This documents the airlines which I have flown on, the pleasure of flying offered by said airlines, and any other observations. I'm 194cm tall, so travelling in economy (crushed) class has a slightly different meaning for me than it does for people of a lesser stature. You may not recognise your favourite airline below.
It has to be said that since I started travelling frequently as part of my work in the Internet industry, spaciousness in the Economy cabins has reduced markedly. I was fortunate in my UUNET days that I controlled my travel budget for my whole group, so we could quite often upgrade to Economy Plus on Virgin, or get good seats on BA and United economy as we paid full fare economy. These days seat pitches have reduced by a good 4 to 5 inches, making economy travel a painful experience. One of the upsides with working for a multinational was that the travel people had clue - and recognised that forcing staff to travel more than 6 hours with their legs wrapped around their ears was bad for productivity. One of these days the company I work for now might become a multinational company too.
So here they all are.
All 777s, 747s and A340s have seat back video. The older aircraft have the standard 16 movies and 10 other shows which repeat on a two hourly cycle. The 777-200ERs and refitted 747s have the Wiseman 3000 video on demand system, which gives more movies, TV shows, etc, when you want them. Something like 60 different entertainment options - and then there are enough games to keep an arcade enthusiast happy for an hour or two.
777 seats are relatively spacious, wide enough for me not to overhang the neighbouring seat, and a seat pitch which gives me about one inch gap between my knees and the seat infront. Ofcourse, loading the seat pocket with a book to read or air pillow means that the space has gone, but then the floor is available too. The foot rest gets in the way though, so stretching legs out under the seat in front can be tough on the lower legs. Have a look at this picture to get some idea. Seating configuration on all SQ 777s is 3-3-3. Row 31 is the start of economy on all SQ planes, and the next 4 rows are to be avoided as they tend to be home for families with rowdy children.
747 seats are less spacious than the 777, and typical of all 747s of all airlines. I overhang about one inch on either side, so a centre seat is out of the question without annoying neighbouring passengers. Seat pitch is also less than the 777, by at least two inches, so putting a book into the seat pocket means that legs have to straddle the seat pocket to rest. And ofcourse, that damned foot rest really gets in the way. If the person behind you uses the foot rest, expect a rough flight, as the foot rest seems to be directly connected to your seat back. Have a look at this picture to get some idea.
Rows 39 and 49 are exit rows on the 747. Row 31 has a bulkhead in front of it, so a great place to store screaming babies. Row 39 is opposite the toilets so don't expect to get any peace and quiet. Nor does it have a window. Row 49 is beside the kitchen, so definitely no peace and quiet on the long hauls - the cabin crew seem to rebuild the kitchen during the flight, with the associated noise and trolleys parked at your knees. Oh, and with Row 49, you get fed last, so no choice.
A340 are similar to the 747 seats in width but have the 777's pitch. Haven't been on one recently; infact, I don't think I've seen any SQ A340s in recent times, so can't comment any more. But the new A340-500s with their Executive Economy seats look interesting.
A310 are in a "domestic" configuration and only seem to be used for short flights close to Singapore. So no seat back video. Besides, most of them are parked on the edge of Changi now, with plastic bags over their engines, so I suspect they are being retired.
Personal video screens, loads of movies, games and TV channels. Headphones are the clip over ear variety - I was initially suspicious, but they are the best and most comfortable in the business, short of the Bose comfort style you can get in many business classes.
Robotic service is precise and predictable, exactly what the stressed exec wants. No fuss and out of your hair. Meals are okay, not as good as they used to be, but still far better than many. They try and put in a local flavour depending on destination, which I really like. Better than getting standard bland western food as you do on so many other flights.
Summary: Top marks, can't really fault them, at least not compared with the others I've been on!
Business class on the A310s is just a more spacious economy class, so not really worth talking about. Besides the A310s are only used for shorter flights, or low volume flights, and I've only experienced them between Singapore and KL, all of 30 minutes flying. And the A310s have all been withdrawn from service now, so the discussion point is moot.
