oc2dc From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 11289 times:
I'm trying to understand why Virgin America is #2. They don't even fly internationally (with the exception of Mexico) and they don't have wide-bodies. Same goes for Porter. They are a regional airline. They shouldn't be considered.
Yes, Virgin America has a relatively nice product, but do they take service into consideration? If so, perhaps Virgin Atlantic would take its place as #2.
alfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 11267 times:
I am sure Hawaiian got in based on their short-haul, inter-island flights; their long haul (I've been on MNL-HNL) is definitely nothing to write home about.
On the other hand, Ethiad was outstanding; if you've never flown them, rest assured they deserve to be on this list. Based on reports - I haven't flown Virgin America - the offer a very pleasant coach experience, and they probably earn kudos from passengers who are disappointed (a mild term) in other domestic carriers.
Thai and Malaysian? Thai isn't what it once was, unfortunately... and Malaysian never was. I'd have to put Korean and EVA as top contenders; the Asian airline industry is almost u universally top tier, but TG and MH aren't the best of them.
Fully disagree. What's wrong with Virgin America? Their domestic flights are pretty comfortable, enjoyable and have above average customer care. In addition to that, most seats on VX have personal video screens (IFE). It is better than what Swiss offers on their intra-European flights. As far as I know, their A32X series aircraft do not have personal video screens at each seat. However, their long haul is pretty good. VIrgin America doesn't fly long haul.
It's gratifying, from the perspective of those in this part of the world, that NZ has come out on top. A little surprising, but nevertheless gratifying.
The surprise comes from my recent experience with NZ in short and medium haul Y class; domestically, across the Tasman and to the south Pacific. The seats-to-suit product has rendered Y inconsistent, parts of it like a full service carrier, others like an LCC.
And, anecdotally, in long-haul, 10-abreast in Y - on the 77W - is a squeeze for a growing (in height and weight) population. I guess the cuddle-suite may have helped in this regard given the criteria on innovation. I have only flown in Y+ on the 77W and this is worthy of positive recognition but not in this set of ratings.
I do believe that the service from NZ staff - on the ground and in the air - is fantastic though, ne plus ultra, congratulations!
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7745 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10513 times:
Quoting BD338 (Reply 11): I'm not surprised, the Euro airlines in my experience have been going backwards for a few years now in Y. Almost down to the DL, US, AA, UA level.
You can thank the JVs for that. The product has to be the consistent across all partners and usually the worst wins out. Having said that, I still find the service of the Euro carriers to be generaly better than the US legacy carriers. I especially like the service of LX and TP. Very friendly, helpfull, and professional.
sierra3tango From United Arab Emirates, joined Mar 2013, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10046 times:
Examining the judges details & the manner in which date is written (mm/dd/yyyy) this looks like a North American survey and as such is probably ? quite fair from that perspective, though quite how Oman Air got on the list is a bit of a mystery
It mixes SH & LH or maybe a better description NB / WB; quite how you compare SQ & Porter in any rational sense is challenging (to say the least), aircraft type, ave sector times, size of operations etc etc.
Looking from outside Nth America (been to 58 countries but never been to Nth America) it is interesting but not terribly relevant with 4 airlines operating mostly inter regional, leaving 6 which are pretty obvious candidates.
If you exclude NB only / regional operators I would delete Virgin Atlantic (my opinion) and add
cipango From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9604 times:
I understand how they have been selected, of course I might nominate one or two more but I feel VS should not be there. It isn't the most pleasant economy class I have been in TBH and especially doesn't deserve a place on this list.
Next Flights: DUB-BHX-DUB, DUB-BHX-DUB, DUB-LIS-DUB.
n729pa From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9446 times:
Quoting nicholasjet (Thread starter): I'm not surprised, the Euro airlines in my experience have been going backwards for a few years now in Y. Almost down to the DL, US, AA, UA level
I would tend to agree, but I find Swiss and Lufthansa at the top end, BA are bearable, AF better than expected, AZ alright SN, SK poor. But even on a 2 hour+ flight you're lucky if you get more than a coffee and a bun/sandwich.
I fly QF a lot and find their Y service is generally pretty good, long haul and domestic. Even on an hour long flight you get more in way of food and drink than you do on a 2 hour BA flight across Europe for example. I would say you get twice as much in fact, orange juice, water and coffee, plus cheese + biscuits, a cake of some sort, fresh or dried fruit, perhaps a small choc bar or oat/seeded snack on QF. BA you'll get a coffee and a small (about the size of a computer mouse) roll.
Having just got back from Australia recently, I would say their domestic Y service has improved (more hot meals, inflight entertainment etc), but return flight was a bit weak, but I won't judge them on one flight when the other 28 have been of a high standard.
