British Airways flies planes empty because it lacks flight attendants

[Mxsmanic]

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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2055276864&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? Or--like several other airlines--do they
make so much from hauling cargo across the Atlantic that they don't need
passengers to turn a profit?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> 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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&et
> MailToID=2055276864&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?


Maybe they could just get some virtual attendants and pax, eh?

Fjukkwit



Bertie

[Darkwing]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> 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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&et
>> MailToID=2055276864&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?
>
>
> Maybe they could just get some virtual attendants and pax, eh?
>
> Fjukkwit
>
>
>
> Bertie


Now if I could just get BA to pay me for the box they lost on a f&^*%$##
airfreight I had shipped over in March.

--------------------------------------
DW

[Big John]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:55:19 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2055276864&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? Or--like several other airlines--do they
>make so much from hauling cargo across the Atlantic that they don't need
>passengers to turn a profit?


*************************************
As I read the article, they can dead head west and carry full
passengers east and still make a profit on round trip.

Bertie. Couldn't you call what they are doing, positioning, which is a
common activity in the Airline/Commercial business?

Big John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:55:19 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>>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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&et
>>MailToID=2055276864&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? Or--like several other
>>airlines--do they make so much from hauling cargo across the Atlantic
>>that they don't need passengers to turn a profit?
>
>
> *************************************
> As I read the article, they can dead head west and carry full
> passengers east and still make a profit on round trip.
>
> Bertie. Couldn't you call what they are doing, positioning, which is a
> common activity in the Airline/Commercial business?


Yep. We do it quite a bit, in fact. Lots of different reasons but they're
commonplace.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Big John writes:

> As I read the article, they can dead head west and carry full
> passengers east and still make a profit on round trip.

A number of transatlantic carriers make so much on cargo for each crossing
that the revenue from passengers is gravy. Oddly, you don't see them lowering
ticket prices in consequence, and they certainly don't admit that passengers
are essentially 100% profit.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Big John writes:
>
>> As I read the article, they can dead head west and carry full
>> passengers east and still make a profit on round trip.
>
> A number of transatlantic carriers make so much on cargo for each
> crossing that the revenue from passengers is gravy. Oddly, you don't
> see them lowering ticket prices in consequence, and they certainly
> don't admit that passengers are essentially 100% profit.




You're an idiot and have no idea of what you're talking about.


Bertie

[Tina]

Do these carriers use full size (7X7 or 3XX) airplanes on these 'gotta
keep the slots occupied' flights, or will anything with the range and
speed fill the use requirements?

On Nov 15, 11:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Big John writes:
>
> >> As I read the article, they can dead head west and carry full
> >> passengers east and still make a profit on round trip.
>
> > A number of transatlantic carriers make so much on cargo for each
> > crossing that the revenue from passengers is gravy. Oddly, you don't
> > see them lowering ticket prices in consequence, and they certainly
> > don't admit that passengers are essentially 100% profit.
>
> You're an idiot and have no idea of what you're talking about.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> Do these carriers use full size (7X7 or 3XX) airplanes on these 'gotta
> keep the slots occupied' flights, or will anything with the range and
> speed fill the use requirements?
>

That's not so common, so it's wahtever needs to be positioned ot wherever
to pick up the next trip, really.

And Anthony is talking crap as usual since hardly any airfreight is carried
in Pax aircraft since 9-11 for obvious reasons.

Even pax baggage recovery or overload is carried in freighters these days.
Carriers still do carry freight, but nothing like what thye used to.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> Do these carriers use full size (7X7 or 3XX) airplanes on these 'gotta
> keep the slots occupied' flights, or will anything with the range and
> speed fill the use requirements?

Full-size.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> Do these carriers use full size (7X7 or 3XX) airplanes on these 'gotta
>> keep the slots occupied' flights, or will anything with the range and
>> speed fill the use requirements?
>
> Full-size.
>



You're an idiot and you have no idea what you're talking about.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Nov 14, 9:55 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> 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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&...
>
> 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? Or--like several other airlines--do they
> make so much from hauling cargo across the Atlantic that they don't need
> passengers to turn a profit?

