Originally Posted By leemac <<It would seem that the paying passengers in these cabins would have to be mostly people on expense accounts or people with so much money that $12,000 isn't much to them, but how many of those people can there be on every flight?>> As I say I can only talk about my experience but it has been so difficult recently getting C fares out of Heathrow at short notice. I'm invariably on standby and as that bumps me up the priority list I'd be surprised if they have a lot of freebies up there. In light of the fact that BA is very profitable (like Lufthansa and Air France) they must be doing something right for their premium passengers.
Originally Posted By chseacrest1 Hi, I'm new at this stuff but here we go. My family and I are going to Orlando, Fl. for the first time can a 260lb person get on Aerosmith rollercoaster and also is Cirque du Soleil part of the disney theme park Thanks
Originally Posted By leemac chseacrest1, you might want to create a topic in the WDW Trip Planning section if you have questions about WDW. I've no idea on the weight thing but Cirque du Soleil is operated by Walt Disney World but it is a separately ticketed event at Downtown Disney: <a href="http://www.cirquedusoleil.com" target="_blank">http://www.cirquedusoleil.com</a>
Originally Posted By Labuda chsea - you're about the same weight as my husband, so yeah, you'll be able to fit on RnRC.
Originally Posted By LadyandtheTramp TDLFAN "Obviously a Southwest customer, aren't you? When was the last time *you* paid for First Class? I am sure you probably can't remember that as well..." What an arrogant comment! You have no idea, yet pontificate out of one of your orifices as if it's the holy grail. And yet, as to your comments: I have never been on a Southwest flight. No, I have not bought a First Class ticket recently - internationally, the airline I use doesn't provide international First Class, but I did purchase Business Class in March. Likewise, why buy a domestic first class ticket since my airline of choice upgrades it's frequent flyers gratis, and there is no need.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN Exactly^^^ You just illustrated my point of view. But I am not blaming you... I blame the airlines from kissing back to their customers, not charging the rightful amount to fly in FC, to cover fuel and then come back to ask their front line employees to give pay, retirement, etc when the average airline employee earns a measly $35,000 a year while the CEOs are pocketing millions of $$$ in bonuses. >>What an arrogant comment! You have no idea, yet pontificate out of one of your orifices as if it's the holy grail.<< Yes, I am arrogant, and I have to write that comment down.. It's a great one!! Thanks.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< BA in particular has seen huge demand for Club World recently. It seems every flight I take with them is full to the brim in Club World and First. That is even on routes that should be highly competitive like London to Chicago, NYC and DC. >>> Isn't BA's Club World the only Business Class product on the market that has fully-flat, horizontal seating? I've never flown it myself, but if I had the choice between that and what the other carriers offered on the same route for the same price, I'd definately choose a flat, horizontal seat. I was surprised to hear that BA added this seating when they also had a First Class product on the same aircraft, but it's apparently been successful for them. <<< I blame the airlines from kissing back to their customers, not charging the rightful amount to fly in FC, to cover fuel and then come back to ask their front line employees to give pay, retirement, etc when the average airline employee earns a measly $35,000 a year while the CEOs are pocketing millions of $$$ in bonuses. >>> The problem that US carriers face on domestic routes is that they have almost no pricing power. Most leisure travelers are simply not willing to pay even $10 more for a better product, so carriers must price their product at what the market rate is (often set by Southwest's pricing) in order to get customers. It has very little to do with giving away upgrades or CEO pay. Look at American's experiment with removing a couple of rows to increase legroom: even with an exstensive marketing campaign (including nationwide prime-time TV advertising), they just couldn't get enough people to pay any more than Southwest charged on competing routes. They've since put those rows back and taken away the extra legroom. Regarding charging a proper fee for First Class travel, many carriers have greatly increased their FC revenue and decreased the number of upgraded seats by lowering the domestic First fares. The three domestic SkyTeam carriers offer basically the same upgrade rules: free upgrades to elite passengers if there are unsold seats in First. But now that they've lowered the First fares, there are more people paying for them and less people upgrading for free. I used to almost always get a free upgrade, but now my expectation is that I have to buy a First ticket if I'm going to sit up front. But that's fine with me now that First is no longer priced at 10x the discount coach fare.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>But that's fine with me now that First is no longer priced at 10x the discount coach fare.<< If that is the case, then why do customers continue to expect first class service when seating in the front, when you are only willing to pay less that what an economy class ticket should go for now a days?? If pleople are willing to pay $3 per gallon of fuel to drive, then why are they not willing to pay more than what the airlines were charging back in the mid 80s for air travel...20 years later??
