There, but not back again
-
@hardwaregeek said in There, but not back again:
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
priority boarding, probably so that you can spend more time in the comfort of your cattle-class seat in the airplane
I've never understood why anyone would want this, much less pay extra for it.
As mentioned, it makes sense for airlines that don't reserve seating. It also increases the odds of getting your crap into the overhead bin and in one at or near your seat.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@hardwaregeek said in There, but not back again:
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
priority boarding, probably so that you can spend more time in the comfort of your cattle-class seat in the airplane
I've never understood why anyone would want this, much less pay extra for it.
The same reason literally everyone stands up as soon as the plane stops moving after landing, despite deboarding being minimal ten minutes.
That...seems like the opposite reason, actually. I stand up because I've been sitting in a stupid little seat and it feels good to stand up.
-
@blakeyrat said in There, but not back again:
I assume "iron" in Chinese implies something other than iron the metal, because otherwise it's hard to imagine why anybody thought that would be a good name.
You can't be serious!
-
@djls45 said in There, but not back again:
Do other airlines outside the USA have FCFS seating?
Varies by airline, though I've never seen it in long haul.
-
@dkf said in There, but not back again:
Varies by airline, though I've never seen it in long haul.
I've actually never experienced FCFS seating on an airline, even when flying just inside the EU. (I've largely avoided the very-low cost airlines like ryanair, mostly because they've almost never been convenient for my trips, and I don't think anybody like that is currently servicing the airport here.)
-
@pie_flavor said in There, but not back again:
Line? What line? If your boarding group isn't called, you're still sitting in the terminal seat, some of which are quite comfortable.
Last time I flew out of LAX, they made all the passengers stand into lines for their boarding group. There were like half a dozen attendants with signs for specific rows of seats (business class included, first class probably didn't have to participate), and they made sure that all the passengers formed lines in front of the appropriate sign. Had to wait for maybe 10 minutes in my line, before they sent in the whole line at once.
It felt pretty dumb, but it was hilarious to watch, because apparently understanding the instructions and then locating the line which has your seats is difficult. And from what I've overheard, so is figuring out whether or not row 27 is between 24 and 32 (don't remember the exact numbers, though).
-
@cvi It seems unlikely for a budget airline to use FCFS in the EU, since they compete on marketed price. By assigning seats there is an avenue to charge you extra for selecting your own seat, and that extra charge does not need to be included in the marketed price.
-
@pleegwat said in There, but not back again:
@cvi It seems unlikely for a budget airline to use FCFS in the EU, since they compete on marketed price. By assigning seats there is an avenue to charge you extra for selecting your own seat, and that extra charge does not need to be included in the marketed price.
They extra-charge you for boarding first, but it's still FCFS (you're just more "first" than the rest).
I've heard (no idea whether it's true) that part of the reason for that is that people board faster because they don't search for their seat ("is it this one? oh, right, sorry, I'm in the row behind... oh, is this side A/B/C or the other one?" -- seasoned travellers don't have issues, but remember that the primary target for budget airlines was holiday travel, aimed at people who were not used to air travel!). Overall, this means the airline can be faster to board and thus get a lower turnaround time.
I would not be surprised if they had computed that the lower cost of faster boarding trumps the higher revenue that they might get by selling specific seats (especially since they still get revenue from the priority boarding thing).
-
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@hardwaregeek said in There, but not back again:
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
priority boarding, probably so that you can spend more time in the comfort of your cattle-class seat in the airplane
I've never understood why anyone would want this, much less pay extra for it.
The same reason literally everyone stands up as soon as the plane stops moving after landing, despite deboarding being minimal ten minutes.
That...seems like the opposite reason, actually. I stand up because I've been sitting in a stupid little seat and it feels good to stand up.
It's not like they forced you to remain seated the whole flight, did they? What's an extra ten minutes?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@hardwaregeek said in There, but not back again:
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
priority boarding, probably so that you can spend more time in the comfort of your cattle-class seat in the airplane
I've never understood why anyone would want this, much less pay extra for it.
The same reason literally everyone stands up as soon as the plane stops moving after landing, despite deboarding being minimal ten minutes.
That...seems like the opposite reason, actually. I stand up because I've been sitting in a stupid little seat and it feels good to stand up.
It's not like they forced you to remain seated the whole flight, did they? What's an extra ten minutes?
They generally want you sitting in your seat with your seatbelt on. It's ten minutes that I'm going to be standing (at least when I'm in the aisle as that's the only place I'd have room to be able to do so), fuck you very much.
But to turn this back on you, standing up and preparing to leave speeds up the disembarking process, if anything. I don't understand the reason why anyone would be against this, either.
