steerage. VIPs like to
think of themselves as more refined and they like to display their
refinement. Airlines take advantage of this.

Yes, there ARE yahoos and boors in 1st class seats. It happens. But
not as much as in steerage. The airlines count on this and make
efforts to maintain this. They have no vested interested in giving
away upgraded seats to the common scum. There is no advantage in it.

- TR
- a common scum who occasionally flies business/1st class.

On Nov 23, 10:55 pm, VainGlorious
wrote:

Yes, there ARE yahoos and boors in 1st class seats. It happens. But
not as much as in steerage. The airlines count on this and make
efforts to maintain this. They have no vested interested in giving
away upgraded seats to the common scum. There is no advantage in it.

- TR
- a common scum who occasionally flies business/1st class.

I was upgraded from steerage to business once, on KLM from UK to SF.
Also, when AF lost my seat assignment in business they upgraded some
oik to sit in my seat - she looked a bit ****ed off to be booted back
to the tourist section when I showed up.

I think what "VIPs" want most of all is to have a chance of sleeping
so they can stay awake in meetings the next day. I know that's what I
most like about flying business.

B;

Following up to VainGlorious wrote:

Rich people dont get drunk or misbehave???? I find that hard to believe
As for a foul smelling pax, coughing up phleghm, could be a slight
exageration on your part..

Of course it's an exaggeration. You can't look at the policy in
isolation or anecdotally. As an airline, you must look at the big
picture. Where's the value in business/1st class? Is it bigger seats?
Is it better food and service? That's part of it, sure. But five more
cm of seat width are not worth 10x the airfare, nor is a poached
salmon. The real value is primarily a psychological one: you are a
"VIP", and the amenities are an indication of your status.

10cm of legroom is worth quite a lot to me. My observation of business
class and pseudo business class seats are that you have at very least
double the chance of not having children kicking the back of your seat
and screaming or being sat next to some foul individual of some sort.
I couldnt give a **** for status.
--
Mike
Remove clothing to email

On 23 Nov, 21:55, VainGlorious wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:57:22 +1100, Qanset wrote:

VainGlorious wrote:
So, let's say you paid £1600 for Business class: roughly 10x what the
commoners pay. You have an empty seat across the aisle from you.
Because some "drunken green grocer from Luton" decides he'd be more
comfortable up front, you get to spend 9 hours in abject horror as
this hideous, foul-smelling idiot drones on and on about how the Pakis
are making England a desert and coughing up phlegm, some of which
lands on your Simon Carter cufflink.

Rich people dont get drunk or misbehave???? I find that hard to believe
As for a foul smelling pax, coughing up phleghm, could be a slight
exageration on your part..

Of course it's an exaggeration. You can't look at the policy in
isolation or anecdotally. As an airline, you must look at the big
picture. Where's the value in business/1st class? Is it bigger seats?
Is it better food and service? That's part of it, sure. But five more
cm of seat width are not worth 10x the airfare, nor is a poached
salmon. The real value is primarily a psychological one: you are a
"VIP", and the amenities are an indication of your status. Once you
compromise that value, no one will pay for it anymore.

One of the biggest factors is ticket flexibility. For fully flex
business class you get your money back if you simply don't show up.

Also remember that many business class tickets are not paid for by the
people who use them: that is why it is called 'business class'.

In VIP seats,
you are more likely to have sedate seatmates and a less stressful
flight. It's not a guarantee (as anyone who's flown Alaska Air 1st
class will tell you), but you are statistically more likely to have a
civil flight in business or 1st than you are in steerage.

You suffer the same delays and flight cancellations, regardless of
class. In case of poor service, you might can higher compensation
based on the ticket class you booked.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
British Airways has admitted flying dozens of "ghost flights" across the
Atlantic, with only pilots and cargo aboard (and no passengers), because
it
doesn't have the crews to staff the flights with passengers:

http://www.emailthis.clickability.co...5276864& pt=Y

Some of the ghost flights are apparently flown just to keep slots at major
airports active, even though every ghost flight burns tons of fuel.

Why don't they just hire more FAs?

It is highly improbable that they are turning away customers who would
otherwise be on these flights. Instead, other flights will be flying at a
higher capacity than they would if these flights were available. So, hiring
more cabin crew to allow these flights to carry passengers would simply add
to the cost of flying them without bringing in more income. If demand rises
to the point where they need the seats on those flights, they will hire more
staff and they won't have lost the slots they need to fly them.

Colin Bignell