Horrible Western European flights
Jun 16, 2019, 4:31 am
#76
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SJJ/AMS
Posts: 4,647
@orbitmic,
I think (and as I’ve also mentioned in my previous post i.e. home airport/travel patterns and so on) that it all goes down to the personal circumstances’ route. I’ve been working on overseas assignments (allowed to go home on a weekly basis or once a month if based in the US, South America and the likes) for quite some time now and been traveling with a number of airlines based on ‘home’ airport & travel patterns e.g. again related to my own circumstances, I have no really big choice here where I’m currently based at but I’d happily go for a BA flight to Heathrow in the (very unlikely) event that they were to launch a direct service from (and to, needless to say) Sarajevo. Our travel policy excludes low-cost carriers by default hence I’m not really in a good position to comment on those but, as I value lounge access and other such ‘benefits’ (ever decreasing these days if you ask me, see SK/TP’s lounge access policies, for instance), I’m also not in a position to complain (and indeed failed to make mention of ‘loyalty’ in my previous post). That said, I occasionally fly BA (no status, a mix between C and Y, exclusively within Europe) and, in all honesty, I can’t fault them at all (does what it says on the tin) reason why, again as I was saying, if my personal circumstances were again to change in the near future (or if indeed I would get relocated to head-office back to London), then BA would indeed be amongst the ‘natural choices’ because of network/direct services. Again, personal circumstances (people often forget that we’re not all ‘mileage runners’ or CEOs/super-duper consultants here on FT) play a major role but I’m always very sceptical when it comes to ‘bashing threads’ related to short haul Y travel, especially when the “Lufthansa sandwich” or “KLM is better because of their main hub/on-time record” (when it is painfully clear that Amsterdam is no better than Heathrow when it comes to delays/congestion/you name it) are often used as main benchmarks.
G
I think (and as I’ve also mentioned in my previous post i.e. home airport/travel patterns and so on) that it all goes down to the personal circumstances’ route. I’ve been working on overseas assignments (allowed to go home on a weekly basis or once a month if based in the US, South America and the likes) for quite some time now and been traveling with a number of airlines based on ‘home’ airport & travel patterns e.g. again related to my own circumstances, I have no really big choice here where I’m currently based at but I’d happily go for a BA flight to Heathrow in the (very unlikely) event that they were to launch a direct service from (and to, needless to say) Sarajevo. Our travel policy excludes low-cost carriers by default hence I’m not really in a good position to comment on those but, as I value lounge access and other such ‘benefits’ (ever decreasing these days if you ask me, see SK/TP’s lounge access policies, for instance), I’m also not in a position to complain (and indeed failed to make mention of ‘loyalty’ in my previous post). That said, I occasionally fly BA (no status, a mix between C and Y, exclusively within Europe) and, in all honesty, I can’t fault them at all (does what it says on the tin) reason why, again as I was saying, if my personal circumstances were again to change in the near future (or if indeed I would get relocated to head-office back to London), then BA would indeed be amongst the ‘natural choices’ because of network/direct services. Again, personal circumstances (people often forget that we’re not all ‘mileage runners’ or CEOs/super-duper consultants here on FT) play a major role but I’m always very sceptical when it comes to ‘bashing threads’ related to short haul Y travel, especially when the “Lufthansa sandwich” or “KLM is better because of their main hub/on-time record” (when it is painfully clear that Amsterdam is no better than Heathrow when it comes to delays/congestion/you name it) are often used as main benchmarks.
G
Jun 16, 2019, 5:28 am
#77
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bridport, Dorset
Programs: Mucci, BA Bronze, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,129
So avoiding BA on domestic routes leaves us with Ryanair (now a skeleton service), easyjet, Flybe and Loganair. I have hot such a bad experience on BA that I would decide to try Ryanair.
Jun 16, 2019, 5:41 am
#78
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
But don't write off the importance of a sandwich and a drink in Y. It's really the thought that counts: even on a one-hour they manage to distribute victuals, usually with a measure of good humour.
And Sen seat-blocking seems to work better than its BA equivalent.
Travelling from the Far North, FRA is on the LHR level for connecting convenience, but Munich is (can be) a joy.