However, on the 777s, the 200ER planes have the new Raffles Class seats. These are very complex, but do fold down almost flat (but at an angle) and give quite a comfortable sleep. The cabin crew don't like them though - all the electrics and complexity makes them very unreliable, and the purser for the last time I flew in Raffles Class said that they were bad for Singapore Airlines reputation. Configuration on a 777 is 2-2-2 - I haven't seen the new seats in a 747 yet.
The older planes have the older Raffles Class seats, which are similar to United's Business seats, but all electric. But they are reliable, even if they don't recline very far at all. Configuration is 2-3-2, so tighter, like United. Interestingly enough, the new seats are more compact than the old ones, so in a 777 SQ get the same number of business class passengers as they did in the old format.
Service in Raffles is formal and precise. What is a boon in Economy Class doesn't work so well in Business unfortunately. They could offer the personal touch, but the woodenness of the service makes the experience rather numbing. Food is nice, without being outstanding.
Inflight entertainment is offers the same options as economy. Refitted and new planes have bigger screens and noise cancelling headphones, the older planes don't.
777-200s have no laptop power, but the 777-300s have the older low voltage outlet you find on other airlines. The planes with the new flat beds have 115V Euro/US standard socket. Very nice.
Summary: Nice without being fantastic. I'm sure BA International do this much better, but given company policy is to fly as cheaply as possible, so I'm unlikely to see anything else.
Malaysian seem to win lots of awards for service etc, but my limited exposure to them has left me somewhat bemused as to how they got those awards. Maybe my experiences were just an exception.
My business trips so far have been on a 747-400 and an A330-200. I suppose the Boeing was similar standard to United's international 747s - certainly the fit and finish seemed quite familiar. I was in the upper deck, a virtually must-do for travelling in any 747, as it is quieter, and the service better.
Inflight entertainment was very limited, movie-wise, a repeating video track every 150 mins or so, with only 4 movies to choose from. Like United, I suppose. Movies weren't as advertised in the magazine, and no explanation from the cabin crew. Plus the screen quality was so shimmery, it was almost impossible to make out what was happening - and that wasn't my screen, my neighbour's was the same. The A330 had an even more limited video service - I could only find one working channel on my and the neighbouring seat, so gave up and slept. Methinks maintenance is a problem on Malaysian.
I was bemused that the safety video was played about 30 mins after take off on one trip. Maybe they forgot, but surely the safety video is as relevant for take off as it is for cruising and landing?
Meal service was okay, but most airlines do this a lot better in business. The nicest part is getting the Malaysian satays as a starter - yummy!
The one economy class trip has been on a 747-400. Reminded me of United too. One big screen in the middle, movies playing back to back, cabin lights on, windows open, impossible to see anything unless you are within a few rows of the screen.
Meal service is like most other regular airline. Nothing special, the only thing worthy of note are the satays served as starter. Very nice touch.
This is the first plane I've seen on landing throw fireballs out the engines when reverse thrust was put on to slow the plane. Is this really meant to happen on 747s? Was alarming at the time to see both engines throw out huge balls of fire!
Emirates is an airline I've heard a lot about, but until now (December 2003) have never had any experience of. I suppose this is because they started flying to Brisbane a month earlier.
The first difference with Emirates is that they send a limo to pick you up from home. While I'd always been perfectly happy with the Brisbane taxi service, it was a nice start to the trip to have a slightly more luxurious version of a Ford and a more pleasant driver for the journey. And if you stop in Dubai (which I was doing), they will provide a free limo service to anywhere within the UAE.
The second difference is the cabin service. Like United International, they make a point of knowing your name, ensuring comfort, etc, etc. And the cuisine is fabulous, easily some of the best I've ever had on any airline. And served on real crockery too. Very nice experience. And the cabin crew on my first flight were completely multinational, with a whole range of languages being spoken. Amusingly enough, the 9 languages supported on the flight were only mentioned in English (and presumably Arabic), so how the other 7 languages would realise that they could speak to someone is an interesting point.
