Is flying an enjoyable experience any more?

Brennus335

I haven't flown economy in the last 10 years.
First, (or Business if I have to slum it.)
Check in my 50kg allowance. Fast track security. Sit down in my suite with pre takeoff champagne.
Caviar and cheese board, couple of fingers of Chivas, make up the bed, close the door, and go to sleep.

Van.Bosch

Brennus335 wrote: »

I haven't flown economy in the last 10 years.
First, (or Business if I have to slum it.)
Check in my 50kg allowance. Fast track security. Sit down in my suite with pre takeoff champagne.
Caviar and cheese board, couple of fingers of Chivas, make up the bed, close the door, and go to sleep.

Where do you fly to all these times? Just curious as there are very few airlines offering first from Dublin? If going Dublin to U.K. Do you fly via DXB?

Blut2

The liquids rule is the one easily removable thing that really annoys me. It:

a) slows down the security process massively
b) is pointless - if someone wanted to bring a flammable liquid on board they'd just bring ten 100ml bottles of it in their see through bag, or would buy alcohol in duty free etc
c) is just a hassle. My favourite cologne comes in a 120ml bottle. My usual deodorant in a 150ml spray. Suncream, toothpaste...whatever. Its ridiculous having to buy special travel alternatives.

Lots of other annoyances (non FF travelers being slow, crying babies on planes, reductions in seat width/pitch etc) are annoying but at least are unintentional or have a commercial reasoning behind them. But the liquids rule for the security theatre is just so pointless that it really gets to me.

Wrex

Security experience varies greatly depending on the airport. I find Dublin well marshalled, quick and straightforward. On the other end of the scale, I find Machester security abysmal. Extra checks for non issues, and the people who are employed there, are not particularly bright or now how to handle busy periods of the day.

This article is an example

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/airport-staff-let-man-go-after-finding-viable-pipe-bomb-in-his-hand-luggage-6874056/

Locker10a

Wrex wrote: »

Security experience varies greatly depending on the airport. I find Dublin well marshalled, quick and straightforward. On the other end of the scale, I find Machester security abysmal. Extra checks for non issues, and the people who are employed there, are not particularly bright or now how to handle busy periods of the day.

This article is an example

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/airport-staff-let-man-go-after-finding-viable-pipe-bomb-in-his-hand-luggage-6874056/

In fairness to Manchester security, they handed over that guy to counter-terrorism officers, who are actual police and they then released him. The security personnel actually performed their role fully.

Wrex

Locker10a wrote: »

In fairness to Manchester security, they handed over that guy to counter-terrorism officers, who are actual police and they then released him. The security personnel actually performed their role fully.

I beg to differ, this was from same article


"Terminal Three security manager Deborah Jeffrey even initially put the explosive into her pocket."

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/airport-staff-let-man-go-after-finding-viable-pipe-bomb-in-his-hand-luggage-6874056/#ixzz4sB9dws9B

Locker10a

Wrex wrote: »

Locker10a wrote: »

In fairness to Manchester security, they handed over that guy to counter-terrorism officers, who are actual police and they then released him. The security personnel actually performed their role fully.

I beg to differ, this was from same article


"Terminal Three security manager Deborah Jeffrey even initially put the explosive into her pocket."

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/airport-staff-let-man-go-after-finding-viable-pipe-bomb-in-his-hand-luggage-6874056/#ixzz4sB9dws9B

Wow, she was an idiot to do that.  
I was going by the part that said '[font=ScoutLight, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Airport security initially believed the bomb was not viable and, after being questioned by counter-terrorism officers, Muhammad was released.' [/font]
This to me sounded like the police released him.

ED E

Blut2 wrote: »

b) is pointless - if someone wanted to bring a flammable liquid on board they'd just bring ten 100ml bottles of it in their see through bag, or would buy alcohol in duty free etc

Its not about flammable compounds but explosive ones. Still rather futile when they're never checked.

Davidth88

Simple answer to the OP .... no.

