Originally Posted by
isaacchambers
I find this very interesting that people are willing to book away at the mere indication that snacks need to be replaced on some instances due to supply chain constraints.
I mean, it's a case of expectations, I guess. First time flying Porter in a long time so missing half of the options promoted is indeed not a good look.
Typically, a snack option isn't going to make or break my airline choice, but if all else is equal (talking non-stop flights, convenient schedule, similar comfort service, similar costs (or no cost) for bag, similar service onboard), then it might. Also depends where - all else being equal, I'm going to go for SQ to SIN vs. AC or UA due, in part, for their much better food. If I'm leaving YVR, AC is going to get a check in the advantage column for being non-stop. and if the SQ fare is much more than the AC, that is going to be a strike against them.
Originally Posted by
PortableCharger
They do! Same snack options on all the Canadian E2 flights.
I can confirm the banana bread is amazing.
Again, assuming availability. I did confirm they should have all the options ex-SFO, but the issue was supply constraints. Presumably, the snacks are double-catered in YYZ, so I suspect different stations may be supply constrained one day vs. the other.
Originally Posted by
TheGreatTree
I agree that Porter definitely provides a better economy product. For the majority who don't care or aren't aware that the supply chain issues, it won't help them differentiate the difference between the incumbent and the new players. As you said, most don't read what they buy and know the total cost and at that point you might as well take Flair for actually half the price. And for those who do care to read what they are getting, once you factor a bag cost it could change your decision.
No thank you, not taking Flair ever (US-based here, and never have or will take Frontier or Spirit, though I have done AirAsia and Scoot in Asia where it made sense - for relatively short flights they are adequate, but not preferred.
Originally Posted by
jrobin
The Porter telephone agent said if the flights were on one booking baggage could be checked through to Air New Zealand in YVR.
A travel agent had told me that she felt a single PNR would not get throughcheck of bags.
.
Does anyone have any experience with Porter throughchecking bags to other airlines?
Thanks
Can't comment on this. Many carriers will not interline bags on separate tickets, not because they can't but it is a policy. But assuming an interline agreement/the ability to, can do it on either single PNR or separate. Obviously, easier in the former case.
Originally Posted by
isaacchambers
Porter only interlines with its partners; B6, TS and AS. These are tickets that can be sold on PD's website.
Note, there are different kinds of interline agreements. While Porter may not market flights with other carriers than you mention above, possible they might have a baggage or ticket interline agreement with other carriers. Lots of carriers have interline agreements to either sell tickets or check bags through even if they don't have a marketing/codeshare/frequent flyer relationship.
Example: I once bought a ticket BKK-HKG-EWR via United, where BKK-HKG was on CX. United does not have a frequent flyer/marketing partnership with CX - but they can sell tickets with their segments on some routes, like I had above. Interestingly, their incompatible systems meant when I checked in at BKK, they could only check me onto the CX segment, and I then had to use the transfer desk at HKG to check in for the UA flight. Regardless, CX was still able to tag the bag all the way through, so I wasn't required to exit to bag claim - it all transferred.
Originally Posted by
isaacchambers
Im surprised that NZ will sell WS connections.....AC im sure must be upset at that!
There are plenty of times when carriers partners with OAL, even when they have alliance partners that fly same routes.
SQ, for example, sells US-domestic connections on AS and B6 rather than UA, despite UA and SQ being in *A. Multiple years ago, I booked a TK ticket to India, and the short hop to get to the ORD-IST flight was booked on AA rather than UA, again, even through they were in different alliances. Plus, my above mentioned trip via HKG on CX instead of TG to connect to UA on a UA ticket. So happens - its a matter of $ usually and what makes more sense (although I saw somewhere a while ago where SQ supposedly said they don't use UA for domestic US connections because their customers expect better quality...not sure how accurate that is).