I was flying back to LHR from MAD on Saturday on an Iberia flight, and it reminded me of something that got me thinking. I used to work with a Spanish lady and she'd fly back to Spain several times a year on Iberia. She would rant and rave about them, the staff were arrogrant, rude etc.... then there was Angelina from Sicily, who hated Alitalia for much the same reasons. My friend from Marseilles had no love for Air France so would always fly BA. My friend in Australia, her brother hates Qantas. I've got two Indian friends who both won't travel on Air India (both will fly Jet)....and myself I have a great love hate relationship with BA.

So why do we dislike our national carriers so? Does familiarity breed contempt?

I find IB/AZ/AF perfectly acceptable and QF one of the best Airlines I've flown with (68 times in fact) can't comment on AI.

Are there others who dislike their national carriers? Why does it happen?

I don't dislike my national carrier (KLM), but it's not my prefered carrier either.

As a Brit I despise BA... but this is not through familiarity. Having flown the airline 25 times and generally find the cabin crew mean and the seat pitch short.

Personally, I don't think that people tend to hate their national airlines, just that European and North American flag carriers tend to be pretty poor. Having flown many of these, I think that my only good experiences have been on TK, B2, KL, OS. Worldwide... QR, QF, ME, RJ and SA stand out as being particularly good. They are all flag carriers and generally well liked in their own countries.

Perhaps it's because they fly their home carrier more often, being from the country where they have a base. The more you fly an airline, the more you see the good and not-so-good aspects.

I don't know about other people, but I certainly feel that I'd analyse and critique my own flag carrier perhaps more than a foreign-based airline. For me it's a pride thing - I'd say to myself "So this is how my national airline chooses to represent itself/our nation to the world?"

I'm British, I've not actually flown BA, but I'm almost embarrassed to, as I hear on A-net and elsewhere a lot about how they're going downhill, with their service and on board product etc. I thought it was just a British cultural thing, people complain endlessly about the London Underground network, despite the fact that generally there's a train every 2 minutes and in the grand scheme of things, very few serious delays. The grass is always greener on the other side perhaps?

Yes. I'll do anything to avoid US metal. Domestically, I'll drive or take Amtrak if time at all permits (to be fair, I adore trains and enjoy the freedom to detour spontaneously when driving). I've enjoyed every flight I've taken with EasyJet, but sat fuming on UA SFO to EWR even in F and even in my beloved 757. I'm sure there is some grass-is-always-greener psychology to this and I recognize that it isn't especially rational.

I'm indifferent.

I have only flown with Air India seven times. The first five were some pretty fantastic flights.

However, my sixth flight on AI was delayed which also came with a not great crew, while my latest flight with AI was on their then newest B787, which looked like it took quite a beating in its 11 months of service, and it felt like the air conditioning was off. I wrote about the flight here.

Air India gets a bad rep. They have accomplished some pretty great things recently, especially since they have joined Star Alliance. Their onboard service has improved, while they have been lauded to stand up for themselves when there was a disruptive MP.

That being said, Jet still remains my airline of choice when it comes to domestic flying. However, I look forward to my four Air India wide body domestic flights this summer.

Time will tell what happens next.

CollegeAviator

I don't hate them but I am not particularly fond of Aer Lingus because of how great people here make them look. They aren't as excellent as people say they are. The soft product is not fantastic. The hard product is acceptable. I prefer Ryanair but I dodge them and fly Aer Lingus because I prefer A320's to 737's. Maybe it's because they haven't seen the excellent experience that you get in the likes of TK (which I have experienced).

Bashing Air Canada is a national pastime here. "There service is rude", "They lost my luggage", "They're expensive because I can't get a deal on the exact flight I want, on the exact day I want, leaving at the exact time I want", etc. etc.

Its quite entertaining to read Facebook comments on AC's timeline - it amazes me how stupid and ill-informed some people really are.

Personally, I love AC - I've had great experiences with them, also had bad ones - but that goes with every other airline in the world.

WestJet is getting its share of hatters now as well - there was on lady a while back on Facebook telling WestJet how terrible they are because they don't fly Toronto to Nanimo direct and she needs to fly direct because she doesn't like to connect. LOL!

