From: Dennis P. Harris on
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:16:00 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX(a)spammotel.com> wrote:

> Adding the flight origin wouldn't be too difficult
> but I suspect it's a piece of information that airlines try hard not
> to reveal for commercial reasons.

They don't bother because it's usually irrelvant to anyone but
chronic whiners like you the customer from hell. You're the kind
of guy that would complain about the cheap rope while they're
tying the noose for your hanging.

You wanted a cheap seat, you got one. You knew how small they
were.

From: Dennis P. Harris on
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:18:25 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird
<RHBIYDTNPPAX(a)spammotel.com> wrote:

> Thanks for that info. It's further evidence that airlines are running
> their business to suit themselves, not in the customer interests.
>
err... that's how corporations are intended to run, for the
benefit of their shareholders, not for the benefit of their
customers, their supposed home country, the world, or anyone
else.

folks need to remember constantly that corporations are a legal
construct designed to maximize the profits of the owners and
investors while shielding those owners and investors from legal
liability for their actions.

in order for corporations to achieve any kind of socially
redeeming purpose, they must be regulated and legally
constrained.

only the most naive would think that corporations would be put
customer satisfaction ahead of shareholder greed, or long term
growth ahead of pumping up this quarter's stock price.


From: Tchiowa on
On Mar 1, 4:30 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...(a)gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:18:25 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird
>
> <RHBIYDTNP...(a)spammotel.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for that info. It's further evidence that airlines are running
> > their business to suit themselves, not in the customer interests.
>
> err... that's how corporations are intended to run, for the
> benefit of their shareholders, not for the benefit of their
> customers, their supposed home country, the world, or anyone
> else.

Very true.

> folks need to remember constantly that corporations are a legal
> construct designed to maximize the profits of the owners and
> investors while shielding those owners and investors from legal
> liability for their actions.

Utter nonsense.

> in order for corporations to achieve any kind of socially
> redeeming purpose, they must be regulated and legally
> constrained.

Even worse.

> only the most naive would think that corporations would be put
> customer satisfaction ahead of shareholder greed, or long term
> growth ahead of pumping up this quarter's stock price.

Some corporations act solely in the near term, as you suggest. Those
corporations tend not to last very long. Good corporations know that
taking care of the customer is the best way for a long term stable
company.

In the case of the seating that people complain about, the fact is
that the vast majority of customers have made it clear that they are
willing to accept cramped space and reduced service in order to get
lower costs. The low cost airlines proved that and the rest of the
industry is following their lead. This is customer satisfaction at its
best. Or worse, as you may view it.

A good example of proof of that is the dramatic *increase* in service
for Business and First Class. Those people have said that service is
more important than cost so they're getting improved service. The
economy passenger has made a different choice so the airlines are
accomodating them.

From: hummingbird on
On 27 Feb 2007 21:04:37 -0800 'Tchiowa'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

>On Feb 27, 5:16 pm, hummingbird <RHBIYDTNP...(a)spammotel.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2007 16:52:42 -0800 'Tchiowa'
>> posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>
>> >> If you can't see the bad experience I described here, I'm sorry for
>> >> you...perhaps you aren't aware of what a nightmare flying is becoming
>> >> these days: 3-4 hours to check-in, ineffective security checks, shoes
>> >> off at LHR, personal items in plastic bags, inadequate seating, flight
>> >> delays, damaged luggage, lost luggage etc etc.
>> >
>> >I disagree with you completely.
>>
>> Too bad. The world is full of defeatists who accept anything that's
>> thrown at them. My original post was intended to generate some debate
>> about how the airlines run their business as much as to complain about
>> my recent experience with British Airways.
>
>There is a difference between being a defeatist and complaining
>because the world doesn't work the way you want it to. The world was
>not designed to make everything happen exactly the way you want it to.
>Understanding that is part of "growing up".

Lol. An American joker...

You are being defeatist because you are essentially arguing in support
of the current airline model even though many people dread flying
nowadays because of the way they are treated and packed in like
cattle. Long haul flights can easily become a PITA of nightmare
proportions. Even upgrading to 1st may not guarantee a good flight
as someone pointed out to me a while ago.

If you carefully read my original post and my additional posts, you
will see that I have raised genuine concerns about the current model
of airline business. EG: I believe that airline seats are simply not
wide enough for anybody larger than small-to-medium width; airlines
are overbooking seats and causing passenger disruptions/delays etc.

It cannot be fair that a passenger buys a long haul ticket only to
find that he/she is seated next to another passenger who is larger
than medium and overflows their seat space for 13hrs.

And exactly what should an airline do in the BA situation in Bangkok
I first described? If I assume that BA had not overbooked my flight
*as they claimed* but were actually trying to find seats on my flight
for passengers dumped off the previous night's flight due to a techy
problem, should they roll over the problem to my flight? or should
they try to isolate it and deal with it without affecting my flight?
I was told that the reason they rolled it over was due to some 24hr
rule on compensation but I have no info on this.