I am an aviation enthusiast but the security nonsense and the race to the bottom as far as service is concerned has made it a chore.

I used to fly 2 or 3 return trips a month bit that stopped 7 years ago and tbh thank God.

Personal gripes ... standing in a security queue and you can see people who have stood in the same queue as you .. seen the same notices etc and they get to the front and have not prepared AT ALL.... BANG there goes 3 or 4 mins ... multiply that by 20 or 30 people and that's the queue backing up.

Boarding aircraft .... husband puts the bag in the overhead ... then comes the conversation.... do you want you magazine dear ( or what ever ) ..
. While blocking the aisle.

Why do airports still assume everyone who flies wants the most expensive shops or cafes in the world ( Harrods in LHR for example )

Grrr getting hot under the collar just typing this ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜

fg1406

Definitely not anymore. As with most people,the excessive charges to check in a bag, coupled with the inconsistent security requirements across different airports, drive me mad. Compared to some on this forum, I don't fly very frequently (probably 1 trip per month on average) but it can be a chore. Dublin airport isn't all that bad and I can navigate it pretty easily. But when you get the likes of Heathrow Airport security saying the plastic bag which I had for liquids, that I picked up in Dublin, doesn't meet their requirements, that makes me so annoyed. Also Eindhoven airport security refused to allow me keep a book I was reading, in my coat pocket and said it had to go into my suitcase. Charleroi security stated that my coat had to go into my suitcase...it wouldn't fit so I felt like it was a way to force me to check my bag in and pay €€€ for it. Dublin airport requires my kindle to be scanned in a tray. Others state it can stay in the bag. Some require you to take your shoes off. Others state that you leave them on.

If only there were consistent rules. iPad stays out? Fine. Liquids in a clear plastic bag? Fine,but don't ask me to buy a bag at your airport on the grounds that the one I got in another airport is too big/fastens the wrong way/made from wrong type of plastic.

jjbrien

Davidth88 wrote: »

Why do airports still assume everyone who flies wants the most expensive shops or cafes in the world ( Harrods in LHR for example )

Grrr getting hot under the collar just typing this ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜

Totally agree there I am flying via LGW this week and I rember there used to be cheap options to eat in both LHR and LGW. Gatwick used to have a Mc Donald's and KFC. Heathrow used to have burger king and a few other cheap options not any more both have over the top and expensive food. Heathrow used to also have a fairly decent priced duty free again not any more.

The new Ryanair rule on carry on I get but for someone like me who used to work at the airport I have everything I need ready before I even get to security and the plane. I am thinking if I need to go to England Ill just take the ferry.

I also agree on the liquid rule totally could be got rid of, its only in place so people have to buy drinks after security so the airport can make more off people.

I seen in the states the US Government seems to be having enough of airlines reducing the size of seats and is now going to force minimum seat with and pitch on them.

Noxegon

Heathrow used to have burger king and a few other cheap options not any more both have over the top and expensive food.

You've just reminded me of my last experience at Heathrow T2. The credit card machine at Yo Sushi presented me with a choice of different percentages for my tip, with no option for nothing. Under normal circumstances I give 10%, but in this case I was so outraged that I asked them to override it and gave them SFA.

john boye

Had a similar experience in Gatwick recently but I was paying by cash. I was very taken aback by how forward it was.

Locker10a

john boye wrote: »

Had a similar experience in Gatwick recently but I was paying by cash. I was very taken aback by how forward it was.

America here we come

EICVD

Was it ever? Personally can't wait to fly QF PER-LHR or NZ talking about AKL-EWR/JFK direct, now that'll be fun....

bk

selous wrote: »

I was on a 4.5 hour flight this week and from beginning to end babies were screaming, I've never been on a flight that had so many babies on it, one lovely parent at the front with a screaming one walked up and down the length of the plane to rock her baby asleep, but in the process woke the ones at the back, plane made Dublin in 4 hours,(12.10am) 30mins quicker than it should have, one of the worse flights I've been on, there was a lot of gnarly people got off the plane,

Bose sound cancelling earphones, best purchase I've ever made in terms of travel. Makes flying much easier and enjoyable IME.

selous wrote: »

Re-Munchkin.

