Originally Posted By mousermerf Irrops = or irregular operations. It's not just flight attendants or FA's, it's also gate agents, or GA's. Whole world of abbreviations and chatter that makes us Disney fans look like smallville. Anywho - you arrive in Newark late because you shuttle connection was delated becaus of an inop lav and de-icing leaving ATL because of insufficient ground crews and some other such nonsence which they try to classify as WX really you know it's MX and their fault, but trying to pin it on WX they try to not comp you a room for the night and leave you in the airport. Also, since you're now in Virgin you've not got many route or options whereas with Continental (CO) you've got multiple flights and reroutes to multiple markets with a distinct chance of making it to your destination before the next day. Not to mention the lounges - with showers, international arrivals lounges are nice if you're stuck somewhere for a few hours. "What difference does it make?" Well, Virgin isn't a "legacy" airline and so it doesn't have the coverage and it doesn't have the facilities, and while CO isn't as young and lean it's better run and has quality standards then the vast majority of the legacy carriers. If you don't know what is considered a legacy carrier, you'll have to do some research and look into that - southwest is not, btw.
Originally Posted By mousermerf As for miles and segments, the big boys are dealing in millions of miles and hundreds of segments. I'm only mid-tier, so I only get things like first class space available companion upgrades, elite desk access, and lounge privilages (mm.. nutella..).
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Okay, I get it now. I will say though, if you are an infrequent flier, you run much less a chance of running into problems, yes? FWIW, on Virgin's site, "Since launching in August 2007, Virgin America has captured a list of travel industry best-in-class awards, including: "Best Domestic Airline" by Conde Nast Traveler; "Best Domestic Airline" in Travel + Leisure World's Best Awards; and No. 1 among U.S. carriers for quality in First Class in Zagat's 2007 and 2008 Global Airlines Survey." Sounds like they must be doing something right.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss The other way to look at it is they are lean and mean and not saddled with the potential for problems you outlined.
Originally Posted By mousermerf Doesn't do any good to earn miles or upgrades if you can't go anywhere with them. I sit in first class while paying for cheap economy tickets, so my experience is that CO's system works out vastly better for me.
Originally Posted By mousermerf And btw, I can use my miles from CO to buy tickets on Virgin. It's reciprocal, but CO being the larger airline, it makes more sense to have the primary account with CO, as they're the airline you'd spend more time "butt in seat" with.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Doesn't do any good to earn miles or upgrades if you can't go anywhere with them.>> But again, if someone is an infrequent flier, they're never going to earn enough miles to go wherever there is. Unless of course they're using an affinity credit card to accrue mileage.
Originally Posted By mousermerf I have an affinity bank account, so just paying my bills earns my two miles per dollar spent to pay the rent.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< And you don't travel very often, because 99% of what goes wrong has nothing to do with the plane or flying it. >>> I guess it depends on what you mean by "what goes wrong." If you mean safety-related issues, the #1 cause of fatal passenger airliner accidents is pilot error, far above mechanical, weather, or terrorism. So yes, I'd say that increased pilot experience does impact safety, although at least on mainline (e.g. non-commuter) flights, I feel that the minimum standards are high enough that I don't worry about it. Unlike pilots, cabin crew don't do things that will impact safety in an emergency every day, such as evacuate the aircraft. So I'm not sure that a brand-new cabin crew is any less safe in an emergency than one that has decades of experience. Regardless of tenure, if there is an emergency evacuation, it's likely to be the first real one for everyone involved, including senior cabin crew.
Originally Posted By mousermerf You people make my head hurt.. Planes rarely crash, so rarely that's it's absurd to spend your time being concerned about it - especially to the point of being concerned about the experience of pilots between major airlines. We're talking customer experience otherwise. This really points out that you folks just don't fly. Actually being in the air is the most problem free part of flying because it has the least amount of things that can go wrong - all you do is sit and wait. "Oh noes! They broughts me the wrong eine!" and things like that are petty complaints beyond that. Trust me, I've seen those petty complaints - but the real problems are in the way they handle getting people from A to B in their daily operations. Planes are late, there's weather and mechanical delays, route networks, alliances, code shares, federally mandated involuntary denied boarding compensation minimums and none of that you folks seems to comprehend. Which delights airlines because they've likely screwed you out of a couple hundred if not thousands of dollars at some point.
Originally Posted By Socrates <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-04-10-polish-president-killed_N.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...ed_N.htm</a> Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<We're talking customer experience otherwise. This really points out that you folks just don't fly.>> I'd guess that SuperDry has flown more than you.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< You people make my head hurt >>> You're not the only one! <<< Planes rarely crash, so rarely that's it's absurd to spend your time being concerned about it - especially to the point of being concerned about the experience of pilots between major airlines. >>> Since I'm the only one that discussed this, I assume you're responding to me. And, your tone is as if you're rebutting me. But, if you actually read what I said: "I feel that the minimum standards are high enough that I don't worry about it" you'll see that I said exactly the same thing as you did. No need to get all uptight over it. Also, as a point of order, I posted #170 having read only up to #160 - at that point, it was not clear to me or probably anyone else at that point what you meant by "when things go wrong." <<We're talking customer experience otherwise. This really points out that you folks just don't fly.>> I suspect that I fly quite a bit. <<< I'd guess that SuperDry has flown more than you. >>> I'd guess the same thing I'd also guess that I have more wallet candy, more lifetime miles, and more miles in the bank than mousemerf would guess. Bringing this topic at least partially back on track, one of the reasons many of us here fly is to get to Disney resorts. Probably not as much for DLR, but quite a high percentage of visitors to WDW fly to get there. That makes air travel a significant part of the visit, including cost, time, and convenience. I don't think there's one, best answer for air carriers. Mousemerf points out that a large legacy carrier has far more options available for reroutes in the case of irregular ops, especially when connecting through one of its large hubs, such as Newark. But, this overlooks an important issue: depending on where you're coming from with respect to WDW and what time of year it is, you might be far better off connecting in a city that's not notorious for delays, such as Newark. Between bad weather in the winter and air traffic control congestion year-round, Newark is prone to cause a lot of irrops, and this may cancel out the benefits of having lots of irrops alternatives. You might be much better off connecting through Atlanta on Delta, or Dallas/FtWorth on American, both of which are far less prone to weather issues. Or, you might in this particular case be much better off flying some no-name, upstart airline that most people have never heard of with one flight per day to Orlando from your city if it offers non-stop service whereas all other options involve a connection, and that's the only flight you take each year so you don't care about frequent flyer programs. So, I don't think it's quite as easy as some make it out to be to make the "best" choice.
Originally Posted By mousermerf No one asked for me to help them book a flight or choose a preferred carrier- I was just stating why someone would choose Continental over Virgin and why Continental wasn't "matronly" nor "minx" but a good compromise between the two. Which you should admit is the general consensus among frequent flyers in their opinion of domestic airlines. And ATL? Eww. If you're recommending DL I can't you seriously. At least it's not US I guess.
Originally Posted By mousermerf <<I'd guess the same thing I'd also guess that I have more wallet candy, more lifetime miles, and more miles in the bank than mousemerf would guess.>> What is your FT handle?
Originally Posted By SuperDry Nuthin' you need to worry about. And yes, flying Delta thru Atlanta is in some cases preferable to Newark on Continental when NYC has inclimate weather.
Originally Posted By mousermerf There is nothing ever preferable about DL. I rarely have to go through Newark anyways and I can easily code-share with UA. Skyteam got screwed when CO went to *A.