-
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
But to turn this back on you, standing up and preparing to leave speeds up the disembarking process, if anything. I don't understand the reason why anyone would be against this, either.
Standing and preparing to leave consists of about four seconds of work. If it's taking you much longer than that, you need more exercise than I do.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
But to turn this back on you, standing up and preparing to leave speeds up the disembarking process, if anything. I don't understand the reason why anyone would be against this, either.
Standing and preparing to leave consists of about four seconds of work. If it's taking you much longer than that, you need more exercise than I do.
Math better. It starts with four seconds at the front. Which also delays the people scooting over in their seats so they can get up and do their thing. These delays accumulate. Life sucks worse than it has to be.
Why would you care if I stand when I'm allowed to stand?
-
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
I've actually never experienced FCFS seating on an airline, even when flying just inside the EU. (I've largely avoided the very-low cost airlines like ryanair, mostly because they've almost never been convenient for my trips, and I don't think anybody like that is currently servicing the airport here.)
Well, if you want to experience it in the EU you need to choose one of the very low-cost airlines like Ryanair; the big carriers don't because they can do complex through booking (including long-haul) instead and that's much simpler with assigned seating. Also, not all low-cost airlines do it.
I don't like travelling with the low-cost airlines. Even their extended-legroom seats have not really enough space for my legs. :(
-
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
They generally want you sitting in your seat with your seatbelt on.
That's mostly because of clear-air turbulence, or during take-off and landing.
-
@dkf said in There, but not back again:
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
They generally want you sitting in your seat with your seatbelt on.
That's mostly because of clear-air turbulence, or during take-off and landing.
Well, it's also annoying to have people walking up and down the aisles, or even standing there getting in the way of the flight attendants and people going to the lavatories.
Not that any case against standing up while waiting to disembark has been made yet.
-
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
first class probably didn't have to participate
They probably “queue” in their lounge, or rather are just called before everyone else. The number of people involved is usually pretty small.
-
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
Well, it's also annoying to have people walking up and down the aisles
It doesn't annoy me on the larger planes. I can really understand people wanting to stretch their legs; it makes the journey a lot more comfortable. On a short flight (e.g., an hour or so) there's not so much need, and that's where smaller planes are more often used (well, around here anyway).
-
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
Why would you care if I stand when I'm allowed to stand?
What makes you think I do?
-
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
Math better.
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
These delays accumulate.
That's assuming only one person can stand at a time. Ever heard of parallelization? If it was done correctly, everyone on the odd rows seat C (i.e. innermost on the left) and even rows seat D (i.e. innermost on the right) would stand and collect their things at the same time. That's ten seconds. Then, as they enter the aisle and proceed to the exit, the same occurs on the even rows seat C and odd rows seat D (basically switched). By the time that the first batch has completed exiting (or at least the queue has reached the front seat), these will have had about one minute to perform their four-second preparation and will immediately be able to enter the aisle to disembark. Meanwhile as they start that odd rows seat B an even rows seat E arise and prepare, etc. etc.
If everything goes smoothly, it should take no more than seven minutes to load and unload the plane.
Sadly, humans are not optimal and varied and can't conform so instead it takes four times as long even with everybody "prepared".
-
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
Why would you care if I stand when I'm allowed to stand?
What makes you think I do?
Previous posts.
-
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
Why would you care if I stand when I'm allowed to stand?
What makes you think I do?
Previous posts.
[Citation needed]
-
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
Why would you care if I stand when I'm allowed to stand?
What makes you think I do?
Previous posts.
[Citation needed]
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/24651/there-but-not-back-again/
-
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
@tsaukpaetra said in There, but not back again:
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
Why would you care if I stand when I'm allowed to stand?
What makes you think I do?
Previous posts.
[Citation needed]
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/24651/there-but-not-back-again/
E_REFERENCE_NOT_SET_TO_AN_INSTANCE_OF_AN_OBJECT
-
@boomzilla
InvalidArgumentException: Sequence contains more than one element.
-
@dragnslcr said in There, but not back again:
@dreikin said in There, but not back again:
Not often a problem IME, but all it takes is one person blocking the aisle for an unnecessarily long time.
It applies more when leaving the plane than when boarding, but I frequently use the line, "If you're standing in the aisle and you aren't moving, then you are wrong."
I do it. Why? Because after sitting all that time, stretching the legs feels seriously good.
-
@hardwaregeek said in There, but not back again:
@carnage said in There, but not back again:
@hardwaregeek said in There, but not back again:
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
priority boarding, probably so that you can spend more time in the comfort of your cattle-class seat in the airplane
I've never understood why anyone would want this, much less pay extra for it.
