I'm looking to change up our itinerary a little bit and arrive in our destination city (Milan) earlier. So far Easyjet is the best deal that allows us to do this. Can anyone give me some reviews of Easyjet and what they have thought about flying with them? It will be myself, my wife, and our infant (on a lap). I know we will have to pay to check bags, etc. Flying easyjet can save us over $250 and give us a better arrival time... just want to make sure it's worth it.

They're a pretty decent "low-cost" carrier. Very akin to Southwest in the USA.

I agree, not bad at all in the overall sense.

point to note they just swithed to assigned seating so if you want to guarantee tht you site together you might have to pre-reserve seats but generally they seat families together and pre-board families with children under 5

It's an airline. It's not Ryanair. Nothing special, nothing untoward, usually on time. Factor any extras (checked bags, priority boarding etc etc) into your comparison with other carriers' fares.

Luton's not a bad airport, once you get through the awfulness of the security set-up. But you're probably used to all that!

Easyjet also flies to MXP and LIN from Gatwick (LGW).

Thanks guys. I did factor in the baggage fees, reserved seats, etc and it was still $150+ cheaper than Air Berlin, Lufansa, and Air Italia. We're flying from Berlin to Milan and the times will be great. Get us there early in the morning to explore the city before we enjoy our suite at the Grand Hyatt Milan.

The only worry/pain is going to be keeping our bags limited and underweight... we'll be on a 17 day trip WITH a baby. Sounds like other parents in the past have had success by loading some "extras" in the stroller bag when they check that without issue... so we'll be doing that too!

Easyjet are fairly strict on size but, unusually for European carriers, they don't have a weight limit for carry-ons - the only criterion being that you have to be able to lift your bag into the overhead unaided.

The EZY pilot for our LTN-FAO flight today didn't seem to know how to say his numbers in English. That was rather disconcerting.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we expect to arrive in Faro at about one quarter hour after seventeen hundred. Skies are clear and the temperature is one four degrees."

Okay...

Both "seventeen hundred" and "one four" are normal aviation speak. He probably doesn't use his English much outside aviation.

He can fly the plane. He can communicate with ATC. Where is the problem?

Actually, I don't think he can communicate well with ATC. And that's the problem. I guess you had to be there.

To obtain any kind of professional pilot's licence in the EU you need to pass a test to prove that you can communicate with ATC in English

deleted

If you are concerned about what you described, I think that you should avoid European airspace anywhere south-west of the line London - Brussels - Frankfurt - Zurich ... For your own safety, just to be sure...

I agree with Aviatrix, if he's sitting up front, he knows how to communicate.

I understand that all commercial pilots must demonstrate that they can communicate with ATC to qualify as pilots. Ergo, all pilots meet or exceed a given standard for communication skills. I don't buy the argument that being qualified necessarily means that all pilots communicate well.

There's a range of capability in any profession. Qualified surgeons aren't all equally skilled - This is evident from the clinical outcomes. That doesn't mean that any of them should be disqualified (although, every so often it emerges that a practicing surgeon ought not to have qualified). And of course, organizations seek to raise standards through screening, training, testing, automation and so on. But even with all the training in the world, there will always be a range of skills. And any patient undergoing an operation would rather have the most skilled surgeon than the least skilled surgeon ... right?

On another airline, I once had the misfortune to experience an emergency landing. During that incident, I listened to communications that were hampered by accent. For example, among other things, the pilot was initially unable to understand the ATC question "Do you need to dump fuel?" To be fair, it sounded more like "Do you need to dumb fuel?" I didn't think it was such a stretch to understand the ATC, but the pilot struggled to understand several phrases.

As I listened to that communication, I wished that the ATC could have spoken with a perfect American accent. I wished that the pilot could have had a better ear for the Icelandic accent. When it came to "dumb fuel", it took three attempts for the message to get through. Of course, it all worked out fine in the end. All of the professionals involved knew what they had to do. I am grateful for the professionalism of the crew and ATC. But although they communicated adequately, I don't think they communicated well. And in different circumstances, that could affect the outcome.

As for your imaginary line through Europe ... I think the pilot on the Easyjet flight was from the "right" side of it. Even on the "right" side of that line you will find a range of skill levels.

EDIT: It seems I've rejoined an argument that I previously decided to exit. Staying out of this might have been a wiser decision, because ultimately this comes down to "He's a pilot. Therefore he can communicate." vs. "I was there and the evidence of his communication skills left me doubting that he can communicate well, notwithstanding the fact that he's a pilot who must surely have passed various tests". I'll not comment on this any more.

Why? So 90% of the world would have difficulty understanding him.