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. Now I
wonder: maybe those expensive chairs were empty because they had no
attendants for that section?

Dan

[xyzzy]

On Nov 16, 3:09 pm, wrote:
> On Nov 14, 9:55 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > 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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&...
>
> > 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? Or--like several other airlines--do they
> > make so much from hauling cargo across the Atlantic that they don't need
> > passengers to turn a profit?
>
> 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. Now I
> wonder: maybe those expensive chairs were empty because they had no
> attendants for that section?

I believe British Airways feels it's more important to maintain the
exclusivity (and therefore perceived value) of those seats than to
fill them up the unsold ones with, say, the highest status frequent
fliers who are on the flight like most airlines would do. I took a
rtw business trip in business class last year and the travel agent had
a bitch of a time getting the seats on the BA segments because they
simply didn't want to release them at the RTW business class prices
(and this was the same flight you were on, Joburg to LHR).

[Bustas Crabbs]

On 16 Nov, 23:41, Craig Welch > wrote:
> said:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 14, 9:55 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> 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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&...
>
> >> 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? Or--like several other airlines--do they
> >> make so much from hauling cargo across the Atlantic that they don't need
> >> passengers to turn a profit?
>
> > 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 paid?
>
> Then the 'snooty' passengers would have made noise about being
> joined by a free-loader.
>
> --
> Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
> 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups:
> Price your own web plan:http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/

if you dont pay, then you dont get a lay....

[Mxsmanic]

xyzzy writes:

> I believe British Airways feels it's more important to maintain the
> exclusivity (and therefore perceived value) of those seats than to
> fill them up the unsold ones with, say, the highest status frequent
> fliers who are on the flight like most airlines would do.

That sounds very typically British.

[Mxsmanic]

Craig Welch writes:

> Translation:
>
> 'Like most airlines would do'

Not necessarily.

[mrtravel]

xyzzy wrote:

> On Nov 16, 3:09 pm, wrote:
>
>>On Nov 14, 9:55 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&...
>>
>>>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? Or--like several other airlines--do they
>>>make so much from hauling cargo across the Atlantic that they don't need
>>>passengers to turn a profit?
>>
>> 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. Now I
>>wonder: maybe those expensive chairs were empty because they had no
>>attendants for that section?
>
>
> I believe British Airways feels it's more important to maintain the
> exclusivity (and therefore perceived value) of those seats than to
> fill them up the unsold ones with, say, the highest status frequent
> fliers who are on the flight like most airlines would do.

Most airlines wouldn't normally do this on this length of a flight
without some kind of cash/miles/points payment.

[mrtravel]

Craig Welch wrote:

> xyzzy > said:
>
>
>
>>I believe British Airways feels it's more important to maintain the
>>exclusivity (and therefore perceived value) of those seats than to
>>fill them up the unsold ones with, say, the highest status frequent
>>fliers who are on the flight like most airlines would do.
>
>
> Translation:
>
> 'Like most airlines would do'
>
> =========>
>
> 'As most American airlines would do'.
>

NO, they would not.
Most US airlines do not normally give away international upgrades
without some kind of payment, unless Y is oversold.

Don't any of you people fly?

[VainGlorious]

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.

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.

[Markku Grönroos]

"VainGlorious" > kirjoitti
om...
>
> 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
>
That's not the reason at all. Those paying the full price (business and
first class tickets mostly but economy class tickets as well). The
furnishing and level of "service" is one thing and full price and
"promotional" price tickets another thing. Those in hurry buy the full price
tickets because they are fully transferable even between the recognized
airlines while the latter tickets gives you access to one dedicated flight
(well, in theory anyways).

Because the price difference between full price and economy tickets are so
substantial - as seen above - companies typically book their businessmen to
economy class with a low price tickets. It happens every now and then that
businessmen lose their connecting flights for one reason or another and yet
it becomes much cheaper this way by buying a new set of tickets for the rest
of the journey rather than buying full price tickets in the first place. In
this way flexibility and time efficiency is lost to some degree. Another
trick to save money for short time hops between two airports is to buy two
return tickets (one starting from the origin and the other starting from the
destination) rather than only one.