Jun 16, 2019, 6:56 am
#79
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,511
I think the thread is becoming (to me anyway) increasingly interesting in the last page or 2 because we are moving away to the "BA is good" vs "BA is bad" argument to get closer to the complexities of how we all end up choosing our different flights based on very individual circumstances and patterns and a lot of really interesting examples from cws, GM1985, and AlicorporateUK among others
I think that's a really useful point because in a way, many frequent contributors on this forum are London-based, many contributors on the AF forum Paris-based, many contributors in the KL forum AMS-based etc. For those people, I think that unless you only really fly within Europe, the choice is "legacy or low cost" and the whole concept of transfer is largely irrelevant. Yet, some airports can be good for O/D but bad for transfer and vice versa, and some airlines focus a lot more on point to point but have few connections opportunities, whilst others are very "hub oriented" and aim a lot at prioritising transfers. BA is a bit in between, far more O/D than KL, TK or even LH, but a lot more hub oriented than smaller airlines like OK or EI.
Then your case (GLA) is a bit like, say, MRS or BOD in France, SVQ in Spain or NAP in Italy: places where the main choices are low cost non stop or a highly dominant national player whilst other national players have fewer rotations. I think it adds an additional element of complexity (nonstop vs going indirect for greater coverage/timings or comfort). My sense is that in many cases, people will be more likely to get out of the obvious (eg BA for GLA or AF for MRS) only for long haul destinations where ultimately, a difference of 1-2 hour flying time is less sensitive than for shorter flights. Low cost nonstop within Europe has the limit that often you'll have only one flight a day to many destinations which may be less convenient especially for business trips except to some major airports.
Then you have the "international players" with fewer international destinations of their own but a large choice of more or less equal connecting itineraries. MAN, BCN, LIN/MXP are obvious such cases, GVA, NCE, HAM, or VCE are less big but relatively similar: so from NCE, you get a few long haul nonstops and many short haul nonstop with both legacy and low cost carriers, but for everything else, there isn't any obvious reason to choose to connect on AF via CDG, BA via LHR, LH via FRA, etc (or indeed, going east, TK via IST, EK via DXB, QR via DOH, etc). I think those are the cases where service proposition and connecting realities become a lot more important.
Even then, I was trying to explain that dominant considerations are never overwhelming. So to go back to the examples that I mentioned: if doing NCE-TLV, I'd typically choose LY or U2 direct (or AF in peak season when they fly nonstop too), but if it's a day where those are really expensive or the timing of the flight not so great, I may well choose to go indirect instead (eg. there are frequent promotions to do NCE-TLV in LX J for about £400, and days when going LY nonstop may be £700 in that case I'll "sacrifice myself"!). Conversely, when flying from London, I typically choose LHR or LCY but again, there are days when doing so would mean £300 return in Y to BCN or TXL in which case I'll look at LGW too, and if I can get flights from £100 then, I'll sacrifice the choice of airport to the costs. Even then, I'm not a universal case. Most of my travel is for work, but my personal outlook is that I treat choices of professional trips the way I'd approach choices of personal trips, ie I pick the LGW flight here because that's what I'd do were I paying for the ticket myself (I manage my own travel budgets so I choose to be quite restrictive). However, I know many others who would just take whatever is most convenient regardless of the cost. Similarly, I don't book myself on C flights within Europe even when I could unless it really is the same price or circumstances are uniquely difficult (e.g. trip in between two long hauls which is itself 3-4 hours or so), but there too I know many others who consider that if it is allowed there is no reason not to.
So what matters or not depends inter alia of.... 1) where you are going from, 2) where you are going, 3) who is paying, 4) what you value in a very complex arbitration of price, schedule, certainty (ie number of changes and climate or strike related risks), service, intuition, and much more. Personally I also do value loyalty - so again, I do fly about 30 different airlines each year, but I'd still choose - say, BA over LH when price, schedule, etc are equivalent because I feel more attached to BA than LH (feel free to mock my choice of words, on my part though, it does feel like loyalty however absurd many here like to say that it is) and I also feel that they typically will treat me better in case of issues. This is a lot of complexity to factor into individual decisions (especially when you multiply by >200 flights a year!)
