Kagehitokiri

turboprop / very light jet could have more scheduled charter

IIRC there are some scheduled out of general aviation airports in northeast
also recall seeing a scheduled operator between central/midwest and east

i remember seeing netjets or someone saying WAS-NYC had most flights, seems like there would be room for scheduled using general aviation airports

whenever they are offered, they get some positive discussion on FT

if the membership based scheduled are successful in LA/SF, might see expansion

Nugget_Oz

Australian 'Business' only happens on some flights, the highly traveled ones and then only on some flights. I think the problem is that there are two tiers of "Domestic First" which means that there is inconsistency of expectations.

lloydah

Euro business or US First, they both have their drawbacks but saying "lower your expectations..." no thanks. Why, just because it's air travel. The guy just wants what is advertised in the first instance - a working power outlet. How many of us go to a decent restaurant, get served some crap and take it that we should simply "lower our expectations"? No wonder the airlines get away with what they do.

Big4Flyer

If you're serious about considering flying private you might want to try the JetSmarter app. I just checked and you can book a small Cirrus SR-22 MIA to ORD for $4000. Of course, it would take you a while to get there and I don't think they have in flight power ports VLJs start around $12,000 each way, although if you sign up for a membership with JetSuite you could probably get that down to around $10,000 and even less if you do same day turns. At the 400K membership level you're paying only $3,550/hour.

ajGoes

United states here that "the maximum voltage allowed in inflight power outlets is 50-75 volt-amperes." Granted, the disclaimer is garbled. It shouldn't follow the word "maximum" with a range, and it should express the maximum in watts. Still, a charger for a monster laptop like OP's requires several times 75 VA. An electrical engineer wouldn't be surprised that the outlet turned off, but Joe Public would be better served by plain, accurate language.

airplanegod

That's what we get for living in the US. Basically all you're paying for on those routes is front of the aircraft privileges and a semi-larger seat. You used to be served full meals and had much larger seats/more attention on these flights, but you can thank cutbacks for that one. This country needs to go back to pre-9/11 flying conditions.

cl.lurker

...you're missing the point here.... OP could be flying Emirates First on a A380 and the power port still wouldn't work with his equipment.

Airlines can be quite evil, but in this instance it's not their fault. (Admittedly, for once....)

MSPeconomist

I would disagree about the Australian domestic flights. I've had business class on smaller mainline aircraft (737?) that had two rows of 2-2 wider seats and a movable curtain, with the remaining rows of business class in regular coach seats. Horrible. My best experience was a 767 that looked like USA domestic FC, 2-2-2. The dinner had no choice at all, although it was good. This was all on QF, which does have some decent lounges, although the transfer between domestic and international terminals is painful.

Efrem

When I was a lot younger I crossed the Atlantic six times by sea (thanks to my father's employer and the wonders of home leave). Five crossings were in first class: both of the original Queens and the SSs Nieuw Amsterdam, United States and France.

I have also flown trans-oceanic first class twice fairly recently - LHR-BOS on BA and PVG-ORD on AA - as well as other times in the past.

There is absolutely no comparison. The selections of wines on the planes were much smaller, the menus were much more limited, there were no deck chairs or shuffleboard, no swimming pool, not even a shower. On the plus side, we didn't have a lifeboat drill.

Does that mean that international first class is "horrible," to quote the title of this thread? No, it does not. It means that the label "first class" means different things in different contexts. Why should anyone be surprised that it means a third thing in a third context, domestic U.S. travel? Just because both it and trans-oceanic flights use similar aircraft? That doesn't sound like a good enough reason to me.

We have to get used to the idea that labels are just that: labels. At different times in the past, both Mazda and BMW* had models with the label "323." I don't think anyone looked at the Mazda and felt that the label was unfair or the car was "horrible" because it wasn't much like the bimmer. We know that car model names/numbers are just labels with no underlying meaning. So is "first class." It's that simple.

So, if you think domestic U.S. airlines should improve their first class offerings, provide some valid business reasons for them to do that. ("I want more food/wine/single-malt Scotch/space/etc." is not a valid business reason.) But don't try to justify it on the basis that something else that carries a "first class label" is better. That's as relevant as the fact that first-class mail will squash you into a tiny envelope and get you somewhere in no more than two days.
___________________
*Truth in advertising: my household owns one of each, though neither is a 323.

Annalisa12

Why is domestic first so horrible, and what are the alternatives?

Only travel long haul overseas on 5 star airlines!

Annalisa12

Fully agree with you that Australian domestic business is crap.