This is one reason why airlines have "profiliated" their business class
ticket pricing (they have come down......). Naturally the overall demand is
one decisive factor. And because it is supposed to be increasing
dramatically in near future, there is little hope that air tickets will
become cheaper. Actually most likely the tendency will be the opposite.

[JohnT[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> xyzzy writes:
>
>> I believe British Airways feels it's more important to maintain the
>> exclusivity (and therefore perceived value) of those seats than to
>> fill them up the unsold ones with, say, the highest status frequent
>> fliers who are on the flight like most airlines would do.
>
> That sounds very typically British.


I will take that as a compliment.
--

JohnT

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Craig Welch" <> wrote

> Would you like to read my post, and reply again, trimming in the
> correct places?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you kidding, or what?

You are asking a k00k/troll to treat your post right?

You've been MXed, my man!

'Nuff said.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Craig Welch writes:
>
>> Translation:
>>
>> 'Like most airlines would do'
>
> Not necessarily.
>

Nitwit.


Bertie

[Darkwing]

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
. ..
> Craig Welch wrote:
>
>> xyzzy > said:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I believe British Airways feels it's more important to maintain the
>>>exclusivity (and therefore perceived value) of those seats than to
>>>fill them up the unsold ones with, say, the highest status frequent
>>>fliers who are on the flight like most airlines would do.
>>
>>
>> Translation:
>>
>> 'Like most airlines would do'
>>
>> =========>
>>
>> 'As most American airlines would do'.
>>
>
> NO, they would not.
> Most US airlines do not normally give away international upgrades without
> some kind of payment, unless Y is oversold.
>
> Don't any of you people fly?

Commercial? Only if I have to. GA? Any time I possibly can.

--------------------------------------
DW

[Doesn't Frequently Mop]

Make credence recognised that on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:44:53 GMT, Craig
Welch > has scripted:

>Mxsmanic > said:
>
>>Craig Welch writes:
>>
>>> Translation:
>>>
>>> 'Like most airlines would do'
>>
>>Not necessarily.
>
>Huh?
>
>Would you like to read my post, and reply again, trimming in the
>correct places?

Craig, meet Mixi.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

> I will take that as a compliment.

That also sounds very typically British.

[Mxsmanic]

VainGlorious writes:

> 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.

Not true for transatlantic flights. Often the cargo alone covers the entire
cost of the flight, and the passengers are pure profit, even in economy class.
That's how BA can afford to fly empty aircraft (empty of passengers, that is).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JohnT writes:
>
>> I will take that as a compliment.
>
>


Not somethign you get to say often, that's for sure.
Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> VainGlorious writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Not true for transatlantic flights. Often the cargo alone covers the
> entire cost of the flight,


Nope. wrong agian.


Bertie

[Mister B]

On Nov 17, 6:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> JohnT writes:
> > I will take that as a compliment.
>
> That also sounds very typically British.

It's the tones he uses, doncha know.

B;

[JohnT[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> JohnT writes:
>
>> I will take that as a compliment.
>
> That also sounds very typically British.


Thank you.
--

JohnT

[Darkwing]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> VainGlorious writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Not true for transatlantic flights. Often the cargo alone covers the
>> entire cost of the flight,
>
>
> Nope. wrong agian.
>
>
> Bertie

Are you saying you know more than MX?? That is unpossible.

-------------------------------
DW

[Doesn't Frequently Mop]

Make credence recognised that on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:51:15 +0100,
Mxsmanic > has scripted:

>JohnT writes:
>
>> I will take that as a compliment.
>
>That also sounds very typically British.

There is nothing that is typically British. You are relying on some
in-built prejudice instead.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

[Republicans Hate America]

On 11/17/2007 9:51 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> That also sounds very typically British.

So?

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> JohnT writes:
>
> > I will take that as a compliment.
>
> That also sounds very typically British.

Showing your immense cultural awareness again, I see.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Mister B > wrote:

> On Nov 17, 6:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > JohnT writes:
> > > I will take that as a compliment.
> >
> > That also sounds very typically British.
>
> It's the tones he uses, doncha know.