I agree with you AMS is really bad for weather related issues. However, I do think that AMS and MUC are typically largely preferable to LHR in terms of not having to reclear security (unless flying from a domestic UK airport) so personally it is something I do factor in my decisions when connecting from other airports that AMS or MUC (or even CDG or FRA or MAD or FCO) would consider safe airports as it adds both comfort and certainty. By contrast, when flying O/D, I do find that typically the F wing makes for a smooth experience at LHR compared to AF at CDG or LH at FRA.
As a GLA based flyer, I realistically have the following options:
1. A direct LCC service (where available)
2. A connection on BA via LON
3. 3x daily connections on KL via AMS
4. 1x daily connection on LH via MUC (morning) or FRA (afternoon)
5. Up to 5x daily connections on EI via DUB
LX, AF, TK et al may (or may not) be miles better than the options above, but I’d have to go out of my way to fly them, either by getting to EDI (and I’m on the wrong side of Glasgow for that to be regularly workable) or by booking an unprotected “connection” on a LCC to their hub first.
1. A direct LCC service (where available)
2. A connection on BA via LON
3. 3x daily connections on KL via AMS
4. 1x daily connection on LH via MUC (morning) or FRA (afternoon)
5. Up to 5x daily connections on EI via DUB
LX, AF, TK et al may (or may not) be miles better than the options above, but I’d have to go out of my way to fly them, either by getting to EDI (and I’m on the wrong side of Glasgow for that to be regularly workable) or by booking an unprotected “connection” on a LCC to their hub first.
Then your case (GLA) is a bit like, say, MRS or BOD in France, SVQ in Spain or NAP in Italy: places where the main choices are low cost non stop or a highly dominant national player whilst other national players have fewer rotations. I think it adds an additional element of complexity (nonstop vs going indirect for greater coverage/timings or comfort). My sense is that in many cases, people will be more likely to get out of the obvious (eg BA for GLA or AF for MRS) only for long haul destinations where ultimately, a difference of 1-2 hour flying time is less sensitive than for shorter flights. Low cost nonstop within Europe has the limit that often you'll have only one flight a day to many destinations which may be less convenient especially for business trips except to some major airports.
Then you have the "international players" with fewer international destinations of their own but a large choice of more or less equal connecting itineraries. MAN, BCN, LIN/MXP are obvious such cases, GVA, NCE, HAM, or VCE are less big but relatively similar: so from NCE, you get a few long haul nonstops and many short haul nonstop with both legacy and low cost carriers, but for everything else, there isn't any obvious reason to choose to connect on AF via CDG, BA via LHR, LH via FRA, etc (or indeed, going east, TK via IST, EK via DXB, QR via DOH, etc). I think those are the cases where service proposition and connecting realities become a lot more important.
Even then, I was trying to explain that dominant considerations are never overwhelming. So to go back to the examples that I mentioned: if doing NCE-TLV, I'd typically choose LY or U2 direct (or AF in peak season when they fly nonstop too), but if it's a day where those are really expensive or the timing of the flight not so great, I may well choose to go indirect instead (eg. there are frequent promotions to do NCE-TLV in LX J for about £400, and days when going LY nonstop may be £700 in that case I'll "sacrifice myself"!). Conversely, when flying from London, I typically choose LHR or LCY but again, there are days when doing so would mean £300 return in Y to BCN or TXL in which case I'll look at LGW too, and if I can get flights from £100 then, I'll sacrifice the choice of airport to the costs. Even then, I'm not a universal case. Most of my travel is for work, but my personal outlook is that I treat choices of professional trips the way I'd approach choices of personal trips, ie I pick the LGW flight here because that's what I'd do were I paying for the ticket myself (I manage my own travel budgets so I choose to be quite restrictive). However, I know many others who would just take whatever is most convenient regardless of the cost. Similarly, I don't book myself on C flights within Europe even when I could unless it really is the same price or circumstances are uniquely difficult (e.g. trip in between two long hauls which is itself 3-4 hours or so), but there too I know many others who consider that if it is allowed there is no reason not to.