A major disappointment was the seat on the 777-300. It was as hard as concrete, and not firm and supporting like, for example, Singapore Airlines business seats. With head support, and lumbur support, not being too hot, I found that I needed a few pillows to get comfortable. The seats have no laptop power, at least not that I could find - will have a look on the next flight.
The entertainment system was disappointing. Sets of video entertainment, changed every 2.5 hours. Yes, multinational choice, but not that extensive. Video on demand is literally asking the cabin crew for a video tape to plug into the inseat system on the newer planes. The older ones have nothing (and smaller screens too). But the huge screen, and forward and downward cameras make up for this. The seat layout is 2-3-2, like Singapore's old layout.
Summary: Nice without being fantastic. Catering and services makes up for the less than wonderful seating and entertainment options.
I looked into the Economy cabin on the 777. And saw 3-4-3 seating. And shuddered. Only Thai have this in their 777, and you can read what I thought of that later on. But at least the legroom is good. Seat back video, same video system and programme choices as in business, just smaller screen.
Bit of a mixed bag. MD11s and 747s have good legroom, probably 34 inch pitch. But then they are old planes, and haven't been reconfigured yet! Airbus 300-600Rs (legroom) are okay too, but I do wonder how old these planes are. 777-200 is cramped with bad legroom (spot the bar in the picture!!), configured 3-4-3 across which is suitable for skinny small people, but not the average Caucasian. 777-300 is configured 2-5-2, so wider seats but poor legroom, probably around 31 inches. And the seats are the worst possible design, having a sold metal bar going along the back at the bottom, right where lower legs should go. I certainly cannot stretch my legs on these, so I try avoid Thai 777s if at all possible.
No personal video, just standard broadcast movie, not the latest. Service is more personal than Singapore, but a bit more hapazard if every bit as efficient. The non-Thai food is bland, tasteless, and little better than slops fed to pigs.
A nice touch is that economy class passengers are offered a brandy after their main meal.
Summary: Typical Asian service, albeit much older planes, substandard in-flight entertainment, just like United.
My only foray into Thai Business has been courtesy of redeeming United Milteage Plus miles to go visiting friends in New Zealand. Strange? Well, maybe, but Thai obviously want to fill the plane on their TG983/4 Brisbane-Auckland leg so Thai it is.
The plane of the moment is an MD-11, built and configured around the time of the Ark. Entertainment is exactly the same as in Economy - the big screen, with ancient projection system playing a year old movie. With the arrival of United's surplus 747-400s early 2004, hopefully this will improve. Shame to lose the MD-11s though; with an upgraded interior I'm sure it would still be a nice plane. Its take off, acceleration, landing, and cruising performance puts all Boeings to shame - at least from the passenger point of view.
Catering was very nice, and as with Economy, avoid the Western meals. Service was pleasant, and very efficient, although the razor sharp plastic cutlery that the Australian Government insists should be used on flights touching Australia continues to amuse me.
Summary: Nice, reasonably spacious, pleasant, how business class used to be in the old days before airlines tried to make it like First Class. Just take a book to read!
Bit of a mixed bag. Older 747s have good legroom, 777s and A330/340s are very poor, up to Qantas standard. But Cathay can do service and food unlike any other OneWorld member. BA/Qantas, take note!
777s are configured as 2-5-2, which I dislike. A330/340 seats are very narrow, even though they are configured 2-4-2.
In flight video channels not as extensive as SQ, but still pretty reasonable. In flight service is outstanding, both for efficiency, effectiveness, and coordination. SQ, take note - they do it better than you. Only the food can be a bit suspect at times.
Summary:Would be better than SQ if they had decent seat pitches and better inflight entertainment.
Airbus 320s have good space, ARJ85s are cramped with 3-3 seating. ARJs (used to be BAe146s) can only really seat 5 across, so the 3-3 config is very narrow, suiting skinny small people. Seats don't tilt far, but then Europe isn't that big. Seats on back row of Airbus and ARJ85s don't tilt at all. Lufthansa are simply being cheapskates.