Damn, you beat me to it! :)

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Doesn't Frequently Mop > wrote in
:

> Make credence recognised that on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:51:15 +0100,
> Mxsmanic > has scripted:
>
>>JohnT writes:
>>
>>> I will take that as a compliment.
>>
>>That also sounds very typically British.
>
> There is nothing that is typically British.


You are relying on some
> in-built prejudice instead.


You've never been to Mahwbayyuh or Bennydowm.


Bertie

[mrtravel]

Craig Welch wrote:
> mrtravel > said:
>
>
>>Craig Welch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>xyzzy > said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I believe British Airways feels it's more important to maintain the
>>>>exclusivity (and therefore perceived value) of those seats than to
>>>>fill them up the unsold ones with, say, the highest status frequent
>>>>fliers who are on the flight like most airlines would do.
>>>
>>>
>>>Translation:
>>>
>>>'Like most airlines would do'
>>>
>>>=========>
>>>
>>>'As most American airlines would do'.
>>>
>>
>>NO, they would not.
>>Most US airlines do not normally give away international upgrades
>>without some kind of payment, unless Y is oversold.
>
>
> I must admit that I answered that last post on the basis that Y
> would be oversold. Reading it again, I see that wasn't a stated
> assumption, so I retract my words.
>

The prior poster was complaining that Y was full, and the "snooty"
section had plenty of room. He didn't mentioned Y was oversold.

[Marty Shapiro]

"TMOliver" > wrote in
:

>
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>
>> "mrtravel" > wrote....
>>>
>>> Don't any of you people fly?
>>
>> Commercial? Only if I have to. GA? Any time I possibly can.
>>
>
> Darkwing obviously flies infrequently and even then neither very far
> or very inexpensively. I don't know in which GA birds you fly (or
> where), but ORD and LGD are quite expensive destinations if I choose
> to go "by GA". A Gulfstream charter to match the airlines' timeframe
> remains out of sight of my corporate pocketbook, while that's a Hell
> of a (several) day's work in a 172.... As for Edinburgh or Milan,
> staying awake precludes the attempt, even should I fill the cockpit
> with jerricans.
>
> It's bad enough to be an asshole, but when you add the quality of
> "silly" to your personal status, you've transcended any pretense at
> either credibility or respect.
>
> TMO
>
>

FYI - If you are going GA into the ORD area, PWK, 7.6 NM from ORD, has
no landing fee and even has US customs with 2 hours advance notice. Why
would a GA flight want to go to ORD? And before Daly pulled his midnight
raid, GA also had CGX, which was far more convenient to downtown Chicago
than either ORD or MDW.

LGD has no landing fee either. Why did use Le Grande, Oregon in your
example?

GA refers to the rules the aircraft operates under, not the type of
aircraft. Air freight companies operate GA, even though they fly some big
iron such as the MD-11 or 747-400F. Even the airlines have GA flight such
as when they ferry the aircraft for maintenance or do the return to service
check out flight following major maintenance. Thare is some big iron which
routinely operates GA (the Boeing BBJ, which is basically a 737, John
Travolta's 707, and several 747). In fact, there is one Arab prince who
will be operating an A380 as a GA flight as soon as his gets delivered.

Yes, most small aircraft like the Cessna 172 or Piper
Warrior/Archer/Arrow only operate under GA rules, but there are a few which
operated under air taxi or air charter rules and are not GA flights when
they do so. The key is that in the US all civilian flights operate under
GA (Part 91) rules. Add paying passengers, and you then have air
taxi/charter (Part 135) or air transport (Part 121) rules in addition to
the GA rules. The rules apply to the flight, not the aircraft.

From a cost standpoint, if you go by yourself, the airlines will
almost always beat GA. If you have two people on the flight and are not
getting advance purchase airfares, GA can become cost competitive on
shorter flights (200-400 miles). Go to three people, and GA becomes cost
competitive up to about 800 miles.

