Turkish Airlines General Rant Thread
Jan 31, 2012, 10:25 am
#61
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
Jan 31, 2012, 10:28 am
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM SK EBG LATAM BL
Posts: 23,309
That was the old (leased) version that now flies for TG. The new 777 is a 2-3-2 fully flat layout.
Its not just the seat, despite the OP blaming a snow storm on TK - their service, and especially food and wine. There is a reason why TK won SkyTrax best food in the sky awards.
Sometimes the FAs are a bit disinterested like SH has said, but how is that different from any other airline?
Also, the free tour or free hotel on 7+ hour layovers has come in handy twice for me now.
Jan 31, 2012, 10:35 am
#63
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SIN
Programs: UA Platinum, DL Platinum, AFKL Gold, Qatar Gold
Posts: 895
Is it really other airlines asking for YQ?? I wonder how come US Air is not charging anything on partner airlines for YQ... Why would LH ask Aeroplan and not US Air Dividend Miles?
Jan 31, 2012, 10:37 am
#64
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SIN
Programs: UA Platinum, DL Platinum, AFKL Gold, Qatar Gold
Posts: 895
Jan 31, 2012, 10:38 am
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM SK EBG LATAM BL
Posts: 23,309
Jan 31, 2012, 10:46 am
#66
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K MM, Marriott Life Plat, various others of little note
Posts: 2,763
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Too funny... unless you're serious? Surely, you can't be serious?
You were flying from a- a country which speaks Turkish, on b- an airline that speaks Turkish, to c- a country that speaks Cantonese... and you were upset that they didn't speak ENGLISH????
That's the kind of self-righteous attitude which gives North American tourists a bad name.
You were flying from a- a country which speaks Turkish, on b- an airline that speaks Turkish, to c- a country that speaks Cantonese... and you were upset that they didn't speak ENGLISH????
That's the kind of self-righteous attitude which gives North American tourists a bad name.
2. Official language of hong kong is both English and Chinese, with a transition going on from cantonese to mandarin (written is essentially the same).
3. Any competent international carrier has English speakers on board, not so much for the Americans as for the other potential pasengers who speak one of thousands of other languages, do not speak Chinese (of any sort) or Turkish (long shot), but do speak some English. English, like it or not, is the lingua franca in most of the world, and the competent carriers know that. Do you think Lufthansa or Air France ever has an intercontinental flight with no English speaking crew on board (other than the pilots, who are going to have a big problem if they can't speak ATC English)?
This is the sort thing, among others, that shows it takes more than a shiny plane and lounge to make a world-class carrier.
Jan 31, 2012, 10:50 am
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,046
CA probably won't charge YQ anytime soon either.
Jan 31, 2012, 11:00 am
#68
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 5,813
the LX J A333 flight I was on last week was one of my most enjoyable ever. The IFE is top-notch, the seat is perfect for side-sleepers- though it would be borderline tight if you are large and sleep on your back. The food was alright but schedule>sleep>IFE>food for me.
Jan 31, 2012, 11:13 am
#69
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PHL, NYC, DC
Posts: 9,708
2-3-2? ouch sucks to be the middle......... ok ....TK and LX will be on my to-fly list........ folks, remember to write trip reports and attach plenty of photos!!!!!!!!!!!
As for YQ....... what gives.... IMO its another cash grab
As for YQ....... what gives.... IMO its another cash grab
Jan 31, 2012, 11:17 am
#70
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM SK EBG LATAM BL
Posts: 23,309
Jan 31, 2012, 11:18 am
#71
Join Date: May 2005
Location: BRU
Programs: A3/Gold, BA/Gold + other less precious metals
Posts: 2,641
Excuse me?! When did I say that? The other poster had (tongue in cheek, I take it) suggested that the OP address everyone as "arkadas" and everything would be OK. Arkadas = friend, by the way, and the suggestion was in a particular context. To infer from this that I think it would be unacceptable for people to be polite in a language that is not their mother tongue is ludicrous. You have twisted what I said and also taken it entirely out of context.
Jan 31, 2012, 11:35 am
#72
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,046
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Too funny... unless you're serious? Surely, you can't be serious?
You were flying from a- a country which speaks Turkish, on b- an airline that speaks Turkish, to c- a country that speaks Cantonese... and you were upset that they didn't speak ENGLISH????
That's the kind of self-righteous attitude which gives North American tourists a bad name.
You were flying from a- a country which speaks Turkish, on b- an airline that speaks Turkish, to c- a country that speaks Cantonese... and you were upset that they didn't speak ENGLISH????
That's the kind of self-righteous attitude which gives North American tourists a bad name.
And English is an official language in HKG.
Jan 31, 2012, 12:13 pm
#73
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
Eh, if AF were part of the Star Alliance, I would would bring up the issue of AF safety just the same. I have regularly brought up similar issues with SQ. Again if KL were part of Star, I might even have brought up their chief pilot's arogance and the Teneriffe crash. altough that's getting a bit old.