I never have had a problem with them, there were loads of kids on board too, but these were babies, all under 1, (at a guess, as they were wrapped up on the mother/father) Just saying I've never been on a plane with such a high number of Babies on board and all screaming from take off to landing,
Putting it down to the route I was on,:cool:

Some routes are just fancy bus routes. Routes to the likes of Poland can be like this, mostly immigrants living here heading back and forward to visit family, etc.

eeguy wrote: »

American airports are actually grand since the preclearance is done in Dublin. You land at the domestic terminal and walk right out the door. It's more like a bus station than an airport as passengers are mixed.

Yup, I really like SFO, the staff their are extremely friendly and relaxed. But then their the airports own security rather then those TSA folks.

gctest50 wrote: »

.

Rose tinted glasses.

I watched an interesting youtube video about exactly this topic. They showed that the cost of a standard class ticket in the 1950's, adjusted for inflation, is the same as a first class ticket today!

So as long as you are willing to pay for first class, you can absolutely get the same type of experience. In fact first class and even business class are far superior today then they were in the 60's. Think of first class suites on Emirates or even think of the full lie flat seats, noise cancelling headphones, wifi and VOD of business class.

Economy class simply didn't exist back in the 50's. People with less money simply couldn't fly. Really we are living in the golden era of flying now.

Though I do agree that the airport experience is much worse today with parking, security, etc.

Blut2

bk wrote: »

/snip for brevity

Yup, I totally agree with that. The in-flight experience is continually getting better - food quality, entertainment etc at any given price point. People in general compare historical flying to economy, when business class is the far more financially valid comparison.

The continual degradation of the airport experience is the bigger problem. Its getting more unpleasant, and lengthier time-wise, each decade. The morphing into security malls is probably unavoidable at this point due to the need to minimize landing fees for carriers, but sooner or later the security theatre process really needs to be re-assessed logically.

Spanish Eyes

Blut2 wrote: »

Yup, I totally agree with that. The in-flight experience is continually getting better - food quality, entertainment etc at any given price point. People in general compare historical flying to economy, when business class is the far more financially valid comparison.

The continual degradation of the airport experience is the bigger problem. Its getting more unpleasant, and lengthier time-wise, each decade. The morphing into security malls is probably unavoidable at this point due to the need to minimize landing fees for carriers, but sooner or later the security theatre process really needs to be re-assessed logically.

I am an airport's worst nightmare. The only thing I buy is an honesty bottle of water for a euro.

I just do not know how any of the shops besides Boots and the bookshops/cafes make any money. But people have time to kill I suppose since they are terrified of missing their flight, and then realise they have two more hours to go and all that.

I ignore them all. Sorry I am not a skinflint either, I just hate that stuff. If I wanted to buy any of it I could buy it back home and have it delivered to my door.

Occasionally I'll have a breakfast in one or other of the places if I have time to kill, that's good for me, it is keeping me sane and alive.

The rest of it is bullocks. But each to their own.

No wonder we are advised to arrive three hours before a flight!

Locker10a

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Blut2 wrote: »

Yup, I totally agree with that. The in-flight experience is continually getting better - food quality, entertainment etc at any given price point. People in general compare historical flying to economy, when business class is the far more financially valid comparison.

The continual degradation of the airport experience is the bigger problem. Its getting more unpleasant, and lengthier time-wise, each decade. The morphing into security malls is probably unavoidable at this point due to the need to minimize landing fees for carriers, but sooner or later the security theatre process really needs to be re-assessed logically.

I am an airport's worst nightmare. The only thing I buy is an honesty bottle of water for a euro.

I just do not know how any of the shops besides Boots and the bookshops/cafes make any money. But people have time to kill I suppose since they are terrified of missing their flight, and then realise they have two more hours to go and all that.

