Sacramento to London Options?

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:17:32 -0400, nobody wrote:

AJC wrote:
capitalism, free markets, competition? In Europe airlines can compete
on numerous factors including, fares, seat pitch, on-board service,
and baggage allowance, both checked and carry-on.

Except that checked baggage allowances are pretty standard across the board
outside north america, and pretty standard to/from and inside north america.
Whether this is due to collusion, agreements at IATA/OACI level, or
competition which forces carriers to match each other, it nevertheless is not
something that is used to differentiate one airline from the other since they
are all the same.

Within Europe scheduled service carriers variously allow 15, 20, 23 kg
free allowance for economy passengers. The airlines are free to make
their own commercial decisions on the matter, passengers are free to
choose airlines accordingly. Governments shoudn't meddle in such
matters beyond the level of safety.
--==++AJC++==--

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:17:32 -0400, nobody wrote:

AJC wrote:
capitalism, free markets, competition? In Europe airlines can compete
on numerous factors including, fares, seat pitch, on-board service,
and baggage allowance, both checked and carry-on.

Except that checked baggage allowances are pretty standard across the board
outside north america, and pretty standard to/from and inside north america.
Whether this is due to collusion, agreements at IATA/OACI level, or
competition which forces carriers to match each other, it nevertheless is not
something that is used to differentiate one airline from the other since they
are all the same.

Within Europe scheduled service carriers variously allow 15, 20, 23 kg
free allowance for economy passengers. The airlines are free to make
their own commercial decisions on the matter, passengers are free to
choose airlines accordingly. Governments shoudn't meddle in such
matters beyond the level of safety.
--==++AJC++==--

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:50:58 GMT, Cyrus Afzali
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:11:23 +0200, AJC wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:25:39 GMT, Cyrus Afzali
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:06:08 +0200, AJC wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:34:49 +0000 (UTC), Juliana L Holm
wrote:


The point is that there are strong and weak carriers on both sides of the
Ocean.

The point is that major US airlines are in various stages of
bankruptcy, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, unable to get credit
from their caterers, and so on. The industry in Europe is nowhere near
being in such dire straits.

Two -- count em, two -- U.S. carriers are in various stages of
bankruptcy. While Delta's in a precarious position, its problems
aren't as severe as United's became and unions are more willing to
work things out there. Keep in mind United was representative of the
best/worst that employee ownership has to offer. At a certain point,
they just said enough. Smart? Well, that's a matter of opinion. People
who've been through these things always advise them to stay at the
table, but hostilities get in the way sometimes.


Hmm. One major US carrier, United, currently in bankruptcy. No major
European carrier currently in bankruptcy. One major US carrier, Delta
currently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. No major European
carrier currently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. One secondary
US carrier, US Airways currently in bankruptcy. No secondary European
carrier currently in bankruptcy. One major US carrier, American, still
not out of the bankruptcy danger zone. No major European carrier
curently in the bankruptcy danger zone. One secondary European
carrier, Alitalia, currently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

If you call Alitalia a secondary carrier, then apparently you don't
have any primaries to offer.

Oh dear. You are out of touch. There are 3 major airlines in Europe.
LH, BA, and AF/KL. AZ is not one of those. It is a secondary carrier.
If you can't tell the difference between carriers such as LH, and
carriers such as AZ, then there is little point continuing trying to
discuss that point with you. There again seeing as you think that the
EU of 2001 was "an entire continent" I can't see much validity in
discussing any of this with you.



Oh, and if you want to give the U.S
industry equivalent subsidies to those given to European carriers for
years, then maybe we can talk.

Secondly, name me a European carrier that operates on the scale of a
U.S. carrier? How many U.S. cities do European carriers serve?

How many European cities do US carriers serve? Who cares. Such
questions are not relevant.

What planet are you on, genius??? It's entirely relevant because scope
of service determines your cost structure. Good God almighty.


This discussion is about the effectiveness of European airlines
operating in their markets, compared with US airlines operating in
theirs.


