[Captain Carnage]

Thanks big Tony we aim to please.

[ed pluribus unum]

(08-03-2011 12:15 PM)Vacancier Permanent Wrote:  

Toronto-Narita: 13 hour flight with Air Canada. Is it me or is the service on Air Canada, even on international flights is getting worst and worst by day?

Air Canada's motto: "We're not happy until you're not happy"

The problem with the long-haul flights is that you're stuck with the most senior flight attendants, who have a long-standing grudge. Way back when Canadian Airlines tanked, instead of letting them die a natural death, the Fed Gov't made Air Canada take on all their flight crews; instead of putting them all at the bottom of the seniority lists, Air Canada was forced to dove-tail them into the existing roster. What happened was you had Air Canada pilots and flight attendants who were looking at reasonable prospects for job choice and retirement dates who all of a sudden got bumped way back by a bunch of interlopers. We're talking about 15-20 years ago, and the bitterness is strong as ever to this day. Does not make for harmonious cabin crews.

[HOD]

I had a great opportunity to fly to Hong Kong via an Taiwan airline call EVA, I would say it is 8/10, the planes are modern, the food is good, and they only have young attractive female attendants, I notice they were very professional and attractive.


I also flew on ANA (All Nippon Airline) (9/10) a Japanese airline from Tokyo to Beijing, the food is excellent for flight food. They only use young Chinese or Japanese girls for flight attendant, they were very professional and friendly. I was on a newer plane (787 dream-liner), the 787 was very spacious, the seats are bigger, the air quality and sound was much better since it is the latest planes. ANA only use the best and newest plane, I would rank them higher than EVA. I would probably fly on ANA and Korean Air, first over any other Asian airline. I never fly on Korean Air, but my friends rave about there attendants. So my next goal is to fly on Korean Air.

[TheExperimenter]

Have noticed cutbacks on British Airways over last few years - downsizing of meals / reduced or more limited food options on shorter flights etc. It reminds me of how Aer Lingus moved from being of similar quality to BA (quite a few years ago now) towards becoming a budget airline more or less. At one point Aer Lingus would hand out small bottles of champagne in business class, with no official limit....
I assume this is part of a broader pattern on the larger airlines.

Most of the airlines I've been on have been covered here, but for what it's worth:

Swiss Air is like British Airways for service, but has more young, hot flight attendants.
Lufthansa seems the same to me, but have only flown a couple of times.
Don't think Easyjet or Ryanair have been mentioned and maybe everyone already knows, but these are both very similar budget airlines - charge extra for hold luggage / strict limits on size of cabin luggage / no seat reservation / often use fringe airports / food and drink is for sale only / unadjustable and sometimes uncomfortable seats / not much room / generally unpleasant..... but can be enormously cheaper than the regular airlines. Paying a little extra for speedy boarding or seat reservation can be worth it in my opinion.

Not surprised that Virgin gets positive reviews here - business class feels like a VIP area in a club with mood lighting and a nice bar area. The car service (for Heathrow) they have is excellent, drops you straight to a private check in area away from the main area. I'm not sure about how economy compares with BA, think I'd play it safe with BA given the choice.

I'll be flying within South America quite a bit later this year, would be interested in hearing people's experiences on airlines there.

[puckerman]

LATAM--I flew on them to and from Lima and Iquitos. It was fine. People spoke English on both ends.

[Premium]

Myself personally I won't fly longer than 7 hours. I learned this after a 13 hour flight (Vancouver to Manila ..5 hours of turbulance) when my ears wouldn't pop for 5 days! I looked up the reason and the answer was long haul flights fly at a higher altitude...medium flights fly lower thus my ears aren't affected Also the jet lag recovery (flying east to west being the worst) on a long haul took a month to get back to normal.

That said ...on a 6 or 7 hour flight matters little to me about the airline or the food it just matters if I arrive at a reasonable time do I have the energy for customs and getting to my hotel....and out for a beer. Remember also I'm talking connecting flights which are cheaper than nonstop (you can also enjoy 24 hours in places like Honolulu overnight at no extra cost between flight connections)

Too the posters point on Air Canada blows remember the northern hemisphere flight routes are full of turbulence....the jet stream...mountains... cold/warm air....turbulance from other planes that have passed (on busy routes) maybe that was a bad element of your flight to NRT ....pilot blogs suggest southern flights towards the equator are smoother which I can vouch..honolulu to guam not even a bump...guam to manila smooth
I avoid long hauls like the plague no matter how comfortable an airline can make you...it's just too long to be in a metal tube.

[PapayaTapper]

(06-08-2017 06:14 PM)Premium Wrote:  

Myself personally I won't fly longer than 7 hours. I learned this after a 13 hour flight (Vancouver to Manila ..5 hours of turbulance) when my ears wouldn't pop for 5 days! I looked up the reason and the answer was long haul flights fly at a higher altitude...medium flights fly lower thus my ears aren't affected

Do you have a source for this? Doesn't make sense to me that there's going to be that much variance in the cabin pressure regardless of cruising altitude. Its my understanding that FAA mandates pressures to be the equivalent of 6000-8000 ft above sea level (FAMSL).