I ignore them all. Sorry I am not a skinflint either, I just hate that stuff. If I wanted to buy any of it I could buy it back home and have it delivered to my door.

Occasionally I'll have a breakfast in one or other of the places if I have time to kill, that's good for me, it is keeping me sane and alive.

The rest of it is bullocks. But each to their own.

No wonder we are advised to arrive three hours before a flight!

See I never understand this attitude, I notice a similar sort of "silly fools" judgement from members of my family about Ryanair selling things on their flights. (And just to set the record I hate their pushy sales approach) I've got the impression sometimes that certain friends and relations are annoyed at the fact that some people purchase things on flights, as if they are doing the rest of us a disservice by being so foolish as to waste their money on the Ryanair cart. These of course are they same snobs who will only book the bargain basket fares and add no extras. And I can't help but think, don't they realise that those who pay for all the extras, bags, seats, priority whatever.. , and buy the meal deals and J2o, and travel charger, they are the ones creating profit for the airline. They are in fact subsidising the low fares! If literally NOBODY bought anything extra other than the absolute bare min fare and bought absolutely nothing on board do you think airlines would offer flights for less than 50 quid? No hope! There's no profit from the loss leading fares airlines advertise.
The same principle really applies to the airport shops. Airports need income , ,airlines refuse to pay higher fees and this is how airports make money, designer shops and restaurants! If they didn't exist airport fees would be higher and thus ticket prices.

Negative_G

Locker10a wrote: »

See I never understand this attitude, I notice a similar sort of "silly fools" judgement from members of my family about Ryanair selling things on their flights. (And just to set the record I hate their pushy sales approach) I've got the impression sometimes that certain friends and relations are annoyed at the fact that some people purchase things on flights, as if they are doing the rest of us a disservice by being so foolish as to waste their money on the Ryanair cart. These of course are they same snobs who will only book the bargain basket fares and add no extras. And I can't help but think, don't they realise that those who pay for all the extras, bags, seats, priority whatever.. , and buy the meal deals and J2o, and travel charger, they are the ones creating profit for the airline. They are in fact subsidising the low fares! If literally NOBODY bought anything extra other than the absolute bare min fare and bought absolutely nothing on board do you think airlines would offer flights for less than 50 quid? No hope! There's no profit from the loss leading fares airlines advertise.
The same principle really applies to the airport shops. Airports need income , ,airlines refuse to pay higher fees and this is how airports make money, designer shops and restaurants! If they didn't exist airport fees would be higher and thus ticket prices.

I dont think its exactly fair to brand somewhere a snob because they choose the most cost effective way of getting from A to B.

If I happen to be sitting beside someone who pays €3 for hot water and a tea bag, I definitely dont feel like I need to appreciate that they have paid substantially over the odds because somehow in the bigger picture it means I can avail of a hypothetically cheap flight.

Selling overpriced goods on board is not what makes an airline profitable, I'd wager it is a tiny consideration, compared to the likes of checked baggage costs. The likes of Ryanair will skimp and haggle with absolutely everything in their business model with the exception of safety, only because the are obliged to comply and aircraft accidents are generally bad for business.

Like Spanish Eyes, I am quite happy to travel from A to B and spend nothing except for the flight. I'm definitely not going to spend for the sake of it because of the notion that I am somehow contributing to 'subsidising' the cost of not only my own ticket, but everyone elses aswell.

Locker10a

Negative_G wrote: »

Locker10a wrote: »

See I never understand this attitude, I notice a similar sort of "silly fools" judgement from members of my family about Ryanair selling things on their flights. (And just to set the record I hate their pushy sales approach) I've got the impression sometimes that certain friends and relations are annoyed at the fact that some people purchase things on flights, as if they are doing the rest of us a disservice by being so foolish as to waste their money on the Ryanair cart. These of course are they same snobs who will only book the bargain basket fares and add no extras. And I can't help but think, don't they realise that those who pay for all the extras, bags, seats, priority whatever.. , and buy the meal deals and J2o, and travel charger, they are the ones creating profit for the airline. They are in fact subsidising the low fares! If literally NOBODY bought anything extra other than the absolute bare min fare and bought absolutely nothing on board do you think airlines would offer flights for less than 50 quid? No hope! There's no profit from the loss leading fares airlines advertise.
The same principle really applies to the airport shops. Airports need income , ,airlines refuse to pay higher fees and this is how airports make money, designer shops and restaurants! If they didn't exist airport fees would be higher and thus ticket prices.