No EK?? I though they were supposed to be the standard everyone aspires too!
I'm curious to know what anyone thinks of JL/NH .......(planning a trip to Japan next year all being well)
just adding...there's a similar post about the Top 20 worst airlines, there's a link then to the Top 20 best and needless to say very different results, so just goes to show how subjective this all is.
chrisrad From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8608 times:
Quoting alfa164 (Reply 6): Thai and Malaysian? Thai isn't what it once was, unfortunately... and Malaysian never was. I'd have to put Korean and EVA as top contenders; the Asian airline industry is almost u universally top tier, but TG and MH aren't the best of them.
I along with many others would beg to differ. TG and MH were recently about the only airlines to offer 34inch pitch in Y class. MH has won best economy class on a few occasions alone.
Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
timpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8772 times:
I am a fan of MH, they should be on there on seat pitch alone. Etihad is pretty good, I found VA extremely cramped, but flew them last in 2002, maybe they have improved. Thai was nothing to write home about, I am fond of OZ, they should be a contender. Just flew NZ and its my second great experience with them (the 767 product LAX-RAR is great, hard to top 2-3-2 and great service, too)
I also put B6 ahead of VX based on seat pitch in Y.
The new seats might have made the list, but the previous generation hard shell no-recline torture devices they came up with are still flying around in the 747s and A340s. Those pathetic and painful excuses for economy seats are enough to close that list's door for CX...
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
nicholasjet From United Kingdom, joined May 2013, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7372 times:
But aren't most economy cabins mediocre. If they were all amazing why would people pay extra for premium economy or business or even first. It's a difficult one to rate I think because in one way the airlines can vary so much, but on the other hand we get upset over a couple of inches *ahem*
JBLUA320 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3174 posts, RR: 20
Reply 36, posted (9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7346 times:
It says Virgin America's seat width is 19.7"... I've been on VX countless times and it's a nice product, but there is no way that seat is almost 20" wide. Or am I just crazy?? Can someone confirm? I know SeatGuru also says 19.7" but that just seems... huge!
330lover From Belgium, joined Jul 2008, 550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7305 times:
Quoting nicholasjet (Reply 35): It's a difficult one to rate I think because in one way the airlines can vary so much
For me, one should make a separate list for long haul and short haul!
There is no good comparison possible between a 1 hr Porter flight and a 12 hr ANZ.
An eco seat for short haul can be comfortable for a 1-2 hr flight, but the very same seat on a 12 hrs flight can be a real nightmare.
Service level is another thing. On a short flight, crew often has to rush through service to get everything finished on time. On a long flight, they are more at ease and can take the time needed to offer top service (not that all airlines aim at this though...).
The difference is even bigger for business or first class.
Domestic flights (like in US or China) often have first but no business. You certainly can't compare this first with a long haul first like AA, LX, CX,...
So, in my opinion, these lists only make sense when split up.
Britten Norman Islander VP-FBR on Falkland Islands. THAT'S FLYING!
BTW, totally agree with a330lover, there is no way one can objectively compare long-haul with short-haul products (in any class).
And to those of you who say SQ has the best Y-class product overall, they appear to have lost top placing in this set of ratings because of their lack of price flexibility. It sounds to me that SQ don't have to lift their skirts (or sarong-kebayas) to attract customers, theirs is not a battle fought on price.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15346 posts, RR: 26
Reply 45, posted (9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6076 times:
This whole thing is silly. Rating economy classes is like rating gasoline: the differences are fairly trivial although sellers go to great lengths to convince us that their product is best. Economy class travel is a commodity these days.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
ZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7070 posts, RR: 12
Reply 46, posted (9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5918 times:
Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 42): An SQ77W at 9 abreast against an NZ 77W at 10 abreast... SQ wins hands down every time.
I agree with you. I know 3-4-3 777s are becoming the norm, but IMHO any carrier that touts themselves as being 'world class' should have the little comforts above the rest (seat width and pitch) both of which NZ has reduced when replacing the 744 with 77W. It's not like NZ is cheaper than anyone else to justify the slight decrease in comfort.
BLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 299 posts, RR: 14
Reply 47, posted (9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5663 times:
Just did SQ SIN-DME-IAH and return. Without a doubt one of the best economy class in the world. Marry that to the traditional SQ service, I truly am surprised that NZ was given top spot.
QR also has very wide economy class seats on their 777s, but their Airbus have the standard 18" widths, and their 787 have the bone-crushing 9 abreast similar to 10 abreast 777s.
I also dislike their "dog in the manger" philosophy.