From a time standpoint, taking into account the time to park at an air
carrier airport, the 2 hours advance arrival to clear security, the time to
pick up checked luggage (if you need to transport anything now prohibited
by TSA in your carry on luggage), & the time to take the shuttle bus to the
rental car, you can almost always get there faster with GA on flights of
300 miles or less, even in a small a plane as a Piper Archer or Cessna 172.
From San Jose to Los Angeles, if you avoid rush hour, it's about a wash
timewise between driving and flying via airline.

One of the factors slanting time to favor GA for the short haul
flights is that not everyone lives near an air carrier airport. If you
need to drive for an hour or more to reach the departure airport, and then
need 2 hours for check in procedures, you're about 350 to 400 miles behind
the GA aircraft (Piper Archer) which departed from the little airport only
10 minutes from home before you start to taxi for take off in the airliner.

For long haul, GA cannot beat the airlines for time unless, as you
said, you are the the corporate jet class, and then the costs, unless you
are at the top echelon in the corporation, eat you alive. However, if you
have 4 or 5 or more executives whom normally travel 1st class going on the
same flight, then the corporate jet becomes very competitive with the
airlines, even to Milan.

All the ranting and raving the airlines have been doing recently
against GA is due to their abject fear of the new VLJs. With a VLJ costing
under $2 million, on medium to short haul flights when you have as few as 2
executives going together, your costs are about the same as for 2 business
class tickets, but you now go on your schedule and out of the small airport
convenient to both your departure and destination. Compare that with
having to drive to the nearest air carrier airport, possibly connect at at
least one air carrier hub airport, and then drive a longer distance from
the air carrier airport nearest to your destination, and the big profit
customer is going to leave the airlines. The airlines can't compete with
this, and they know it.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[nightjar]

"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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2055276864&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