I dont think its exactly fair to brand somewhere a snob because they choose the most cost effective way of getting from A to B.

If I happen to be sitting beside someone who pays €3 for hot water and a tea bag, I definitely dont feel like I need to appreciate that they have paid substantially over the odds because somehow in the bigger picture it means I can avail of a hypothetically cheap flight.

Selling overpriced goods on board is not what makes an airline profitable, I'd wager it is a tiny consideration, compared to the likes of checked baggage costs. The likes of Ryanair will skimp and haggle with absolutely everything in their business model with the exception of safety, only because the are obliged to comply and aircraft accidents are generally bad for business.

Like Spanish Eyes, I am quite happy to travel from A to B and spend nothing except for the flight. I'm definitely not going to spend for the sake of it because of the notion that I am somehow contributing to 'subsidising' the cost of not only my own ticket, but everyone elses aswell.

To be clear I was only referring to my own family's snobby attitude here.
In relation to profit from onboard sales, there's huge profit to be made, a previous airline I worked for bought bottles of water from the supplier for 3/4p a piece, they sold on board for €2.50. Another drink was supplied to the airline for free, under agreement it was advertised on a full page of the inflight magazine, again this drink was being sold for €2.50-€3.
The point still remains, if Ryanair didn't sell any "extras" they'd have to increase ticket prices, how else would they make money?
It's clear that in recent months they have indeed disguised new policies and procedures that encourage people to buy into seat selection, checked bags and priority boarding etc. As these revenues were falling. Without these ancillary revenues their margins get tight. They are key to their business plan

Negative_G

Locker10a wrote: »

To be clear I was only referring to my own family's snobby attitude here.
In relation to profit from onboard sales, there's huge profit to be made, a previous airline I worked for bought bottles of water from the supplier for 3/4p a piece, they sold on board for €2.50. Another drink was supplied to the airline for free, under agreement it was advertised on a full page of the inflight magazine, again this drink was being sold for €2.50-€3.
The point still remains, if Ryanair didn't sell any "extras" they'd have to increase ticket prices, how else would they make money?
It's clear that in recent months they have indeed disguised new policies and procedures that encourage people to buy into seat selection, checked bags and priority boarding etc. As these revenues were falling. Without these ancillary revenues their margins get tight. They are key to their business plan

I take your point.

Without the figures of what the ancillaries are actually worth and what it would do to basic air prices if ancillaries dropped drastically its hard to know for sure what affect it would have on air fares.

munchkin_utd

Negative_G wrote: »

I take your point.

Without the figures of what the ancillaries are actually worth and what it would do to basic air prices if ancillaries dropped drastically its hard to know for sure what affect it would have on air fares.

maybe google it, and click on the first link, and you'd see that Ryanair had 1.56 billion Euro of ancilliary income compared to 4.9billion "scheduled revenues".

Their operating expenses were a shade over 5billion, so that 1.5 billion of ancilliary income (less a bit of tax) is their profit

https://investor.ryanair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Ryanair-Annual-Report-FY16.pdf

Negative_G

munchkin_utd wrote: »

maybe google it, and click on the first link, and you'd see that Ryanair had 1.56 billion Euro of ancilliary income compared to 4.9billion "scheduled revenues".

Their operating expenses were a shade over 5billion, so that 1.5 billion of ancilliary income (less a bit of tax) is their profit

https://investor.ryanair.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Ryanair-Annual-Report-FY16.pdf

Thanks for your extremely helpful suggestion.