We're
the world's biggest aviation market, so it's a relevant question.

We? What strange terminology, are you an aviation market?
No it's not a relevant question. European carriers currently perform
better in their markets than US carriers do in theirs.

And there markets are smaller and much, much, much less competitive.
Name me a European market where you can see nine airlines competing
for the same routes???


Hmm, let's see, one of many would be the London-Barcelona route. I can
easily find 10 airlines in that market, all competing for my business
with different fares, different schedules, different service levels,
different baggage allowances, different FF benefits. That was easy.
And your point was?



Comparing Europe's industry to the U.S.' is just beyond ludicrous.

Really? And you have some statistics to back up that claim?

The differences in U.S. and European populations

Ok, Europe has a bigger population

and geographic size

No idea which has a greater geographic size, or what your definition
of geographic size is.

should give you an idea.

Of what?

The competitive landscape is vastly
different. Europe makes a big deal about having one discount carrier
in a particular, whereas they're influencing the entire American
industry.

You have a remarkably ill-informed view of the influence of discount
and low-cost carriers in most of Europe. But then again your comments
referred to above show you are remarkably ill-informed on many matters
to do with Europe.
--==++AJC++==--

"AJC" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:17:32 -0400, nobody wrote:

AJC wrote:
capitalism, free markets, competition? In Europe airlines can compete
on numerous factors including, fares, seat pitch, on-board service,
and baggage allowance, both checked and carry-on.

Except that checked baggage allowances are pretty standard across the
board
outside north america, and pretty standard to/from and inside north
america.
Whether this is due to collusion, agreements at IATA/OACI level, or
competition which forces carriers to match each other, it nevertheless is
not
something that is used to differentiate one airline from the other since
they
are all the same.

Within Europe scheduled service carriers variously allow 15, 20, 23 kg
free allowance for economy passengers. The airlines are free to make
their own commercial decisions on the matter, passengers are free to
choose airlines accordingly. Governments shoudn't meddle in such
matters beyond the level of safety.

Agreed. But this is, particularly in Europe, a pretty recent phenomena.
Before the "low cost/low fare" airlines (i.e., Ryanair, EasyJet, etc.), 20kg
was standard for economy class; 30kg in first/business. Now the discounters
charge low fares and allow less baggage allowance.

--==++AJC++==--

I worked in the travel industry for many years (until 2 months ago) and am
sure that on most european carriers, you CAN reserve seats in advance.

The problems can be:

1. That the airlines only allocate a certain number of seats to be used by
the public and retain the rest for boarding.

2. That these seats have already been taken.

OBY


"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
AJC wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
Try booking it as a codeshare via the US airline partner, if possible.
US
airlines are much nicer about that sort of thing (about all sorts of
things
- can you tell I'm sick of mean, stingy European carriers?).

Go on Miguel. Who was mean to you?

If I talk about it, I might start crying again.

Is it not possible, that there is a link between the fact that the 'mean
stingy' European carriers are generally in a better shape than the
'generous' US carriers?

Maybe (though SwissAir and Sabena weren't known for their generosity). But
I'm just trying to help the guy get a reerved seat, not to cure the woes
of
the airline industry.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 31 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:03:19 -0500, "OBY" wrote:

I worked in the travel industry for many years (until 2 months ago) and am
sure that on most european carriers, you CAN reserve seats in advance.


Yes, for long-haul in economy on many (most) carriers, but not for
short haul.




The problems can be:

1. That the airlines only allocate a certain number of seats to be used by
the public and retain the rest for boarding.

2. That these seats have already been taken.

OBY


"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
AJC wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
Try booking it as a codeshare via the US airline partner, if possible.
US
airlines are much nicer about that sort of thing (about all sorts of
things
- can you tell I'm sick of mean, stingy European carriers?).

Go on Miguel. Who was mean to you?

If I talk about it, I might start crying again.

Is it not possible, that there is a link between the fact that the 'mean
stingy' European carriers are generally in a better shape than the
'generous' US carriers?