I have a handicap, so I get preferential treatment in most airports regarding boarding airplanes. I get to go before the schmucks that pay to go on first.
I can kind of understand this, so that you can board without having to struggle through the aisle when it's crowded with people trying to stuff their too-big bags into the overhead compartments, but you're still spending extra time sitting in a not-comfortable seat.
When the choice is between an uncomfortable seat in the airport, or an uncomfortable seat in an airplane, it's kind of a moot point... I don't really care if I board first or last though, as long as I won't have to deal with all the meatsacks gently pushing eachother around in a passive aggressive manner.
-
I like to stay seated until the crush has gone, then amble off the plane last. If there's a shuttle bus, that makes me the last one on it and therefore the closest to the door and first off.
I realise that as my kids get older the ability to just stay sat with them will decrease
-
WTF flight plans, Episode XI:
Looking to maybe visit people back in City A within the next weeks, which means flying to City A from City B. There are direct flights (as in the OP), but in the relevant date span these start at ~€375, which is a bit more than I'm willing to spend for this kind of short visit (it's not an emergency, so whatever). Adding a stop brings the price down a bit, but -as one would expect at this point- involves flying in the wrong direction for an hour or two. And then it either involves a lengthy transfer, or one that is a bit too unlikely to work out for something that is a three day trip.
There are two more airports somewhat close by to where I live now, which I'll call C & D for now. C is small enough to pretty much always be expensive, and unsurprisingly doesn't offer anything better this time either.
But ... Turns out there is a flight from D to B and back for about €200. Turns out that flight has one transfer. Turns out that this transfer is in City A.
FWIW- I've not yet visited D. I'm somewhat tempted to go there, tourist for a bit, catch the flight to A, get back home, sleep (16h transfer), and take the "direct" flight to B the next morning. Return is the same deal, except that one can (of course) just skip the last leg of the journey.
-
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
one can (of course) just skip the last leg of the journey.
Except that one's luggage, of course, won't.
-
@hardwaregeek This would be a ~three day trip, which is doable with only a small carry on. One needs to pay extra for checked-in luggage these days anyway, so for short trips, it's worth going just with a small carry-on bag.
-
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
WTF flight plans, Episode XI:
Looking to maybe visit people back in City A within the next weeks, which means flying to City A from City B. There are direct flights (as in the OP), but in the relevant date span these start at ~€375, which is a bit more than I'm willing to spend for this kind of short visit (it's not an emergency, so whatever). Adding a stop brings the price down a bit, but -as one would expect at this point- involves flying in the wrong direction for an hour or two. And then it either involves a lengthy transfer, or one that is a bit too unlikely to work out for something that is a three day trip.
There are two more airports somewhat close by to where I live now, which I'll call C & D for now. C is small enough to pretty much always be expensive, and unsurprisingly doesn't offer anything better this time either.
But ... Turns out there is a flight from D to B and back for about €200. Turns out that flight has one transfer. Turns out that this transfer is in City A.
FWIW- I've not yet visited D. I'm somewhat tempted to go there, tourist for a bit, catch the flight to A, get back home, sleep (16h transfer), and take the "direct" flight to B the next morning. Return is the same deal, except that one can (of course) just skip the last leg of the journey.
I'm really tired but if I've read that correctly then careful with that. I'm sure I read something about punitive charges or black-listing or something if you skips parts of journeys to get an effective discount on the destination you really wanted.
-
@blakeyrat said in There, but not back again:
@cvi The worst part is they'll probably put you in a Airbus europlane.
What's your problem with Airbus?
I've been on intercontinental flights with both Airbus and Boeing (A380 and what's Boeing's big one, 747?) and it didn't make much of a difference. Both were nice enough, if being surrounded by strangers for 10+ hours can be nice at all.
I've taken continental flights with smaller Airbus, and they were fine too. Well, unless if you travel with RyanAir (as previous posters mentioned), since they cram like 17 additional rows in there, and generally just do everything they can to piss you off.
-
@topspin said in There, but not back again:
What's your problem with Airbus?
Boeing used to be based in Seattle (they still have factories there but corporate HQ moved out years ago) and he lives in the Seattle area.
-
@cursorkeys said in There, but not back again:
I'm really tired but if I've read that correctly then careful with that. I'm sure I read something about punitive charges or black-listing or something if you skips parts of journeys to get an effective discount on the destination you really wanted.