I looked at places to go and new airlines I had not been on to sunny destinations. I looked at Virgin Australia's business class to Phuket. About $4000 each a business class ticket for my husband and myself and god help me looking at what I'd get. I would get what you described above. A seat an inch bigger, slightly more pitch and a curtain a few centimetres away from the last business class row seat. No my idea of business class. If you didn't check the definitions of their travel, such as short haul or long haul international you would be in for a big disappointment.

cmd320

Domestic F on AA/DL/UA is total garbage and they know it. They just don't care. The best alternative is to fly another airline or take a train wherever possible/practical. At this point, I don't even really consider flying a viable option in the Northeast corridor anymore. I try to take VX for transcons as much as possible (outside of what AA/DL/UA have seemingly dedicated the "premium" transcon market). I like B6 Y+ more than some carriers' domestic F products and will book that for east coast flights often.

The only time I really use AA/DL/UA now is to position to a flights on other airlines, typically to DFW, NYC, MIA, or DC. Even then, I try to avoid. I've never been much of a WN advocate, so I can't really comment on what they have to offer, but my guess is not much.

PcolaPaul

oh are you the guy who's been hacking the IFEs? LOL

onobond

Acknowledging your points on TWO AA transcons, i.e. JFK-SFO and JFK-LAX, both routes now served by appropriate aircraft, your comparison with EU flights is not comparable; there are no intra-EU F flights, so domestic US F could be said to be 1 gadzillion times better. Intra-EU C are flights mainly <1 to >2 h flights; blocked middle seat, but sure the seat IS coach. In US often flown with regional jets with no proper F either. For any EU flight duration comparable to a US transcon it's an inter-continental flight, that on most carriers have been served with aircraft providing lie-flat Business seats

Mats

I think the key is to remember that it's less horrible than economy class. Really, that's the goal. After a three-hour flight in slimline seats on a 737 or Airbus narrowbody, US domestic first doesn't seem as bad after all.

In my own view, the problems are as follows.

1. It has the wrong name.
It isn't first class. It's business class. But everything got muddled with international business, so they stuck with calling it "first class." But that term connotes polished, attentive service, china, silver, etc.

2. The cabin environment is usually the biggest benefit.
It's usually quieter and less claustrophobic. I can sleep quite well in the first row of a 737. It's not so easy in the back.

3. The airlines fluctuate.
There will be occasional investments: better food, in-seat power, but they're often inconsistent, and there is a pendulum between cutbacks and better service. The airlines do try, but then they have cutbacks, then they try again.

4. The European and Middle Eastern airlines have figured out the catering part. I don't understand why this is so hard for US airlines.
In recent memory, Lufthansa, KLM, Arkia, El Al, Brussels Airlines, and Turkish Airlines have all had great meals on very short flights in the forward cabin. Although there are costs involved beyond the ingredients, these airlines manage to produce large, appetising meals--often with a choice. The cold meals were great. I don't know why the economics are so off kilter that the US carriers can't follow the lead.

Food keeps people happy; it's a sign of hospitality. And the major US airlines just seem to screw this up in first class. I don't understand the barriers.

5. The American carriers have a culture of permissiveness about crew complaints.
Although it certainly can happen anywhere, the US airline cabin crews will often unleash their frustrations with their employers within earshot of passengers. They will argue, whine, moan to one another for hours. It is profoundly unprofessional, and I think it disproportionately affects first class passengers, who can hear all of this chatter from the galley.

6. There is no pervasive train competition.
Except for the Northeast Corridor and a few other places, the train isn't a viable option. And--Acela aside--the service on Amtrak isn't great. And now their safety is of grave concern to all of us. The train stations can be filthy, sad, and uncomfortable. In Europe, the airlines have to compete with a higher standard of service and speed. Services like business class on the Eurostar offer catering, comfort, and speed, that are superior to the airlines.

7. It's not always bad.
There are domestic first class flights with reliable, safe, and reasonably comfortable service. And sometimes the food isn't bad. There are plenty of hard-working, safety-conscious cabin crew, who really do want you to have a pleasant trip. It's just that you can't count on this happening.

8. Alaska and Hawaii are a problem.
Flights from the mainland to Hawaii and Alaska deserve a much higher standard of inflight service (in both cabins.) These are very long flights, and the service does not match what one would receive in a flight of comparable length to an international destination. There are some exceptions in terms of seats, but most of the time, it's a regular first class seat. But it's what the market will bear. Passengers will accept it and pay for it, which is unfortunate.

9. Blankets and pillows
There should be blankets and pillows in first class on any flight longer than an hour or two. That was a stupid cutback. I'm sure someone can talk about how the blankets are dirty. But I don't like that I have to carry my own blanket and pillow with me on board. It looks bad, and it seems weird when flight attendants have to say, "sorry; they took those away."