Service is very efficient and friendly, snack offered is very tasty and healthy. No inflight entertainment at all, but lots of freebie newspapers and magazines on offer.
Why can't the folks who run the European services show the international folks how to run an airline.
Summary: Not bad at all, apart from the ARJ85s.
747s are extremely cramped, probably 29in pitch or so. Bean poles like me can't sit straight in their seats, and are guaranteed backache within an hour or so. Also the seats recline about 2 degrees, so don't expect to get any sleep. Just lots more back and neck pain. My only two trips on Lufthansa International resulted in 3 days of backpain and a trip to the doctor, who diagnosed compressed nerves at the base of my spine - OUCH!
Service is efficient, food is an insult to German cuisine, and is basically inedible. Even pigs would turn their noses up at it.
Summary: Avoid. One of the worst international airlines I've ever been on.
There seems to be a difference between Economy Domestic and Economy International, but as I haven't flown the latter, I don't know. The only chance I had to fly the latter I was upgraded to Business. Now that is the sign of a great airline!
So to Domestic Economy. Pretty much like any American economy cabin, but the cabin crew are nice and friendly, and the snacks are not quite so grim. Otherwise it is crush, squash, and luggage galore.
Summary: Prefered if it is a choice between AC and any other in North America.
Only been here once, and on a 767 too. Was okay, a bit like United's Business class, nothing to write home about, but it functioned.
Food was okay, predictable, service was okay, predictable, you get my drift.
747s are cramped with the arrival of economy plus. 777s are not much better. 767s with the old configuration are sort of okay, with around 33 inches. I think the 747s and 777s are about 32 inch pitch, so not as bad as Qantas. Maybe the crampedness is due to the average size of the customers being somewhat larger than the average Asian based traveller?
777s are in a rather unpleasant 2-5-2 configuration in economy, whereas 747s are in the standard 3-4-3. Economy plus just gives you more legroom (legroom as it was in the old days at 34inches), the seats are otherwise identical.
Broadcast movie only, plus inflight music, movies are pretty poor at times. Audio outlets often don't work, headphones usually don't work. Last time I was in economy on a 747, it had no seat back video. The 777s do have seat back video though, so are slightly more pleasant to pass the time in.
In flight catering is usually bland and uninteresting, service is a random hotch potch which most Asians and Europeans do a lot better. The more mature cabin crew than on United Domestic may be more experienced, but they seem to think they can get away with being rude too. At least the seats recline a decent amount so some sleep is possible on those long haul flights. Just don't try sitting upright when the person in front tries to recline, unless you want a broken nose.
Summary: International is not bad, just not good enough to be good.
The only acceptable way to travel on United on long distances. Business Class is poor compared with most other Business Classes I've been on (not a lot!), but at least it is a heap sight better than Economy or Economy Plus (which is 5 in extra legroom and a very obscure booking process - I've never yet managed to get into Economy Plus, even being a 1K mad miler).
Inflight entertainment offers a choice of 4 movies played every two hours. How archaic when Singapore offers video on demand to economy passengers. And the United movies are usually rubbish, certainly not blockbusters. Even music/radio offers a poor choice. At least noise cancelling headphones are sometimes provided to make up for other shortcomings.
Seats are all manual recline and adjust, although they do have a wonderful massager built in which really helps on those long Pacific crossings. Reading lights sometimes work, head phone sockets sometimes work, even the laptop power socket sometimes works. Why do United find maintenance so difficult?
Top deck is best place on 747-400s - the side storage bins and the extra peace and quiet make the long trips a "pleasure". 747s have 2-4-2 downstairs. 2-2 upstairs on a 747 is close to heaven. Only downside with upstairs are the seats in row 18 - they are attached to the lift which goes from upstairs to downstairs and the cabin crew seem to enjoy playing with the lift all night.