I've heard about it too. It has no logical justification, just like overbooking the planes. The person paid for their seat ; if they choose not to use it, the airline doesn't lose any money. It's even a small benefit, since it makes the plane marginally lighter and boarding/unboarding marginally faster.
It only makes sense if you're in the business of overcharging and selling more capacity than you actually have.
-
@topspin said in There, but not back again:
What's your problem with Airbus?
Air France Flight 447: 'Damn it, we’re going to crash’
With the report into the tragedy of Air France 447 due next month, Airbus’s 'brilliant’ aircraft design may have contributed to one of the world’s worst aviation disasters and the deaths of all 228 onboard.
@topspin said in There, but not back again:
I've been on intercontinental flights with both Airbus and Boeing (A380 and what's Boeing's big one, 747?)
Boeing's big one is the 747, but you're more likely to have flown on a 777. Which, BTW, is by far the safest airliner ever built.
@boomzilla said in There, but not back again:
Boeing used to be based in Seattle (they still have factories there but corporate HQ moved out years ago) and he lives in the Seattle area.
Boeing hasn't been in Seattle since like the 1940s. It has always been in the Seattle area. (And still is; they just moved the corporate HQ for tax reasons.)
-
@blakeyrat Interesting read.
-
@zerosquare said in There, but not back again:
It has no logical justification, just like overbooking the planes. The person paid for their seat ; if they choose not to use it, the airline doesn't lose any money.
Which part of this thread gave you the impression that airlines care about logical justification? ;-)
I agree, it doesn't make any sense(*), but I've seen these kinds of clauses when booking flights. Specifically that skipping parts of the journey can result in punitive charges. I've never heard of anybody being hit by it, but I also don't know anybody who is skipping parts very regularly.
(*) In a rational world. In the airline-world, where a journey of A->B->C can be cheaper than B->C, it starts making sense -- if you just travel B->C, the airline wants you to pay the higher price that they've set, rather than what you'd pay for A->B->C.
-
@blakeyrat said in There, but not back again:
Boeing hasn't been in Seattle since like the 1940s. It has always been in the Seattle area. (And still is; they just moved the corporate HQ for tax reasons.)
Most of their Seattle-area facilities are outside Seattle proper, but Boeing still has facilities at King County International Airport, aka Boeing Field, which is mostly within the Seattle city limits. /
-
@cvi said in There, but not back again:
(*) In a rational world. In the airline-world, where a journey of A->B->C can be cheaper than B->C, it starts making sense -- if you just travel B->C, the airline wants you to pay the higher price that they've set, rather than what you'd pay for A->B->C.
It should go without saying, but if they don't want you to skip legs then they shouldn't fucking do that in the first place.
That's like selling two apples fo $2 and three apples for $1.50 and then telling you "you're not allowed to give/throw one away".
-
@cvi Word of warning: There have been periods and routes in the past where a direct flight from Schiphol would be more expensive than a flight from Dusseldorf with transfer in Schiphol. If I remember correctly, this was related to taxes and airport fees, and the gap was quickly closed by denying boarding in Schiphol to anyone who did not show up in Dusseldorf.
-
@pleegwat said in There, but not back again:
and the gap was quickly closed by denying boarding in Schiphol to anyone who did not show up in Dusseldorf.
Was that on subsequent trips (i.e., after skipping last leg back to DUS on some previous trip), or just if they skipped the first leg of the journey (DUS to AMS)?
The latter I'm aware of -- so typically you need to be present for the first leg (so, Düsseldorf to Schiphol in your example) of each trip, or there's a good chance that you will lose your seat from following flights. It's less clear if you skip the last part. I know that the airlines threaten with fees/fines/sanctions in that case too, but I don't know anybody who has actually been on the receiving end of those.
It's still a ridiculous situation IMO. Actual costs aside, you always get to have the feeling that you're being screwed over somehow.
-
@cvi All I know is what I read in the news at the time, and that mainly indicated having to be there for the first leg.
-
@cvi If you're not present for any flight of your itinerary the airline cancels the whole itinerary. They have no patience for people trying to pull shenanigans.
-
@blakeyrat said in There, but not back again:
@cvi If you're not present for any flight of your itinerary the airline cancels the whole itinerary. They have no patience for people trying to pull shenanigans.
Although if the flight you're not present for is the very last one in the itinerary, that's not so bad a deal. Edit: Note: I'm a rule-follower enough that I would be uncomfortable doing this just to save money. But others may not be.
-
@blakeyrat said in There, but not back again:
@cvi If you're not present for any flight of your itinerary the airline cancels the whole itinerary. They have no patience for people trying to pull shenanigans.
Funny, considering how they love to pull shenanigans themselves.