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< If that is the case, then why do customers continue to expect first class service when seating in the front, when you are only willing to pay less that what an economy class ticket should go for now a days?? >>> I'm not sure what you think a First Class ticket should go for. The ticket I'm referring to was from Texas to California. On a full-service carrier on this route, the advance purchase discount fare is about $300, the full coach fare is about $700, and the first class fare is about $900. I had to travel at the last minute, so my choices were $700 for coach or $900 for first (or $600 for Southwest). I felt that the extra $200 was worth it for the superior first class service and paid it, even though I *might* have gotten it for free had I bought coach and the first class seat remained unsold. I'm hoping that you just misuderstood my situation and don't actually think that a coach ticket from Texas to California should be more than $900. Before the fare restructuring for full-fare tickets that happened 2 or 3 years ago, a first class ticket on this route would have been $2200, which I think was way overpriced - at that price, it's no wonder that they gave most of the seats away to upgrades. The fact that many passengers complain that because of the fare restructuring that upgrades are much harder to come by is proof enough that substantially more passengers are willing to pay for First now that it's $900 instead of $2200.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>I'm not sure what you think a First Class ticket should go for.<< Depends on the route and lenght of flight. But if I had it my way...
Originally Posted By LadyandtheTramp "If people are willing to pay $3 per gallon of fuel to drive, then why are they not willing to pay more than what the airlines were charging back in the mid 80s for air travel...20 years later??" Isn't it more a question of why don't airlines charge what they should? If I drive down a road with 5 gas stations in a row, and I can see the price for each of them, why in the world would I voluntarily pay $3.00 a gallon if I could go next door and pay $2.50 a gallon? There would have to be a reason - other than price. That's one of the things I look for when booking a trip - and I will pay a bit more to get on a preferred airline than on another one, even if it's not one of the so-called discount. I appreciate the extra legroom in the economy elite, and if I get the upgrade, so much the better. (We're talking domestic here). But the blame (if you can call it that) can be laid at the feet of a number of culprits - employees who want to work 80 hours a month but get paid for 160; management who expect to get paid what CEOs of profitable companies make notwithstanding how their own companies are doing; governments who figure that the traveling public generally doesn't pay taxes in their jurisdiction so that they can tax without retribution; and not least is the outmoded bankruptcy laws that keep airlines flying way past the time that they can make a profit.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>Isn't it more a question of why don't airlines charge what they should?<< Yes, I agree. However, If you price it, they will pay... I think the Fuel companies are proof of that as consumers will pay whatever they have to for the convenience of driving their cars everyday.. >> But the blame (if you can call it that) can be laid at the feet of a number of culprits - employees who want to work 80 hours a month but get paid for 160...<< Only crew members work under such parameters...of which some are imposed by the goverment (FAA) and others are imposed due to their respective collective bargaining agreements (not all crew members share the same rules and regulations),also due to safety related duties air crews have to deal with, not to mention the dangers of taking to the skies and the higher percentage of death on the job. Pilots and Flight Attendants only account for 18% or less of the total workforce at any given career. All other airline employees (gate agents, crew schedulers, ramp agents, reservationists, meteorologists, mechanics etc etc etc) put in their "160" a month. It's easy to blame crew provisions and rest requirements, and to question why some crews work on average 80-90hrs a month and ask for pay comparable to "160".. But ask yourself... do you really want to be onboard an airplane up to 160 hrs of your month? Have you also concidered that most crew members only get paid from the time the plane leaves the gate and the pay stops when the plane arrives at the gate and the engine are turned off?? FYI... any given pilot or flight attendant spends an average of 265 hours A MONTH on duty at work but only gets paid about 90 hrs... The time crew members spend on a plane during boarding, or sitting on the ground in between flights or away from home overnight etc, is NOT paid time on the clock. With that in mind... I am sure you can see why is it unfair to place blame on working crew members for wanting better pay when they are actually flying, since most of the "on duty" time is NOT paid at ALL! My point is...it's easy to blame the workforce for the airlines' problems, but there is a lot many people do not know about being an airline worker, and especially about the rules and regulations crew members in particular, have to deal with.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN And the goverment is partly toblame for the airlines' problems as well... based on this Bloomberg news item....<<<U.S. airlines are being hurt by a government delay in raising rates for mail shipments because they can't charge enough to cover rising fuel costs, the industry's trade group said. The Transportation Department ``is causing significant financial harm'' by missing its Jan. 1 target for new rates, said James May, president of the Air Transport Association in Washington. “This situation cannot be allowed to continue,†he said in a statement yesterday. The airlines are trying to boost revenue and offset fuel costs after losing more than $40 billion since 2001. The U.S. Postal Service, the Defense Department and United Parcel Service Inc. oppose a rate increase, saying the government already overpays for international mail under a rate-setting program from the 1970s. (Bloomberg)>>>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By seanyoda To the comment >>I can't think of the last time I saw someone wearing a tie on a plane, domestic or international.<< TDLFAN replied >>Obviously a Southwest customer, aren't you?<< On any weekday, on any Southwest flight between Northern and Southern California or on the Texas Triangle routes, you'll see quite a few folks wearing ties and even suits.
Originally Posted By beamerdog >>Remeber those days TDLFAN when people actually dressed up to fly.<< Always have and always will. And I try to have a smile on my face and treat the staff politely. I have two relatives who are in service positions with an airline (one on the ground and one in the air) and they work their buts off. I think that dressing up is a way of showing respect. When my kids fly with me, they dress business casual for vacation. btw, my husband is one who is *very* casual and it drives me nuts.