Most of these things are not in the interest of passengers, only the
airlines. Airlines *choose* their business model and obviously it's
designed to maximise their bottom lines. IE they don't have to pack
seats into planes like a sardine can, but they choose to.

All I'm really saying is that there are problems with the current
model as evidenced by the growing numbers of people who dread flying
nowadays, but I have not actually set out my own ideas for change.
I wanted to see what other people had to say about it.


>Regardless of your intention behind your original post, it came off as
>rather an immature whining session. Several people have tried to
>explain reality to you in this thread and you won't listen to any of
>us.

People see what they want to see based upon the prism through which
they view events. One or two other posters saw my post for what it was
- a portrayal of the current state of flying.


>> IMHO it's long overdue that governments need to introduce some sort
>> of passenger charter which defines the minimum standard of travel on
>> airlines. Currently, airlines are a law unto themselves and get away
>> with treating passengers like cash cows involved in a race to the
>> bottom in order to increase passenger numbers and profits.
>
>No need for government intervention. The free market will take care of
>itself. And despite what you want, it is the free market that is
>demanding smaller, cheaper seats.

I disagree. A large part of the problem is that airlines are virtually
above the law across the world. The rights of passengers are pitiful.
Witness that the seating problem I described provides me with little
recourse.
And free markets are not the solution to many problems, despite the
American obsession with them. I could also rant on about the current
situation with Microsoft and its new Vista Op/Sys.


>> >Thur was right.
>>
>> Not so. His comments were more defeatism.
>
>No. His comments are realism.

No, his comments were a justification of the current reality.


>> >For the record I fly
>> >over 100,000 miles a year, every year and have for a couple of
>> >decades. So I'm well aware of what flying is like.
>>
>> Yippy for you. I have also done *a lot* of flying in my life but I
>> don't see what that's got to do with it.
>
>You had made a comment to another poster about him not having much
>experience in flying.

No I did not.


>> >I would *not*
>> >describe it as a nightmare. I think you've over-reacted.
>>
>> IYO. You have obviously missed the points of my original post.
>>
>> >There was a cancelled flight.
>>
>> I never said that - only that cancellation was touted unofficially.
>> British Airways in Bangkok made *no* mention of a cancelled flight.
>> Recall that their Bangkok memo only mentioned *overbooking*.
>
>You said that there was a cancelled flight from the previous day which
>exacerbated the overbooking situation.

Yes, I said it was mentioned "unofficially" (by other passengers).

I repeat: BA made no mention of a cancelled flight the previous day
- only that they had overbooked my flight. That's what their memo
revealed at check-in after we had queued for two hours or so.

It is true to say that while we were sitting on the plane for two
hours before take-off, the Captain of my flight casually mentioned a
*technical problem* which he assumed we knew about (but did not) and
that we were now waiting for 35 passengers who had arrived late at the
airport and were going through the airport immigration procedures etc.
This was not exactly true.

Unofficially, these passengers were still in the Bangkok hotel while
BA worked out how many of them could be seated onto my flight and
they were then transported to the airport.
This of course was a movable target as they pressured passengers on
my flight at check-in to bump off and accept an alternative travel
package. Hence the two hour delay before take-off.

Q, should BA have boarded my flight in the certain knowledge that we
would not take-off until the 35 other passengers had been brought to
the airport and ticketed?


>> >That is going to create seating
>> >problems. It's a reality in flying. It happens. Be prepared for it.
>>
>> I'm well aware that if there is a cancellation, it will cause some
>> disruption.
>> I'm usually interested to know what has caused the cancellation,
>> whether it's for genuine tech reasons or some commercial reason
>> (airlines sometimes cancel a flight for consolidation reasons).
>> I'm also interested in how the airline deal with the problem.
>
>And how would that knowledge have affected your seat assignment or any
>of the other complaints that you have?

If you read my original post, you will note that I made a number of
points - my seat allocation was just one of them.


>> >Some of your complaint are "off the board". Examples:
>>
>> >Inadequate seating: You asked for a small seat. You bargained for a
>> >small seat. There are bigger seats available but you chose not to pay
>> >for one. People have complained a long time about small seats in
>> >Economy, but when given a choice between slightly larger seats at a
>> >slightly higher cost in Economy the vast majority choose cost over
>> >comfort. So you get what you pay for.
>>
>> Wrong. *I did not ask for a small seat*.
>
>Of course you did. You booked Economy. Are you telling me that BA
>doesn't have Business or First?

This is nonsense.


>> The choices available to me at booking were economy, business or
>> first. BA do not offer "slightly larger seats at a slightly higher
>> cost in Economy" as you say.
>
>Read what I said. The customers have spoken that they won't pay for
>more space so the airlines don't offer it.

