Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing  
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3795 times:

Sure it's easy to romanticise about the days when flying was a high class affair and you weren't herded into cramped seats like cattle, but you have to remember that in those days, flying was only for the privileged few. Nowadays, with economy, more people have access to more of the world than ever before and are able to travel more often. The more people from all over the world can travel, the more the wealth is spread and the more people from different societies meet. No longer will those people in that country be some strange breed stereotyped by the media. Segregation of different cultures will stop and we will all get to know each other better. Segregation leads to ignorance of other cultures, which leads to fear, which leads to hate, which leads to war. The truth the squashy green one speaks. Staying in our own regions sucks. You know what happens then. We all get horribly in bred, grow funny noses and ask everyone, "Are you local?" Sure it's not as glamourous as it used to be, but it is more important. The growth in air travel is important for world peace.

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3681 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well no wonder the world is so much more peaceful and loving than in the '50s. I can now travel anywhere and never have to fear (and in such comfort).

Sorry, but I liked it better before.



Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineWunala From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

Bring back the romance, thats what I say. Sure, have economy, but please put the romanace into flying again, even if it is up the front.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3658 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
The growth in air travel is important for world peace.

Move whole Armys is days, instead of months.  Big grin

Spread terrorism and crime ( like the 9/11 hyjackers).  Angry

Don't forget making a regional epidemic (SARS, Bird Flu), a global epidemic.  Sad


User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4313 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

The view on the world expressed by M404 and KC135 is typical for the cynical "Rumsfeld doctrine" seeing everything outside the US as a threat full of potential terrorists.
If you see the bigger picture, you see major parts of the world -like Russia, Ukraine and eastern Europe, China, South Africa, Asia, Latin America- which were an oppressing and -except for the few rich- depressing place to live in the 1950s, developing and becoming free and/or democratic, that happened in the slipstream of travelling and media more commonly available.
Well, back to Aviation now.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3621 times:

Bring back romance? Sounds more like "bring back higher fares so that those frightful oiks go back to 'their' lower-class cramped holiday-charter aircraft and let the snobs stay on their legacy carriers without being bothered about sitting next to the common rabble".  Wink

User currently offlineNeednewairport From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

flying can still have glamour if everyone was raised with the proper morals, ethics, values, etc. A simple smile and please and thank you to your fellow pax and flight crew would be a drastic improvement.

User currently offlineN77014 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

Flying, like manners and dinner attire, have sadly devolved into a mass market experience where the charm, elegance, and luxury of bygone days seem destined never to return.

While no one doubts the positives of more people able to fly and the effects it has in creating economies of scale, the fact that we now consider flying a product, and not a service, speaks volumes about how much has changed.

It may be up to MH and EK to carry where TW and PA left off.


User currently offlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3424 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Loss of Glamour may be a good thing, but the loss of Concorde isn't. Not glamour, but class.


I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently offlineJet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3408 times:

Surely this is a thread that should be deleted!

More seriously, there is good truth in what you say, and in a commercial world these trends wills continue. But realize too this is with more stratification between those with lots of money - First, BBJs, private A380s - and the masses (me included).

I really don't enjoy flying in the States much anymore - it's a bus in the air. I still enjoy flying in Asia - the romance and glamour are still there. Maybe they can somehow be preservered forever? Oh, silly me.


User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3392 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

But the loss of manners, respect for one's self and others, and hygene is not.

B


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3380 times:

Quoting Jet-lagged:
Surely this is a thread that should be deleted!

Why? A little positive view on things is a nice change.

Quoting Jet-lagged:
But realize too this is with more stratification between those with lots of money -

But this isn't new. There has always been those with lots of money and the unwashed masses.


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3371 times:

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4):
The view on the world expressed by M404 and KC135 is typical for the cynical "Rumsfeld doctrine" seeing everything outside the US as a threat full of potential terrorists.

You beat me to it! The world goes beyond just the US!

Making air travel exclusive to just certain people is not going to stop someone from getting an aircraft out of the sky if they want to. And who ever said that the elite are not capable of spreading global epidemics?? How arrogant   

Air travel has just become another means of getting from A to B regardless of it being a car, bus, train, or ship! By all means, keep First Class for the nitwits that are prepared to pay thousands for their flights, but don't complain about how air travel is not glamourous enough anymore because of the people who sit in the back of the aircraft  sarcastic 

[Edited 2005-06-06 17:36:02]


Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlinePiedmontbrat From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Bringing back romance to air travel doesn't necessarily mean making higher fares. Back in the good old days, so to speak...people took some degree of pride in the way they dressed, the way they smelled (or didn't) and the manners with which they treated their fellow passengers.

Today, our society has become one in which "it's all about me". They don't want to assume any responsibility for themselves but feel that it's everyone else's responsibility to watch out for them.