Business on the 777s isn't quite so pleasant, as the planes are in three class configuration, with 1-3 being First, and 8-15 being Business. 8 and 9 are in front of the kitchen (so 9D-F have banging and clanking behind the ears all night). Or staff chattering in the exit door bay. Also, 777s have a flimsy wall between the front of economy (where all the babies sit) and the rear of business, so if you have a business seat, stay well away from row 15 (unless you love to hear babies crying all night). 777s are 2-3-2 in business, more spacious than 747s.
Speaking of staff, they don't seem to mind nattering away half the night as the remaining passengers attempt to get some sleep. And United's policy of removing all the class separating curtains as a "security" measure means that noise travels. Babies howling in economy are heard at the front of the business cabin, the cabin crew midnight party keeps all the passengers awake, etc.
Food is less bland than in economy, but the menu is utterly predictable and quite boring. But well presented, and well served by the cabin crew. At least the Business cabin crew sometimes have a sense of humour, although most seem to be well into their 60s. A reasonably enjoyable experience, but nothing like Singapore Airlines Business, and definitely not in the league of what I've heard about BA.
Speaking of security earlier, why we get metal forks and plastic knives I don't know. Clearly another "fool the public" initiative coming from the US. It's well known that airline knives are the bluntest tools around - metal forks can cause lots more damage, and the replacement plastic knives have left a permanent scar on my left thumb.
Summary: The only way to travel on United international
Airbus 320s and 737s are extremely cramped. Legroom is better than Qantas but then most of the US travellers are much larger than their international counterparts, so economy passengers usually end up getting squashed. Plus, as with all American airlines, you can take half your house contents into the cabin, so there is never any space for carry-on. At least it is not as bad as on any Indian airline, but getting close.
Inflight music only, service is rubbish, snacks are rubbish, they simply should not bother.
Summary: Best thing they could do is ground it.
That's all they have got, economy. The Canadair Regional jets are surprisingly roomy considering their small size.
Overhead bin space is almost non-existant, but United still allow half the house to be carried onto the planes. Legroom is better than regular United economy class, must be around 33 inch pitch, and is reasonably comfortable in that department for beanpoles like me. Seat width is not so good - narrow seats are used to get 2-2 layout, and wide people end up interfering with each other quite seriously. Luckily they are only used for short flights, otherwise could get uncomfortable too.
Service so far has been fantastic - the cabin attendant has always been good humoured, what a change from United! And the cookie or savoury snack choice is better than the woodshavings on offer from United.
Summary: I'm happy that some United domestic flights are now going over to United Express!
737 is okay, about 32 inches pitch (see picture), serve quick drink, but then Korea is only 45 minutes big.
Only got a 767 and A321 to go on, but both had massive legroom (for example, on Airbus 321) compared with most other airlines, nice enough snack on offer, pleasant cabin crew, and continual emphasis of the Star Alliance.
Was alarmed at how fast the approach and landing of the planes was though, especially given how quickly Qantas and British Midland can stop their respective 767s and 321s. Hmmmm. I thought we'd run out of runway!!
Summary: Not enough experience to comment.
As far as I can work out, BMI, as they are now called, use the same aircraft for domestic and international routes. I've only ever been on their A320s and 737s, and no ringing endorsement from me.
For legroom, they are as cramped as BA domestic economy, so legs jammed into the back of the seat in front. At least the seats are more than canvas, so you don't feel the knees from the person behind you jabbing your back. Snacks were nice enough, crew were okay, typical UK. Apart from one of their weird code-shares with Lufthansa, which was BM Fokker plane, but crewed by Lufthansa staff, flying a BMI flight number.
Summary: I usually only fly London - Edinburgh and London - Amsterdam, so that's hardly representative, is it?
737s, 757s and A320s quite cramped, probably 30 inches or so for seat pitch. Snacks served only, usually a sandwich. No inflight entertainment.
Got the seat back videos on newer planes, with a resonable selection of movies and other viewing items. Bit like Virgin or Singapore inflight entertainment about 7 years ago. And better than Qantas International's "multi-award winning inflight entertainment". A selection of movies, replayed every 2 hours or so - if they remember. Oh, and whoever invented touch screen seat back monitors is completely insane. BA, like Qantas, have those, and people seem to enjoy stabbing their fingers at the screen all night - with all the implications that has on the passenger in front. I've found that a very severe stare usually stops the seat stabbing. Air France also have this stupidity.
Seats are lightweight, and feel very flimsy, and have no internal backing. So you can feel the person sitting behind you stick their knees into your back, or lift the magazines out of the seat pocket, etc. Legroom, as with Qantas, is pretty poor, probably 30 inches. I can't sit straight in them for any length of time, and the foot rest means I can't even get my legs underneath when the seat has reclined. Have a look at this picture to get some idea - my knees are pressing into the seat pocket.
Economy is World Traveller, and is 3-4-3 in 747s. World Traveller Plus costs extra and is 2-4-2 - and looks very nice, similar to Singapore Airlines 777 Economy in seat pitch, but with a wider seat. Business is 2-3-2 and looks as good as many first class cabins I've seen, First Class from my brief glimpse looks out of this world. BA clearly know how to look after the non-cheapskate traveller, and I'd vote that they'd be one of the best in the world for that.
Food is really good, service is much better than Qantas, which is why the food is probably better than Qantas too. Service is good, but can be very cringingly English at times. And slanted towards children, unfortunately not managing to keep them quiet like Singapore Airlines staff can do.
Summary: Better than Qantas. One of the best Europeans, but that isn't saying anything.
Reconfigured cabin on 767s and 737s is extremely cramped, probably 30in pitch or so (take a look at this picture taken on a new 737-800 for example). Bean poles like me can't sit straight in their seats, and are guaranteed backache within an hour or so. But then most Aussie flights aren't much longer than that unless you go to Perth. BAe146s are just as bad, configured as 3-2 and the leg room is about 29in. I haven't been on their new Airbus 330-200s yet, but I can't imagine that they'd have made the legroom any better here.
Inflight news or movie or TV show, otherwise music and ABC Radio live. Service is good, snacks are bizarre at times, and not as good as they were when Ansett was around.
Domestic time keeping is a serious problem - maybe that is just on the Brisbane to Sydney route I frequent. Cityflyer brand may be aimed at the business traveller, but they really need to sort out the timekeeping.
I can't imagine what market their new discount airline Jetstar is aiming it - removing free meals and the business cabin in Qantas domestic is all that is needed to offer the same as Virgin Blue does, but then by all accounts Virgin Blue have learned how to do service and keep time.
Summary: Aussie favourite, but everyone says Virgin Blue is better.
Yes, that's right, Qantas have actually upgraded me two or three times to business in the last 5 years. And it's not bad, legroom probably about 6 in larger than Singapore economy, and seats are 3-2 on 737s and 2-2-2 in 767s. So narrower than on their international planes, but not much.
Service is quite good, food is always very nice, same inflight entertainment options as in economy though.
Summary: Perfectly acceptable for domestic travel
Reconfigured cabin on 747s and 767s is extremely cramped, probably 30in pitch or so. Bean poles like me can't sit straight in their seats, and are guaranteed backache within an hour or so.
Qantas clearly got BA to reconfigure their planes, with identical seats, identical seat pitch, and same indifferent inflight entertainment. "Award winning" my foot - the judges must have been blind as well as deaf, or maybe stuck in a timewarp.
Some 747s have personal video screens, otherwise it's the usual bland fare. Service is poor, food is generally bland and uninteresting, cabin crew are generally patronising, being heavily biased towards babies and against frequent fliers. Also Qantas serve unlimited alcohol so some flights end up being like booze houses, making it very unpleasant for other passengers.
Summary: Best avoided unless you are an Aussie.
At last, I've made two flights in Virgin Blue. One flight was on their 737-700s, the other was on a 737-800.