(06-08-2017 06:14 PM)Premium Wrote:  

Also the jet lag recovery (flying east to west being the worst) on a long haul took a month to get back to normal.

I travel internationally a LOT and I've found taking melatonin or L-Tryptophan to force the sleep cycle adjust to local time extremely effective. Ive got it (dosage and timing) dialed in to the point that Im in a good pattern within the first 24-48 hrs. Neither give me that drowsy linger next day either

(06-08-2017 06:14 PM)Premium Wrote:  

Too the posters point on Air Canada blows remember the northern hemisphere flight routes are full of turbulence....the jet stream...mountains... cold/warm air....turbulance from other planes that have passed (on busy routes) maybe that was a bad element of your flight to NRT ....[b]pilot blogs suggest southern flights towards the equator are smoother which I can vouch..honolulu to guam not even a bump...guam to manila smooth[/b]

Dont mean to keep pissing on your parade...but how do you avoid going North on the way back? Even if you keep flying South eventually youre going North.

(06-08-2017 06:14 PM)Premium Wrote:  

I avoid long hauls like the plague no matter how comfortable an airline can make you...it's just too long to be in a metal tube.

I agree with you there. But until our Star Trek transporters arrive its all we got. Booze, movies, books and when occasionally the fortunes smile on us and seat us next to a cute chick help us make the best of it

[Tail Gunner]

(06-08-2017 07:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 06:14 PM)Premium Wrote:  

Myself personally I won't fly longer than 7 hours. I learned this after a 13 hour flight (Vancouver to Manila ..5 hours of turbulance) when my ears wouldn't pop for 5 days! I looked up the reason and the answer was long haul flights fly at a higher altitude...medium flights fly lower thus my ears aren't affected

Do you have a source for this? Doesn't make sense to me that there's going to be that much variance in the cabin pressure regardless of cruising altitude. Its my understanding that FAA mandates pressures to be the equivalent of 6000-8000 ft above sea level (FAMSL).

There is a big difference. Curing high altitude illnesses is the concept behind the carbon fiber construction of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Quote:

Most conventional passenger jets set the cabin pressure at an equivalent of around 7,500 to 8,000 feet above sea level, which Boeing claims is the primary cause of a range of in-flight ills. “There are many passengers problems associated with altitude – headaches, muscle aches, fatigue and even nausea” Craver says. The difference between external air pressure when an aircraft cruises at 40,000 feet and an internal pressure that’s one-fifth of that stresses the plane’s fuselage – and the greater the difference, the more the stress. That’s been the limiting factor in increasing cabin pressure, Craver explains: the metal body of current aircraft wouldn’t safely be able to handle the fatigue induced by maintaining this pressure at high altitudes. That changes due to the use of carbon-fibre composite materials on the 787’s fuselage. Carbon-fibre doesn’t suffer from metal fatigue and in turn allows for lower 'cabin altitude' levels. The 787’s cabin pressure is set to 6,000 feet, a figure arrived upon by Boeing modifying a pressure chamber to look like an airplane cabin which could hold 12 people at a time. “We cycled over 500 people through the chamber, and they stayed there for up to 20 hours of simulated flying time” Craver recalls, and they found that 6,000 feet was the ‘sweet spot’. “Between sea level and 6,000 feet there was almost no difference in the reported symptoms” Craver says, “so we can alleviate or mitigate a lot of symptoms you get at a cabin altitude of 8,000 feet” Boeing claims that one in four travellers experience some form of ‘respiratory distress’ after flying 12 hours in a conventional aircraft with a cabin pressure of 8,000 feet, but this plummets to 5-6 per cent at 6,000 feet.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/quest...n-pressure


I always travel with a set of Earplanes to avoid ear pressure ills after several bad experiences.

https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/earpla...91-product

[Hyyish]

I've flown a lot between Bangkok and Europe. Until now I've flown with three different companies. Norwegian, Emirates and Thai Airways.

Thai Airways: This has to be one of the best airlines in the world. You are greeted with the biggest smile you could imagine when you enter the airplane. The hostesses are hot, gentle, caring and give you amazing service.

The food is amazing, and everything you want extra is free of charge. Soda, water, beer and drinks. Every time you are served anything you are given a cold cloth to get refreshed with.

The in-flight entertainment is good, but not the best. Some of their airplanes are old.

This is usually the most expensive airliner to fly with, but sometimes you can get very good promotions.

Emirates: What I like about the Emirates is that they have cabin crew from the entire world, and they all have small flags showing where they are from. All of the cabin crew are relocated to Dubai where they live. They then get to fly all over the world. Has to be a cool job!

The food on the Emirates is halal, but I don't really care about that. The food is really delicious. Everything you want extra is free. Drinks and snacks.

Some airplanes they have is old, especially from Oslo to Dubai. The Airbus A380 from Dubai to Bangkok is really good tho with big seats and good space.

Norwegian: This company advertise itself as a budget airline, and it also feels like a budget airline. But is it really a budget airline? In my opinion, no it isn't. I can find cheaper tickets with both Emirates, Finair and Thai airways more often than not. The difference is that the Emirates and Thai Airways in no circumstances feels cheap, Norwegian do..