Maybe (though SwissAir and Sabena weren't known for their generosity). But
I'm just trying to help the guy get a reerved seat, not to cure the woes
of
the airline industry.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 31 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu


--==++AJC++==--

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:44:57 GMT, "Jeff Hacker"
wrote:


"AJC" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:17:32 -0400, nobody wrote:

AJC wrote:
capitalism, free markets, competition? In Europe airlines can compete
on numerous factors including, fares, seat pitch, on-board service,
and baggage allowance, both checked and carry-on.

Except that checked baggage allowances are pretty standard across the
board
outside north america, and pretty standard to/from and inside north
america.
Whether this is due to collusion, agreements at IATA/OACI level, or
competition which forces carriers to match each other, it nevertheless is
not
something that is used to differentiate one airline from the other since
they
are all the same.

Within Europe scheduled service carriers variously allow 15, 20, 23 kg
free allowance for economy passengers. The airlines are free to make
their own commercial decisions on the matter, passengers are free to
choose airlines accordingly. Governments shoudn't meddle in such
matters beyond the level of safety.

Agreed. But this is, particularly in Europe, a pretty recent phenomena.
Before the "low cost/low fare" airlines (i.e., Ryanair, EasyJet, etc.), 20kg
was standard for economy class; 30kg in first/business. Now the discounters
charge low fares and allow less baggage allowance.


Sure it may or may not be recent, but it is a rapidly changing
industry, airlines that see the changes in the market and adapt, will
survive, those that pretend it's not happening will fail. The last
thing airlines need though is unneccessary government intervention.
The idea that in this day and age governments should be telling FR
they have to offer more than 15kg, or telling BA that they have to
offer less than 23kg is quite shocking. It is astonishing to hear that
the US government does dictate minimum allowances to airlines.
--==++AJC++==--

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:14:57 -0400, nobody
wrote:

AJC wrote:
not out of the bankruptcy danger zone. No major European carrier
curently in the bankruptcy danger zone. One secondary European
carrier, Alitalia, currently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

You are conviniently forgetting to mention Swiss. It isn't exactlty in a
healthy situation and its survival is not assured.

If you mean Swissair (Swiss Air Transport Company Ltd), it's so
unhealthy it's dead.

If you mean Swiss International Air Lines, I don't know ist's
status, but I believe it's OK.

Sabena is also gone; Sabena is selling off its airliner seats:
http://www.sabena.com/EN/Shop_FR.htm

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:14:57 -0400, nobody
wrote:

AJC wrote:
not out of the bankruptcy danger zone. No major European carrier
curently in the bankruptcy danger zone. One secondary European
carrier, Alitalia, currently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

You are conviniently forgetting to mention Swiss. It isn't exactlty in a
healthy situation and its survival is not assured.

If you mean Swissair (Swiss Air Transport Company Ltd), it's so
unhealthy it's dead.

If you mean Swiss International Air Lines, I don't know ist's
status, but I believe it's OK.

Swiss is hemoraging money. They have revised their route network, services,
etc. They are still around but their long term viability is definitely
still in question.

Sabena is also gone; Sabena is selling off its airliner seats:
http://www.sabena.com/EN/Shop_FR.htm

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:48:14 GMT, "Jeff Hacker"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:14:57 -0400, nobody
wrote:

AJC wrote:
not out of the bankruptcy danger zone. No major European carrier
curently in the bankruptcy danger zone. One secondary European
carrier, Alitalia, currently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

You are conviniently forgetting to mention Swiss. It isn't exactlty in a
healthy situation and its survival is not assured.

If you mean Swissair (Swiss Air Transport Company Ltd), it's so
unhealthy it's dead.

If you mean Swiss International Air Lines, I don't know ist's
status, but I believe it's OK.

Swiss is hemoraging money. They have revised their route network, services,
etc. They are still around but their long term viability is definitely
still in question.

That's prtetty bad, considering that Swiss came into existence
just a few years ago.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *