Not a good start
Feb 13, 2011, 7:33 am
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
For me, my seat reservation was honored every time that I can recall, which amounts to probably over 100 times. I have though very frequently requested a different seat than I requested at check-in due to many of the seats being blocked when doing online seat reservations, or due to the agent telling me a different seat doesn't have anyone sitting next to me, etc.
Many times I do run into the issue where no seats are available for me to reserve, or only seats that I'm not interested. Almost always though a better seat is available at check-in.
Many times I do run into the issue where no seats are available for me to reserve, or only seats that I'm not interested. Almost always though a better seat is available at check-in.
1. Do bulkhead seats ever open up before checking in at the airport?
2. Do they open up if you check in online the max # of hours out?
Thanks
Feb 13, 2011, 7:41 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
Any reason why you hate them on OZ? While the screen's a bit further away, it seems like it would be easier to get out from the window than the 2nd row of seats in each C cabin. They just seemed less claustrophobic to me - I was jealous.
Feb 13, 2011, 8:19 pm
#19
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NE & SE Asia, N America
Programs: TG ROP Gold, Lifetime OZ Diamond Plus, BA Gold
Posts: 3,105
If the cabin isn't full, I like a window seat with nobody sitting next to me. If it's full, I prefer an aisle seat, and in the center section if it's a wide body. So no issues with me needing to climb over someone when getting out, though depending on the situation may require someone to climb over me.
While there are some planes where the bulkhead seat might be ok, I find that more often than not they have reduced legroom, and when there's seatback IFE, the bulkhead seats need to have the monitor stored in the side of the seat. In this case it's often inferior, being a smaller size.
In economy, most seats have movable armrests, but bulkhead seats are usually fixed, and have less width due to the tray tables being stored in the armrests.
In any cabin, the bulkhead seats are preferred by many, not to mention typical airline seating methodology fills up the front of the cabins first. So the chances of having an empty seat next to me at a bulkhead are very slim.
As a result, I simply avoid all bulkhead seats so I don't need to consider if the particular plane and flight I'm going to fly on might be one where the bulkhead seats are inferior to me or not.
While there are some planes where the bulkhead seat might be ok, I find that more often than not they have reduced legroom, and when there's seatback IFE, the bulkhead seats need to have the monitor stored in the side of the seat. In this case it's often inferior, being a smaller size.
In economy, most seats have movable armrests, but bulkhead seats are usually fixed, and have less width due to the tray tables being stored in the armrests.
In any cabin, the bulkhead seats are preferred by many, not to mention typical airline seating methodology fills up the front of the cabins first. So the chances of having an empty seat next to me at a bulkhead are very slim.
As a result, I simply avoid all bulkhead seats so I don't need to consider if the particular plane and flight I'm going to fly on might be one where the bulkhead seats are inferior to me or not.
Feb 17, 2011, 6:49 pm
#21
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NE & SE Asia, N America
Programs: TG ROP Gold, Lifetime OZ Diamond Plus, BA Gold
Posts: 3,105
Actually OZ is pretty good on the ground with respect to the airport, at least in my opinion. It's just mostly their website and their sometimes inability to effectively communicate in English. SQ is good in English, has a pretty good website, but fails in having a horrible FFP, bad customer service (in my experience) and elsewhere on the ground. Just goes to show there's really no 5-star airlines that excel in every category.
Mar 1, 2011, 6:22 am
#22
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Seoul, temporarily Shanghai
Programs: UA, AA, KE, OZ Hyatt Platinum, Int Ambassador,
Posts: 215
I don't quite agree with DUF that OZ's website is the absolute worst, as I have seen a few that are worse and a few that are about equal, but it is certainly near the bottom of the barrel. If OZ would simply hire one Westerner with a technical/web background that could whip their website into shape and make it usable with multiple browsers, make sure all their public documents use proper English, and a few other tasks, they'd be a huge leap ahead of where they are now. It would cost them very little and be a big step towards showing that they are trying to be the 5-star airline that they've been awarded. Right now, they have 5-star inflight service, but a 0-star website.