All that I've heard about Virgin being streets ahead of Qantas when it comes to punctuality, quality, customer service, and so on, are true. Wow. And a discount airline too. They turned the plane around in 30 minutes in both trips. And it was clean inside too. Why can't other airlines do this? I suppose Virgin Blue load and unload the plane from both front and rear doors, so that must help a lot.
Legroom in the 737-700 was okay, similar to Qantas 737s, at about 32inches. I had about one inch between my leg and the back of the seat in front, and even more impressively, the thick bar that so many airlines use at the base of their seat backs wasn't present on this 737-700. Acceptable legroom, given they are a discount airline. Many full fare airlines should be ashamed, especially Qantas.
Legroom in the 737-800 was much poorer though. I couldn't sit straight, as with the Qantas 737-800. Wonder why this is, given the 700 is just as modern an aircraft. The 800s seats were leather though, so does that make it any better? For me, no, and in fact it reminded me of my horror experiences in Lufthansa economy. Even the Virgin seats had that horrible bar along the bottom, so I couldn't stretch my legs at all. Bearable for 90 minutes, but any longer would give lots of problems sitting skew as I had to do.
There are no free meals on Virgin. If you want anything, you can buy it. And it's not some dodgy mush as many airlines serve for free, but real high street brand name products, albeit with some mark up, I'm sure. But, for domestic flights lasting an hour or two, who cares. Travellers can usually last that lenght of time without eating, and if you feel peckish, a nice friendly Virgin "host" will come and sell you something tasty.
Decor in the cabins is fresh, the "virgin" and "blue" theme scattered around the terminals and the planes is amusing and light hearted, just making the whole flying thing pleasureable. For example, if you loose your luggage, you go to the "Baggage Blues" desk - nice! Just a shame there is so much red everywhere - it felt a bit overwhelming.
In flight entertainment is restricted to some audio channels - but I didn't bring head phones with me, and didn't want to buy their's so, couldn't sample it. But the programme looked okay. No video, but then if you are paying less than $100 for a ticket, who cares.
Would I fly again? Oh yes, most definitely. But probably avoiding the 737-800s if at all possible. Or paying extra for a seat with extra legroom.
Okay, I've only been on domestic and tourist flights from Oz, so this may not be the best guide. No seat back video yet (although the new or refitted planes have individual screens, airshow, lots of movies, apparently), just Japanese news, a Western or Japanese movie. Hmmm. Take a good book, or sleep.
747-200 legroom is really very good, must be 35 inches or so. No problem getting comfortable. Only the planes are as old as the hills, the fit and finish inside shows it, although the planes seem to be always freshly painted or washed compared with most other airlines.
747-400 legroom was shockingly bad, similar to UK charters. I couldn't sit in the seat assigned, so had poke my feet out onto the aisle. Probably 28 inches pitch. But that was on a domestic flight, international 747-400s might be different.
Service on board is typical Japanese service, quite enjoyable. Food is very Japanese too, sometimes a bit of a mystery in how everything is meant to be put together from all the little pots and trays you get.
Summary: They are okay.
737s and A320s belong to another era, probably before I was born. No maintenance in the cabin with lights and fittings falling off everywhere. Very poor legroom, but seems to depend on where they got the planes from.
Cabin space is at a premimum as most Indian travellers tend to take their farms onboard with them too. And the airport authorities do little to enforce restrictions.
Inflight food is usually daal soup or curry, with rice and nan. Appetising it is not, not even for the Indians. Service is not bad, but the ambience is, ummm... Oh, and the pilots are crazy. If the landing isn't so hard that all the overhead bin contents land on the aisle, then the pilot has failed to make a good landing. Apparently. As I said, crazy!
Summary: Fly Jet Airways in India
That's all they have, India's only reasonably sane private airline, flying brand new 737-600s and 800s. At least you know that they are not going to fall out of the sky with old age. And the service is reasonably decent onboard, although cuisine again does no favours to the wonders which the subcontinent normally produces.