[Darkwing]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> "TMOliver" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>> "mrtravel" > wrote....
>>>>
>>>> Don't any of you people fly?
>>>
>>> Commercial? Only if I have to. GA? Any time I possibly can.
>>>
>>
>> Darkwing obviously flies infrequently and even then neither very far
>> or very inexpensively. I don't know in which GA birds you fly (or
>> where), but ORD and LGD are quite expensive destinations if I choose
>> to go "by GA". A Gulfstream charter to match the airlines' timeframe
>> remains out of sight of my corporate pocketbook, while that's a Hell
>> of a (several) day's work in a 172.... As for Edinburgh or Milan,
>> staying awake precludes the attempt, even should I fill the cockpit
>> with jerricans.
>>
>> It's bad enough to be an asshole, but when you add the quality of
>> "silly" to your personal status, you've transcended any pretense at
>> either credibility or respect.
>>
>> TMO
>>
>>
>
> FYI - If you are going GA into the ORD area, PWK, 7.6 NM from ORD, has
> no landing fee and even has US customs with 2 hours advance notice. Why
> would a GA flight want to go to ORD? And before Daly pulled his midnight
> raid, GA also had CGX, which was far more convenient to downtown Chicago
> than either ORD or MDW.
>
> LGD has no landing fee either. Why did use Le Grande, Oregon in your
> example?
>
> GA refers to the rules the aircraft operates under, not the type of
> aircraft. Air freight companies operate GA, even though they fly some big
> iron such as the MD-11 or 747-400F. Even the airlines have GA flight such
> as when they ferry the aircraft for maintenance or do the return to
> service
> check out flight following major maintenance. Thare is some big iron
> which
> routinely operates GA (the Boeing BBJ, which is basically a 737, John
> Travolta's 707, and several 747). In fact, there is one Arab prince who
> will be operating an A380 as a GA flight as soon as his gets delivered.
>
> Yes, most small aircraft like the Cessna 172 or Piper
> Warrior/Archer/Arrow only operate under GA rules, but there are a few
> which
> operated under air taxi or air charter rules and are not GA flights when
> they do so. The key is that in the US all civilian flights operate under
> GA (Part 91) rules. Add paying passengers, and you then have air
> taxi/charter (Part 135) or air transport (Part 121) rules in addition to
> the GA rules. The rules apply to the flight, not the aircraft.
>
> From a cost standpoint, if you go by yourself, the airlines will
> almost always beat GA. If you have two people on the flight and are not
> getting advance purchase airfares, GA can become cost competitive on
> shorter flights (200-400 miles). Go to three people, and GA becomes cost
> competitive up to about 800 miles.
>
> From a time standpoint, taking into account the time to park at an air
> carrier airport, the 2 hours advance arrival to clear security, the time
> to
> pick up checked luggage (if you need to transport anything now prohibited
> by TSA in your carry on luggage), & the time to take the shuttle bus to
> the
> rental car, you can almost always get there faster with GA on flights of
> 300 miles or less, even in a small a plane as a Piper Archer or Cessna
> 172.
> From San Jose to Los Angeles, if you avoid rush hour, it's about a wash
> timewise between driving and flying via airline.
>
> One of the factors slanting time to favor GA for the short haul
> flights is that not everyone lives near an air carrier airport. If you
> need to drive for an hour or more to reach the departure airport, and then
> need 2 hours for check in procedures, you're about 350 to 400 miles behind
> the GA aircraft (Piper Archer) which departed from the little airport only
> 10 minutes from home before you start to taxi for take off in the
> airliner.
>
> For long haul, GA cannot beat the airlines for time unless, as you
> said, you are the the corporate jet class, and then the costs, unless you
> are at the top echelon in the corporation, eat you alive. However, if you
> have 4 or 5 or more executives whom normally travel 1st class going on the
> same flight, then the corporate jet becomes very competitive with the
> airlines, even to Milan.
>
> All the ranting and raving the airlines have been doing recently
> against GA is due to their abject fear of the new VLJs. With a VLJ
> costing
> under $2 million, on medium to short haul flights when you have as few as
> 2
> executives going together, your costs are about the same as for 2 business
> class tickets, but you now go on your schedule and out of the small
> airport
> convenient to both your departure and destination. Compare that with
> having to drive to the nearest air carrier airport, possibly connect at at
> least one air carrier hub airport, and then drive a longer distance from
> the air carrier airport nearest to your destination, and the big profit
> customer is going to leave the airlines. The airlines can't compete with
> this, and they know it.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I flew into PWK a couple years back with an instructor when I was working on
my Instrument (which I finally abandoned due to lack of time). There was a
landing fee unless I got fuel, since the FBO that I rent from reimbursed me
I got the fuel. I *think* we stopped at Ratheon but it has been to long. It
was the coolest flight I had ever been on. Flew from MQJ IFR to PWK. Went
right along the lake front inbound and then right over the top of O'Hare
coming back. Only took one hour to get back with GS of up to 200 in a 182!

[Marty Shapiro]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:


>
> I flew into PWK a couple years back with an instructor when I was
> working on my Instrument (which I finally abandoned due to lack of
> time). There was a landing fee unless I got fuel, since the FBO that I
> rent from reimbursed me I got the fuel. I *think* we stopped at
> Ratheon but it has been to long. It was the coolest flight I had ever
> been on. Flew from MQJ IFR to PWK. Went right along the lake front
> inbound and then right over the top of O'Hare coming back. Only took
> one hour to get back with GS of up to 200 in a 182!
>
>
>
It looks like you got hit with a ramp fee from the FBO rather than a
landing fee. Most of the time if the fee is waived for fuel purchase, it's
the FBO's ramp fee that is being waived. Airnav.com does not indicate a
landing fee at PWK, nor does the airport's own web pages.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Qanset]

Craig Welch wrote:

> said:
>
> >On Nov 14, 9:55 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> 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.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&...
> >>
> >> 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? Or--like several other airlines--do they
> >> make so much from hauling cargo across the Atlantic that they don't need
> >> passengers to turn a profit?
> >
> > 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 paid?

Depends on which Airline you fly with. Some are more generous than others.

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

How would they know??? He could say that he paid to be upgraded because economy
was full.

>
>
> --
> Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
> 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups:
> Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/

[Qanset]

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.

[VainGlorious]

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.

[Mister B]

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;

[Mike....]

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

[[email protected]]

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.