So where do Norwegians money go? I don't know...

The service in Norwegian is not really good at all. The cabin crew always look stressed, unhappy and overworked. If you want any extra snack on the plane you have to pay for everything. 4$ for a bottle of water says it all.

You also have to pay extra for luggage, a blanket and headphones. All this is given for free in Emirates and Thai Airways.

Norwegian is very often delayed on their long haul flights. One time they were 10 hours delayed and they didn't tell about it before 1 hour before departure even tho they knew the airplane we was going to use with was on the other side of the fucking planet. When I got to Oslo airport that day, I pulled up Flight radar and I saw that the airplane had just taken of from New York.. Why didn't they tell us??? Makes no sense.

One thing that IS good with Norwegians is that they only use brand new Dreamliners on their long haul flights. This is an amazing airplane to be passenger in. The cabin pressure is much higher than in other airplanes, the windows are bigger and the wings takes up almost all the turbulence. It's like surfing thought the sky!

[hooked_on_tonics]

I have been giving Delta my loyalty for the last couple years and I'm not sure if it's worth it to continue. While I have amassed a huge stash-- approx. 500k-- of sky miles (sky pesos), it just seems like the whole medallion system is set up to really only benefit the corporate traveler. So many people have medallion status these days that it really doesn't start to benefit you until you hit Diamond or Sapphire, and those levels are difficult to achieve unless you have a company paying for frequent long haul flights.

I'll probably transition to using up my sky pesos next year and then just go with the airlines that offer the best deal. Anyone have recommendations on airlines where it is worth it to build status through loyalty? Because I'm just not seeing the value with Delta these days.

[Kaii]

(06-09-2017 08:51 AM)hooked_on_tonics Wrote:  

I have been giving Delta my loyalty for the last couple years and I'm not sure if it's worth it to continue. While I have amassed a huge stash-- approx. 500k-- of sky miles (sky pesos), it just seems like the whole medallion system is set up to really only benefit the corporate traveler. So many people have medallion status these days that it really doesn't start to benefit you until you hit Diamond or Sapphire, and those levels are difficult to achieve unless you have a company paying for frequent long haul flights.

I'll probably transition to using up my sky pesos next year and then just go with the airlines that offer the best deal. Anyone have recommendations on airlines where it is worth it to build status through loyalty? Because I'm just not seeing the value with Delta these days.

I fly United quite a bit for work. I've had good luck with them. I too, have the same issue with Delta. Give United a try, good planes, usually good service and their upgrades are pretty reasonable.

[Mentavious]

(06-09-2017 08:51 AM)hooked_on_tonics Wrote:  

I have been giving Delta my loyalty for the last couple years and I'm not sure if it's worth it to continue. While I have amassed a huge stash-- approx. 500k-- of sky miles (sky pesos), it just seems like the whole medallion system is set up to really only benefit the corporate traveler. So many people have medallion status these days that it really doesn't start to benefit you until you hit Diamond or Sapphire, and those levels are difficult to achieve unless you have a company paying for frequent long haul flights.

I'll probably transition to using up my sky pesos next year and then just go with the airlines that offer the best deal. Anyone have recommendations on airlines where it is worth it to build status through loyalty? Because I'm just not seeing the value with Delta these days.

Where are you located?

I use to live in a Delta hub but I still used AA almost all the time. Just shows you how much I despise Delta.

[scrambled]

FinnAir was the best I've flown on, professional, neat, and clean like Lufthansa but with edible food.

[The Breeze]

(06-08-2017 07:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 06:14 PM)Premium Wrote:  

Myself personally I won't fly longer than 7 hours. I learned this after a 13 hour flight (Vancouver to Manila ..5 hours of turbulance) when my ears wouldn't pop for 5 days! I looked up the reason and the answer was long haul flights fly at a higher altitude...medium flights fly lower thus my ears aren't affected

Do you have a source for this?

I gotta kinda disagree with Premium here.

Airlines are all about the money, and an aircraft's filed altitude request is simply
what is determined to be the MOST fuel efficient altitude for that particular flight.

Type aircraft, weight, and weather conditions decide the gameplan. The less
amount of fuel, to achieve the desired speed, is the "sweet spot" airlines are
always looking for.

Maybe RIslander can chime in.. but I am 100% confident in what I wrote.

[Tail Gunner]

(06-10-2017 09:32 AM)The Breeze Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 07:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 06:14 PM)Premium Wrote:  

Myself personally I won't fly longer than 7 hours. I learned this after a 13 hour flight (Vancouver to Manila ..5 hours of turbulance) when my ears wouldn't pop for 5 days! I looked up the reason and the answer was long haul flights fly at a higher altitude...medium flights fly lower thus my ears aren't affected

Do you have a source for this?

Airlines are all about the money, and an aircraft's filed altitude request is simply what is determined to be the MOST fuel efficient altitude for that particular flight.

That is why I said what I did in Post #83. The ability to use carbon fiber construction (e.g., in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner) allows airlines to fly at the optimum altitude for fuel conservation while still providing optimum comfort level for passengers. Technology is the way forward.