SQ allows the armrests to be lifted full 90 degrees, so that if there are any adjacent seats empty, you can lie down. My daughter and I had 3 seats to ourselves, so we were able to lie down sleep, alternately, resting our head in the other's lap.
QR restricts their armrests to 45 degrees. "If I cannot have a passenger for that seat, neither can you benefit from it." philosophy. Sad to see such a cheap outlook from an otherwise decent airline.
alfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4671 times:
Quoting chrisrad (Reply 24): I along with many others would beg to differ. TG and MH were recently about the only airlines to offer 34inch pitch in Y class. MH has won best economy class on a few occasions alone.
Unfortunately for the, this wasn't a poll asking "Which airline has the most seat pitch?" It was a poll about overall comfort and service in economy class.... and TG and MH simply don't make the cut.
huaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4061 times:
Quoting alfa164 (Reply 49): It was a poll about overall comfort and service in economy class.... and TG and MH simply don't make the cut.
I cannot comment on TG, but I also disagree on your assessment of MH. Many Singaporeans long pampered by SQ are happy to fly MH precisely because their service quality is comparable, is much cheaper, and, arguably, the crew is less robotic compared to SQ.
Quoting motorhussy (Reply 41): And to those of you who say SQ has the best Y-class product overall, they appear to have lost top placing in this set of ratings because of their lack of price flexibility
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3644 times:
I am missing Icelandair, if an only narrow body airline is accepted.
Pitch is 32" and width is 19" (seat guru) individual video screens and entertainment system on all flights.
Coffee, tea, water, sodas and juice are free. Luggage allowance 23 Kg + hand luggage.
For some perhaps a put off, but a nice airline to fly with children.
motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3017 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
Quoting huaiwei (Reply 51): Lack of pricing flexiblity? Elaboration please?
You'll have to ask the publisher of the article as I was quoting their criteria (as I stated).
And buddy, I wasn't making comparisons on the merits of NZ and/or SQ in my earlier post, I asked BLRaviation if he'd flown NZ. His comments about the carrier suggested he was surprised at their top placing. And thanks for finding the awards list.
I won't bother reading SQ's skite list as I already accept them as a most excellent carrier whose reputation warms the cockles of my Singaporean born heart.
BLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 299 posts, RR: 14
Reply 56, posted (8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2907 times:
Quoting motorhussy (Reply 50): Have you flown NZ? And if so, in long-haul in Y? Just wondering why you're surprised, they consistently win awards for service.
I haven't flown NZ, and defer to your experience with them.
No a challenge but a logical question. ...... This then raises an interesting question. If their Y is so good, how is it they are not doing better, especially on the "kangaroo route"? With a top rated economy class, surely they would be able to do increase to multiple flights per day, not just the one via Asia and one via the USA. Just a thought. After all EK, EY., QR, SQ, CX, TG and others have multiple services to LHR and to the ANZ region.
What reasons would you attribute to the airline's lack fo growth?
aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6872 posts, RR: 13
Reply 58, posted (8 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2664 times:
NZ is good currently on the older 77E, but I have could feel the difference between the QR 9 abreast and NZ 10 Abreast seats and I was sick of being knocked by anyone at all walking past from the stick insect size right up to Pygmy hippo size. It felt tight on legroom in the skycouch row as well compared to a standard 77E seat. IFE is good but their portions are always on the small side (but quite nice to eat)
QR is overrated in the extreme. I had the worst food since AR in 2005 onboard my flights FRA-DOH-BKK, and only the second time ever I did not eat every bit of my food. DOH currently is a dump, and not worthy of a so-called 5 star carrier. seat quality and IFE screen is good,but IFE a bit limited.
Of the 6 airlines I have flown in the last week, QR was the most disappointing, followed by NZ. KL was the best so far this trip. The problem is that these ratings raise expectations leading the way for under-delivering.
Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 56): What reasons would you attribute to the airline's lack fo growth?
1) The previous CEO
2) Lack of general brand awareness (prizes can only boost)
3) Lack of availability of slots
4) Flight timings designed to optimise AKL-LHR/AKL-HKG not LAX-LHR when they operated - even more so for HKG-LHR
5) All those carriers you mentioned do not pay 1st world wages and contracts and all of them have hubs in the middle of their routing not at one end.
6) NZ pulls a good profit given their size. Many far larger airlines made less..
infinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2620 times:
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 58): 5) All those carriers you mentioned do not pay 1st world wages and contracts and all of them have hubs in the middle of their routing not at one end.