But really, what gets me going is the "service" vs. safety tradeoff and how I see the talk being overwhelmingly one-sided. When arguably one should look at the overall package.
BTW, another interesting one is the EK Melbourne 340 close call. Damn lucky they were. And from what I hear, there were company policy issues involved.
But really, what gets me going is the "service" vs. safety tradeoff and how I see the talk being overwhelmingly one-sided. When arguably one should look at the overall package.
BTW, another interesting one is the EK Melbourne 340 close call. Damn lucky they were. And from what I hear, there were company policy issues involved.
This so-called 'trade off' between safety and service does not exist. The entire assumption is based on a false zero-sum game. High service and high safety standards are not mutually exclusive. Nor does a high amount of one necessarily mean a reduction in the amount of other. 'Safe' airlines don't always, by nature, offer a poor service product. And airlines with high quality service are not automatically, by nature, unsafe. That these assumptions allow you to cast your own preference (presumably a safe airline with poor service) in a positive light does not mean that they are valid.
I will grant that some airlines are safer than others, especially when you take domestic airlines in Africa into account, but, by and large, airlines and aircraft operating to and within Europe and North America, are subject to stringent safety requirements which, if not followed, can result in their permission to fly to those regions being revoked. Ask PIA. Or Garuda.
That said, things can sometimes go wrong. Most serious air incidents involve more than one variable. In many cases, all of those variables have to align together at the same time, to cause the worst case scenario. To try and pin it all down on lax safety culture is a bit... unwarranted. Its also demeaning to the victims - the way you try to use it to score cheap brownie points.
Is TK unsafe? Are their planes falling out of the sky? No. They had one fatal incident recently that also involved faulty equipment - radio altimeter IIRC. It wasn't purely pilot error - and there's no reason to believe that all 'safe' airlines' pilots would have handled the situation better). Do they fly a lot of planes on a daily basis that get their passengers to their destinations? Yes. Ditto Air France. And SQ. Now if TK 737s or AF 330s were falling out of the sky on a regular basis, I would agree wholeheartedly with you, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't.
As for bringing up Tenerife. That took place a long long time ago. If you go that far back looking for safety incidents, then AC is hardly any better. Its record up till the mid-1980s was, at best, indifferent. Hell, they sent a plane up without enough fuel once - fortunately it was flying over ground and was near an airstrip. If those variables had been different - if that plane had been halfway across the Atlantic - ACs record would look a lot worse.
But then again, I suspect you already knew that. So please, stop justifying your need to take cheap potshots at other airlines. You're doing nothing more than demeaning the victims of those tragedies by using them as statistics and cannon fodder to justify your own belief that your preferred airline is somehow, in overall terms, better. Airlines with poor service aren't necessarily safer than airlines with good service.
At some point, you're going to have to accept that some airlines simply offer a better product than other airlines wihtout being relatively unsafer. Part of it is down to how well or badly the airline is run. Part of it is due to regional and cultural service requirements. No airline will willingly compromise on safety just to provide a better hard product.
Jan 31, 2012, 12:22 pm
#75
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
1. Hong kong is not a country. If you mean China, the official language is mandarin.
2. Official language of hong kong is both English and Chinese, with a transition going on from cantonese to mandarin (written is essentially the same).
3. Any competent international carrier has English speakers on board, not so much for the Americans as for the other potential pasengers who speak one of thousands of other languages, do not speak Chinese (of any sort) or Turkish (long shot), but do speak some English. English, like it or not, is the lingua franca in most of the world, and the competent carriers know that. Do you think Lufthansa or Air France ever has an intercontinental flight with no English speaking crew on board (other than the pilots, who are going to have a big problem if they can't speak ATC English)?
This is the sort thing, among others, that shows it takes more than a shiny plane and lounge to make a world-class carrier.
2. Official language of hong kong is both English and Chinese, with a transition going on from cantonese to mandarin (written is essentially the same).
3. Any competent international carrier has English speakers on board, not so much for the Americans as for the other potential pasengers who speak one of thousands of other languages, do not speak Chinese (of any sort) or Turkish (long shot), but do speak some English. English, like it or not, is the lingua franca in most of the world, and the competent carriers know that. Do you think Lufthansa or Air France ever has an intercontinental flight with no English speaking crew on board (other than the pilots, who are going to have a big problem if they can't speak ATC English)?
This is the sort thing, among others, that shows it takes more than a shiny plane and lounge to make a world-class carrier.
For one, I find it hard to believe that it could even occur, and I m surprised no one else who's flown TK has corroborated it. I could just as easily say that I flew on LAN and the FA didnt speak english. Its patently untrue, but how are you going to disprove it? Just amounts to casting aspersions -though I don't know what the motive is. Just make TK look bad?
And then again, its come from a self-proclaimed F pax who's apparently never used the lounge in IST - and I quote:
"What is so special about the lounge? I'll be there on Saturday."