Again legroom is cramped, probably around 30in, and seat width and layout is standard 737.
At least the landings aren't quite so hard, but thank goodness a few year old 737-800 is more solid than a pre-Ark 737 or A320 which Indian Airlines have.
Summary: The only airline I'd fly in India.
Did that once, but the 3-3 configuration in the BAe146-100 is too tight for me (see Lufthansa entry). Food is alright, but obviously comes from the partner airline at the local airport. So if you fly to Bhutan from India, see Indian Airlines. If you fly from Bangkok to Bhutan, see Thai. etc.
No inflight movies or music, nothing. Just bring your Lonely Planet guide to look like a trekker, or a good book.
For the 60% extra fee, well worth doing. Business is better than Qantas Domestic Business. No inflight entertainment though, but then books, the views,... Food is alright, see Economy above. Seat configuration is 2-2, legroom is more than ample for anyone.
Summary: Nice in their own cute way.
No recent experience which is relevant. When I worked at UUNET I always purchased Economy Plus seats (2-4-2 in the 747s with heaps of legroom) which were lovely, with seat back video, lots of movies etc to choose from, and silver service. Unlike anything else 8 years ago. And all for the price of a full fare economy ticket.
But they quickly spotted that we worked for UUNET, so most flights ended up being upgraded to Upper Class. And that was out of this world. But I was younger and naive then... And very impressionable.
Summary: No recent info, but still one of my all time favourites based on past experience.
Only one experience to go on, and that was on an A340 flying from Paris to Lome in Togo. Asked to be seated beside a colleague, giving up my mandatory window seat - he was upgraded, and I was stuck in the middle of a cramped 2-4-2 for 6 hours. Thankfully it was only 6 hours, my legs and back were aching by the end of the flight. Seat pitch is in the Cathay Pacific league, so very tight, and the Airbus seats exhibited their usual narrowness with Caucasians parked in them.
Service was okay, cuisine was acceptable, but not very representative of what the French are famous for. Entertainment I don't remember much about - either because the seat back video didn't work, or there wasn't any. I read for most of the flight, seemed the best option.
Summary: I don't usually fly Air France, and don't plan to start going on this. Better than Lufthansa, but is that saying anything at all?
I've mentioned through out the text above my amusement at the US and Australian Government's obsession with the fact that cutlery on planes should include only plastic knives. Any frequent traveller knows too well that airline metal knives can barely cut mashed potatoes, so how they think a terrorist could use them as a weapon seems bizarre to me. The forks are far more dangerous - think of the damage 4 prongs could do. And all this was made more ridiculous when I slit my finger open with the plastic knives forced on the airlines leaving Australia soon after the US September 11th incident. Could never have done that with the metal one. Oh well, we are secure because our governments tell us we are, not because any commonsense is applied.
Lost luggage is another annoyance frequent travellers have to put up with. I've learned that I should carry things like shaver, shower gel, tooth brush/paste etc, in my carry on, as losing a suitcase on average 1 out of every 10 flights just gets annoying. What's even more bizarre is that none of my loses have been due to mis- or unclearly labelled baggage. I make a point of making sure it is properly labelled, with the appropriate airline frequent flier priority baggage label, but some how my suitcase can still end up at a different airport from the one I'm travelling to. Also there is no point locking a suitcase these days if you are going anywhere near the US. To improve security, the US now forces open bags. So, please tell me how an unlocked suitcase wandering around the world improves security. As with the previous para, we believe we are more secure as our governments tell us we are. What happened to the old days in the UK where if they found anything suspicious in the case they'd call you to come and open it. I can no longer vouch for what is in my case, and given the Americans broke the lock the last time my suitcase went awol, who knows what could be inserted there between me kissing it fairwell at check in, and me telling the nice customs man that I'm not taking in any prohibited items at my destination. Hmmm.
More random musings to come...
Hope you found these useful. Philip Smith - last update 26/December/2003