So what matters or not depends inter alia of.... 1) where you are going from, 2) where you are going, 3) who is paying, 4) what you value in a very complex arbitration of price, schedule, certainty (ie number of changes and climate or strike related risks), service, intuition, and much more. Personally I also do value loyalty - so again, I do fly about 30 different airlines each year, but I'd still choose - say, BA over LH when price, schedule, etc are equivalent because I feel more attached to BA than LH (feel free to mock my choice of words, on my part though, it does feel like loyalty however absurd many here like to say that it is) and I also feel that they typically will treat me better in case of issues. This is a lot of complexity to factor into individual decisions (especially when you multiply by >200 flights a year!)
I’m always very sceptical when it comes to ‘bashing threads’ related to short haul Y travel, especially when the “Lufthansa sandwich” or “KLM is better because of their main hub/on-time record” (when it is painfully clear that Amsterdam is no better than Heathrow when it comes to delays/congestion/you name it) are often used as main benchmarks.
I agree with you AMS is really bad for weather related issues. However, I do think that AMS and MUC are typically largely preferable to LHR in terms of not having to reclear security (unless flying from a domestic UK airport) so personally it is something I do factor in my decisions when connecting from other airports that AMS or MUC (or even CDG or FRA or MAD or FCO) would consider safe airports as it adds both comfort and certainty. By contrast, when flying O/D, I do find that typically the F wing makes for a smooth experience at LHR compared to AF at CDG or LH at FRA.
Jun 17, 2019, 2:55 am
#80
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: МДС - Влад Копп
Posts: 17
Why are you hoping that people will stay away from BA? You've made it clear that you don't like BA, but there are many people, myself included, for whom BA is the airline of choice. For all its faults, I genuinely prefer BA over almost any other European airline, and certainly over every airline that flies to the places I want/need to go.
Jun 17, 2019, 2:58 am
#81
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: МДС - Влад Копп
Posts: 17
I know the travel policy, I do not know why BA is preferred partner. This is commercial aspect not spelled out in the travel policy. Thank you for the trust and baseless accusations!
Jun 17, 2019, 3:05 am
#82
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold / OW Emerald
Posts: 753
icegirl, cash is the king. The employer is just focusing on the bottom line. When you are going outside of the EU with BA, it is not too bad but within it is a very uncomfortable journey and company to fly with...
Jun 17, 2019, 3:39 am
#83
Fontaine d'honneur du Flyertalk
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Morbihan, France
Programs: Reine des Muccis de Pucci; Foreign Elitist (according to others)
Posts: 19,170
Jun 17, 2019, 10:38 am
#84
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Unio Europaea
Programs: BA GGL, AS, Hertz Cirque Présidentielle
Posts: 1,445
On a total sidenote, now that you happen to be around: several weeks ago I almost thought that could it perhaps be the right honourable madame and her hairbrush that are in transit to ALC at LHR T5, but on a second thought I realised it wasn't you.
Because the fine lady in question travelled Euro Traveller and not Club Europe, I concluded that it wasn't most likely after all P.G. Not wishing to generalise, but I have a recollection you (just like I, in fact) prefer the more premium service class at the front. It was pure BA IRROPS coincidence that I met this lady that was en route to ALC, as both of us got another flight and ended up having a walk to the main building from the T5C. It would have been amusing to meet a fellow FT'er in a situation like that, but yet an encounter of a very frequent flying kind.
Jun 17, 2019, 10:58 am
#85
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
Well, OTP, SOF and "many cities in the Balkans" aren't exactly mega-hubs in terms of traffic and a still relatively small amount of traffic if aggregated. The overlap between those for whom BA makes sense for intra-European traffic and those for whom A3 and TK make sense for intra-European traffic would represent a tiny proportion of the overall intra-European flying public. There are going to be small pockets here and there for whom other options make sense but, by and large, the alternatives to BA for intra-European traffic are overwhelmingly West European airlines. In that sense, Pucci Galore's comments was not especially UK-centered but rather BA/Western Europe-centered which, given that the topic is about alternatives to those supposed (to quote from the thread title) "horrible Western European flights" on BA, is bang on topic.