Working in the public sector over the past 30 years, it is truly amazing at just how stupid people have become. People either can't read or choose not to read simple information but rather complain because they "don't understand".

People can choose to be common if they want to or they can choose to present themselves in a clean, mannerly way. The price of an airline ticket has nothing to do with personal hygene, grooming and manners.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2087 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3314 times:

The loss of glamour has not been accompanied by equivalent reductions in airfare. It has been assumed that deregulation brought vastly lower airfares. But the decrease has only been incremental if you compare fares from the end of the regulation era to the last years before 2001, I recall that the average reduction was less than 20%, adjusting for inflation. This is coupled with the fact that 1970s planes were less fuel efficient and many required three or more in the cockpit. Regulated fares were based on costs and operational expenses have declined over time.

Current fares are not comparable because they are not sustainable for any airline, even LCCs. Allowing airlines to merge and some re-regulation could rationalize fares, improve service and reduce delays. If you do not like the fares, take WN or B6.


User currently offlineNYCAAer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 692 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

As a flight attendant for 17 years, I miss the old days. I miss the days when passengers actually wore clothes and shoes and took a shower before they traveled. I miss the days when people were appreciative and actually said hello back to you when you greeted them at the door instead of just hitting your shins with their carry-ons.

I don't expect passengers to wear suits and ties, but at least have some decorum. Tank tops, rubber flip-flops, short shorts, etc. I've seen more clothes on the beach than in the cabin of a 777 from JFK to LHR.

Maybe the major airlines should merge with Greyhound!

[Edited 2005-06-06 18:16:56]

User currently offlineTrolley Dolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Glamour? I've made a few flights on DC-3's and I can assure you the main reason you wore suits and coats was to help keep warm! My aunt used to make a 4 day flight from London to Southern Africa, give me 12 hours any day. The glamour came from visting the new and exotic, from escaping the hum-drum. Like other posters in this forum, I miss the days of more civility, when 747 lounges were used to socialise, instead of having people sit in stoney silence watching a PTV. Don't get me started on manners! Thankfully I fly a lot in the Asia-Pacific region where airlines still treat you like a guest and make the flights more comfortable. Not all change is good, but nostaligia can overlook the less appealing aspects of the past.

User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Hey you're supposed to feel comfortable with what you're wearing when you travel. Although I do not wear flip-flops and shorts, I have no problem with it if that's what people need to do when they go on vacation, or travel.

A person wearing a suit is not less smelly, better behaved, or more hygienic. I've seen enough people dressing up and travelling first class that fall into the above categories more than some economy class passengers do! I don't see what this has to do with glamour. An expensive suit or fancy bottle of eau de toilette will not cover up any of the ugly bits. It's not a show for god's sake, these people are just flying.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3082 times:

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4):
If you see the bigger picture, you see major parts of the world -like Russia, Ukraine and eastern Europe, China, South Africa, Asia, Latin America- which were an oppressing and -except for the few rich- depressing place to live in the 1950s, developing and becoming free and/or democratic, that happened in the slipstream of travelling and media more commonly available.

??? Hello? Here's a reality check for you. Access to all of those places had nothing to do with air travel. All were accessable well before the Wright Brothers flew in Dec. 1903. The airplane just made access faster.  boggled 

Additionally, Russia and Ukraine (formerly called the USSR) and Eastern Europe opened up because the United States won the Cold War and forced the collapsed of the USSR (even Charic acknowledged that). China opened because of President Nixon's visit in the 1970s. South Africa, Latin America, and Asia were always open (Asia since the end of WWII). Learning a little recent history, and remembering it will help you. Give credit where credit is due.  banghead 

Quoting NYCAAer (Reply 15):
As a flight attendant for 17 years, I miss the old days. I miss the days when passengers actually wore clothes and shoes and took a shower before they traveled. I miss the days when people were appreciative and actually said hello back to you when you greeted them at the door instead of just hitting your shins with their carry-ons.

I don't expect passengers to wear suits and ties, but at least have some decorum. Tank tops, rubber flip-flops, short shorts, etc. I've seen more clothes on the beach than in the cabin of a 777 from JFK to LHR.

Maybe the major airlines should merge with Greyhound!

I fully agree. I've seen better dressed people in a locker room.  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineFbgdavidson From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3064 times:

Having just watched a programme about the Flying Boat era it looked like a magnificent way to travel.

From the flying boat to Ryanair. What a difference 70years makes!