IYO. Others may disagree.
I suggest that it's got more to do with *follow the herd*.
Business - the free market as you describe it - has an amazing habit
of acting like lemmings. Customers are rarely involved.

Do you really believe that *customers* have asked for all the DRM and
other techy restrictions in the latest MS Vista Op/Sys?


>> I would usually happily pay a premium on long haul flights for a
>> larger seat with more space but this isn't available on most airlines.
>> Business and first are way too expensive.
>
>As they are for most people. But that is still a choice you make. You
>put money as your first consideration ahead of service then complain
>because of the choice you made.

Who is now behaving like an immature poster?
When I book a flight, I expect a minimum acceptable standard of
service but I rarely receive it.


>> It is my opinion that airlines cram too many seats into their planes
>> to maximise numbers and profits.
>
>Of course they do. And, again, if passengers were willing to pay a bit
>more for less seats on the plane the airlines would offer them. But
>they don't so the airlines don't. You are a "victim" of the free
>market.

Indeed. I'm a victim of the commercial-driven free market which is
more concerned with running itself for its own benefit than meeting
customer expectations.


>> It is *not* passengers who have created the current model of airline
>> seating, it is the airlines themselves chasing numbers and profits.
>
>As driven by passenger demand.

....So you keep asserting but I disagree.


>> >Agent information: You complained that your "agent" (Expedia) didn't
>> >give you enough information.
>>
>> I mentioned that it was "too bad" Expedia don't provide this
>> information. I have also mentioned it to Expedia directly via e-mail.
>> They may look into it to improve customer satisfaction.
>>
>> >Expedia is *not* a travel agency. People
>> >use Expedia so they can save the cost of travel agents.
>>
>> I never said Expedia were a *travel* agency.
>> I use Expedia because it's a convenient Internet based agent that I've
>> used many times before without a problem in terms of buying tickets.
>
>It's not an "agent" either. It's a site that sells tickets. You want
>proper travel advice, use a travel agent.

If Expedia is not a travel agent or even an agent, then what is it?


>Again, you made your choice and put money first before service. Then
>you complain about the service.

More nonsense.


>> >You chose to
>> >do that then complain because they didn't give you the service that
>> >you chose not to pay for. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
>>
>> That is a rubbish distortion of my comments.
>
>It's a fairly exact analysis of what happened.

No.

>> >Flight delays: Come on. 1 1/2 hours on what amounts to a 24 hour
>> >flight (roughly). 3 continents, 2 days. You don't think that's a bit
>> >of an over-reaction?
>>
>> Not at all ... and I don't know where you get the idea that it's
>> roughly a 24hr flight. Bangkok to London non-stop is about 13hrs
>> ...unless you are sitting on the plane for an additional 2hrs before
>> take-off as I was.
>
>I thought it was Sydney-Bangkok-London which is around 24 hours
>including layovers. You were just on part of the flight.

I didn't fly from Sydney.
As far as I was concerned my flight was from Bangkok to London.
I didn't even know that my flight had originated in Sydney until I
spoke to several other passengers.


>> >> Yes, I arrived 3.5hrs before my flight time but *not* to stand in
>> >> a queue waiting for BA to get their act together.
>>
>> >Many airlines don't open their check-in counters more than 2 or 2 1/2
>> >hours before flight time. So you did, in fact, ask for an extra hour
>> >or more wait time.
>>
>> I ask for nothing except to be checked-in as quickly as possible.
>> In the UK we are told to arrive at least 3-4 hours before our flights
>> to go through security etc but it's clear to me that the real reason
>> is to stand in check-in queues.
>
>I see. It's a world wide conspiracy to make you stand in a line.

No, its a WW drive by airlines to reduce their operating costs at the
expense of passenger service and comfort. Too bad you deny that.
From: hummingbird on
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:30:43 -0900 'Dennis P. Harris'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

>On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:18:25 +0000 in rec.travel.air, hummingbird
><RHBIYDTNPPAX(a)spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that info. It's further evidence that airlines are running
>> their business to suit themselves, not in the customer interests.
>>
>err... that's how corporations are intended to run, for the
>benefit of their shareholders, not for the benefit of their
>customers, their supposed home country, the world, or anyone
>else.

Indeed, but one wishes that businesses would pay at least some
attention to their customers. Too few do.


>folks need to remember constantly that corporations are a legal
>construct designed to maximize the profits of the owners and
>investors while shielding those owners and investors from legal
>liability for their actions.

Quite so.

>in order for corporations to achieve any kind of socially
>redeeming purpose, they must be regulated and legally
>constrained.

Exactly. And my earlier comments allude to the fact that airlines
are not constrained by enough legal rules. This is partly due to them
being flag carriers for nations and of being international in nature.
Strong regulation becomes difficult and often undesirable.


>only the most naive would think that corporations would be put
>customer satisfaction ahead of shareholder greed, or long term
>growth ahead of pumping up this quarter's stock price.

Agreed.