SQ pays well. A junior executive in SQ might get somewhere around S$3500 (US$2800) which is slightly higher than average. The cabin crew earn slightly higher with their allowances. May not sound like a lot but remember than SG has one of the lowest income taxes in the world. Top execs in SQ (like most "government-linked" companies in Sg) are paid very well too.
But agreed on the second point. NZ really is in one far corner of the world. This disadvantaged QF but moreso NZ since they're further off and their population is smaller than even Singapore.
Perhaps NZ should do with QF did, partnering with another airline. Both being in StarA, perhaps a NZ-SQ partnership would be workable?
SQ isn't doing as well as before, they're facing a lot of competition on both ends of the market. And now that QF has gotten into bed with EK, NZ could increase their prowess on the kangaroo routes.
NZ could benefit from SQ's larger network
motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3017 posts, RR: 9
Reply 63, posted (8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2214 times:
Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 56): If their Y is so good, how is it they are not doing better, especially on the "kangaroo route"?
Strictly speaking, NZ don't fly the Kangaroo route as this links Australia with Europe via Asia. New Zealand is not part of Australia (we do not have kangaroos). And it may surprise you that NZ is financially a very successful airline, but they are a smaller airline.
DarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1272 posts, RR: 3
Reply 64, posted (8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1585 times:
Quoting mikeology (Reply 9): I'd have thought JetBlue (B6) would have made top 10 as well
Yeah, me too. Both hard and soft products here are far better than average. 34" seat pitch, on a non-Boeing narrowbody and free baggage ought to be worthy of some type of recognition.
Quoting JBLUA320 (Reply 36): It says Virgin America's seat width is 19.7"... I've been on VX countless times and it's a nice product, but there is no way that seat is almost 20" wide. Or am I just crazy?? Can someone confirm? I know SeatGuru also says 19.7" but that just seems... huge!
That does seem like a lot doesn't it? I do fly VX an awful lot, and their seats do seem wider, but I'm not sure about 20"! I'll have a look Thurs morning when I fly them to NY (although I should caveat that this is their MCS as opposed to Main
Cabin, but I think they're the same) .
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45): Rating economy classes is like rating gasoline: the differences are fairly trivial although sellers go to great lengths to convince us that their product is best.
I think you need to start flying. The differences are actually pretty profound once you get past a few hundred thousand miles a year.
Yes, it is indeed a commodity, but that doesn't mean they're all the same. I'll always favor VX & B6 because they know how to outfit a plane much better than the legacies, they are very price competitive and they know what frequency means.
If it were the bad old days when your miles were only good on the actual airlines whose metal you flew, UA, AA, & DL might still have a shot. But when I can get my ST miles on KL, OW on CX, QF & BA, and codeshare domestically on VX, B6, & AS, why on earth should I put up with DL''s 31" seat pitch, and having to connect in ATL for more than VX charges to get from LA to NY non-stop in their Y+?
The only real plus I can see is for folks who are regional dependant. And even then, that's tolerated more than wanted.
Why? I haven't had a chance to fly Swiss in Y, but I've flown all classes on VX, and honestly, they're a tough act to beat.
For what it's worth, I've flown Swiss a few times in J and yes, they were great!
Quoting oc2dc (Reply 5): Yes, Virgin America has a relatively nice product, but do they take service into consideration? If so, perhaps Virgin Atlantic would take its place as #2.
What are asking by service? VS certainly has an edge if you're talking about a better soft product being that they go overseas, have comp food on board, etc. But, IMHO, VX is a little better hard product wise.
Quoting chrisrad (Reply 24): TG and MH were recently about the only airlines to offer 34inch pitch in Y class.
Maybe in asia, but world wide? B6 certainly does have 34" pitch, except where they have 38".
Quoting NobleRT (Reply 25): I have always been extremely comfortable in CX seats. I'm 6'1 and I always feel I have more than enough room and comfort. I would have loved to see CX on this list.
Same here. I've never had problems with CX in Y, and would put them up there in any list involving Y being a good thing,
Quoting nicholasjet (Reply 35): But aren't most economy cabins mediocre. If they were all amazing why would people pay extra for premium economy or business or even first. It's a difficult one to rate I think because in one way the airlines can vary so much, but on the other hand we get upset over a couple of inches *ahem*
It's not a matter of them being "Amazing". I'd fly VX without all the moodlighting (in fact, it's probably my least favorite thing about them; it does seem gimmicky). It's more about a product that manages to not piss you off. VX & B6 score best here for me (and most of my company for that matter).
And for getting upset over a few inches... It kind of is a huge deal. When there isn't much to begin with, a few inches start to matter. There's a much bigger difference between 34" & 31" seat pitch in Y than there is between 66" and 80" in J.
Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.