"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4313 posts, RR: 36
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3038 times:

Quote:
KC135TopBoom "South Africa, Latin America, and Asia were always open (Asia since the end of WWII)"


I know my history. I guess I have a different concept of what a democracy is then you. Of course the elite could always fly to "open" South Africa or or Chile or the Philippines but I think these are now better places with democracies then some decades ago, when for instance the first mentioned country had an "apartheid" regime. Even China, while not having a democratic chosen government, can't be the hard oppressing dictatorship when their citizens can meet foreigners and travel around the world and learn things on internet. Of course the end of the cold war isn't about airlines, but they sure did help in development.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineRailmatt From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2980 times:

Why can't the airlines offer a premium coach product priced $30-100 each way above the applicable lowest economy fare that offers:

34-36" pitch
hot meals
pillows and blankets
and a little attention (similar to coach a la 1979)

???

That would restore some of the glamor. But more important give the non-rich/non-frequent traveler a quality value-added option.


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2510 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2971 times:

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
Why can't the airlines offer a premium coach product priced $30-100 each way above the applicable lowest economy fare that offers:

34-36" pitch
hot meals
pillows and blankets
and a little attention (similar to coach a la 1979)

Believe me, if the airlines thought they could make it profitable, they'd do it. My guess is that most of those seats would remain un-sold and just be filled by those flying standby or non-rev (hey, I'd be all for that  Wink )


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2961 times:

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
Why can't the airlines offer a premium coach product priced $30-100 each way above the applicable lowest economy fare that offers:

34-36" pitch

Because less seats=less money... but add a few inches and you've got a Business-class pitch!

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
hot meals

Because after conducting surveys, passengers were of the opinion that they preferred to not pay for meals on flights shorter than 90 mins and only purchase something when they so wished.

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
pillows and blankets

If you ask nicely you can get them  Wink

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
and a little attention

If you are flying the right airlines, you will get this too  Smile



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineDCAflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2827 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
but you have to remember that in those days, flying was only for the privileged few. Nowadays, with economy, more people have access to more of the world than ever before and are able to travel more often.

What people forget is that flying is a privilege -- NOT a right. Airlines are not utilities. Not everyone has the right to fly like they have the right to electricity, heat, gas or water. But that is how airlines are treated and that is wrong. Airlines are for-profit entities. No body seems to care anymore if an airline makes a profit. They only want their cheap fares -- fares that are now cheaper than driving or taking the bus or train.

Meanwhile, airline employees are the ones who suffer for the sake of low fares. While other Americans enjoy a growing standard of living and quality of life (which includes flying any where, any time) airline employees' quality of life continues to go down.

My parents couldn't afford to fly all of their kids to Disneyland. So they packed up the stationwagon and drove. Heaven forbid any family possibly have to drive these days. Afterall, everyone is entitled to fly cheap -- NOT.


25 ExFATboy : No, flying is not a "privilege" - it's just purchasing a service. Nothing more, nothing less. Oh, and you don't have a "right" to electricity, heat,
26 DCAflyboy : Let me also add this: if the government and the American public feel that cheap and safe air transportation is a RIGHT -- then re-regulate the industr
27 DCAflyboy : I'm sorry, but you can not compare the financial services industry to the airline industry. First of all, the financial services sector has been allo
28 Garnetpalmetto : And how do you figure that, precisely?
29 DCAflyboy : Um, for example, unless you live in Mayberry, the banking industry (esp. in major metropolitan areas) has gone through mega-merger after mega-merger.
30 Piedmontbrat : Air fares, company profits and the Constitution have nothing at all to do with whether a person is "fit" to fly. A person can be wearing the most expe
31 Garnetpalmetto : It's an apples to oranges comparison, however. There are relatively few major airlines as compared to financial institutions, even after "mega-merger
32 DCAflyboy : That's not the point! The point is nobody should enjoy a better standard of living at the expense of others. Period!
33 DCAflyboy : This is a cop out and has no merit. There is no real threat of monopolization in the airline industry. It is the most open and competetive industry i
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Time Of Day Is Good To Fly Out Of JFK? posted Fri Mar 3 2006 03:41:01 by Stealth777
The Order Of TAP Is Going To Be 11 X A330-300! posted Mon Sep 19 2005 15:39:27 by CV990
The Loss Of Uk Regional Airline posted Wed Oct 27 2004 23:16:05 by Servisairkid
A Month In The Life Of... Where Is The Url? posted Fri Mar 22 2002 04:58:37 by A380
The End Of Qualiflyer Is Now Closer! posted Thu Mar 14 2002 09:57:43 by Flying Belgian
The Future Of Aviation! Is This! posted Sat Jan 19 2002 21:17:53 by Schreiner
The CEO Of Valujet Is Running For Senate. posted Tue Aug 1 2000 17:44:19 by FrontierMan
What Is That Wheel Thing On The Side Of Bwia Jets? posted Tue Jul 2 2002 02:13:10 by Flyboy80
Is Low Cabin Noise A Good Thing? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 00:37:56 by Ruscoe
What Is The Status Of The A380 Wiring Rework? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 14:48:08 by Nitrohelper