Such a huge fan of asiana yet, their website just breaks my heart.
Mar 1, 2011, 9:31 am
#23
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Coast USA/Asia
Programs: AA Plat /KE mc/OZ Diamond /Marriott gold/ SPG gold
Posts: 221
Agree!! Why oh why do they NOT improve their da** website? It cost so L I T T L E!!!! Asiana, you have to be smart about this. website is such a small cost but creates HUGE, I mean H U G E impact and you are neglecting this over what?
Such a huge fan of asiana yet, their website just breaks my heart.
Such a huge fan of asiana yet, their website just breaks my heart.
one of the main reason why you see this is because of popularity of using Active-X in S. Korea. They use Active-X for everything. back in good old days when browser security was insufficient, websites could use active-x to enhance the privacy and security... Too bad that custom continues now, even when native security is sufficient enough.
Mar 1, 2011, 5:33 pm
#24
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NE & SE Asia, N America
Programs: TG ROP Gold, Lifetime OZ Diamond Plus, BA Gold
Posts: 3,105
I don't know if this affects OZ's website any, but I upgraded my IE browser a week or two ago to the 64-bit version. For anyone who needs to access a variety of Korean websites, DO NOT upgrade to this version. It has not been tested with a lot of Korean websites, particularly when they need ActiveX or other plug-ins for credit card/banking activity. Even when I start up with the old IE, it goes around and around in circles due to some issue with the 64-bit IE installed. I tried to uninstall it, but couldn't find a way to do it and gave up and am using an old XP system with IE now for Korean websites.
Even on the most compatible systems the ActiveX plug-ins seem to have problems at times, and on anything out of the ordinary they flat out don't work. Don't know why Korean companies insist on continuing to use it. Seems to be an absolutely horrible decision even without considering the global market.
Even on the most compatible systems the ActiveX plug-ins seem to have problems at times, and on anything out of the ordinary they flat out don't work. Don't know why Korean companies insist on continuing to use it. Seems to be an absolutely horrible decision even without considering the global market.
Aug 1, 2011, 9:37 pm
#26
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NE & SE Asia, N America
Programs: TG ROP Gold, Lifetime OZ Diamond Plus, BA Gold
Posts: 3,105
A bit off-topic, but an interesting article, with some explanations about why Korea is so predominately IE.
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz...123_91948.html
Let's hope they're successful in bringing Korea out of the browser stone-age and getting Korean companies to make their websites compatible with the full range of browsers.
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz...123_91948.html
An Internet analyst said that the wrong government policy explains why a host of people in Korea stick to IE. “The financial regulator had forced the use of public-key certificate and security programs, and the industry rendered Active X, which functions only on IE browsers, as the easiest way to satisfy the demand. Active X has dominated Internet banking and shopping for a decade, and it is almost impossible to do anything online on a different browser,” he said.
“IE 6.0 was launched in August 2001, and will mark its 10th anniversary. It is old, but it is still used extensively in Korea, exposing users to many problems,” the Korea Communications Commission announced on July 13, starting a campaign to encourage the use of diversified and upgraded browsers.
Aug 2, 2011, 5:01 am
#27
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Coast USA/Asia
Programs: AA Plat /KE mc/OZ Diamond /Marriott gold/ SPG gold
Posts: 221
A bit off-topic, but an interesting article, with some explanations about why Korea is so predominately IE.
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz...123_91948.html
Let's hope they're successful in bringing Korea out of the browser stone-age and getting Korean companies to make their websites compatible with the full range of browsers.
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz...123_91948.html
Let's hope they're successful in bringing Korea out of the browser stone-age and getting Korean companies to make their websites compatible with the full range of browsers.
they made a headline when Oori Bank decided they will open up their bank and investment website to cater multiplatform users. I don't know whether that gave them more business though. People in Korea seems content using active-x. Sad Sad Sad
I had no problem with calling Asiana to confirm things when their websites fail. Maybe its because i speak korean, but call services have been very good.