Everytime I flew with TAM they were a mess. I really avoided this airline domestic or international, as I had rough experiences on both.
My last time with them was in 2012 and ever since they became LATAM I haven't tried their service.
Anyways, I still keep looking for GOL or Azul on domestic and foreign airlines for international (haven't had the chance of flying Azul int'l but they're in my wishlist).
The reviews I´ve been seeing about LATAM Brasil are not the most exciting ones and right now they are our "national" carrier...

Well I'm from/in London & love BA ! I'm genuinely the biggest fan. I think LHR T5 is great, short haul, long haul cabins are really nice (including Club World), British service and nice new aircraft. I look forward to every flight including LHR-PHX in CW later this week ! Cannot wait.

I guess I have two national carriers, and I have generally positive, if somewhat mixed, feelings about both.

I like BA for long haul flights, even though some of their aircraft can look a bit tired. T5 is great, and the service is generally good. I'm not such a short haul fan now that they've basically become a blue version of easyJet. But they do tend to have more frequency than the LCCs, which sometimes makes the additional expense worth it.

As for NZ, I like the service and on board experience. I also like the new livery. What I don't like is 10 abreast 777s, which are had to justify when there are so many other options on the LHR-AKL route, including the much more passenger friendly A380. Also transiting LAX is usually not fun. However in general I am a fan of NZ ... I just haven't flown them very much in the last few years. I think my last long haul flight with them was LHR-HKG-AKL-LAX-LHR on the 744.

I am a huge fan of Qantas, I think we are phenomenally lucky in Australia to have such a high calibre airline.

A lot of people whinge and whine about poor service, high prices etc but it is consistently ranked as one of Australia's favourite brands so I do think that feeling runs too deep.

In some cases, it's the general public who are ignorant to how these flag carriers have to operate, as flag carriers they expect them to be all things to all people because they are the flag carrier, but unless they are government backed and funded, they don't have the government there to support them when time gets tough, they have to be competitive and pick viable markets.

For example, here in Australia, I absolutely love love love Qantas, by far my favourite carrier for service and product. But many in Australia will often talk them down in comparison to the likes of CX and SQ simply because of their route network. Where CX will fly CNS/PER/ADL to HKG, and SQ/MI ADL/CBR/DRW/CNS-SIN, and they wonder why QF cannot do the same, not understanding about how CX and SQ can pull the numbers because they are flying passengers to their hub, which QF would lack at either end so the service is not as viable for them, and to fill a widebody that can make the distance with only point to point traffic. People accuse QF of being SYD or east coast centric, but in reality, QF are just doing the same operation as CX/SQ by flying passengers through their own hubs, just like CX hub through HKG or SQ hub through SIN. The start up of SQ flight to CBR brought out many of these ignorant commentators on many forums and sites such as Australian Aviation complaining about how SQ started services from CBR to SIN and WLG and QF don't, it would be impossible for QF to operate an international route out of CBR viably and fill a widebody needed for the range on the route because the numbers are not there with out a hub on either end. Even to fill a narrow body it would make far more sense for NZ to start flights to the likes of AKL over QF because NZ would be flying to their hub. What people simply forget is QF is still providing good service to CBR with plenty of daily flights hubbing passengers via SYD, MEL or BNE instead of an international port, which just wouldn't work for them.

For me that would be AI: I admit that I haven't flown them in a long time but there are two reasons why I wouldn't fly them

a) As much as they have improved, the likelihood of having a horror story with them is still much higher than my preferred carrier (QR)
b) During IRROPS, I have seen how shabbily their ground staff treat passengers (particularly those who appear to be blue-collar workers) and find that appalling

So basically, I don't actively hate AI (I'm never usually searching for them either) but if they are the only option I have and no one is literally dying, I would rather not fly them.

Ro

747m8te wrote:

In some cases, it's the general public who are ignorant to how these flag carriers have to operate, as flag carriers they expect them to be all things to all people because they are the flag carrier, but unless they are government backed and funded, they don't have the government there to support them when time gets tough, they have to be competitive and pick viable markets.

Very true, therefor most flag carriers are legacy airlines. You hardly hear of a flag carrier that's an LCC. Must be tough if you're from Hungary. Malev was the only true flag carrier of Hungary and a real legacy airline, but they went bankrupt. Wizzair may be a pretty big airline registered in Hungary, but they're no flag carrier. That leaves Hungary without a flag carrier.

Several years ago, the Greek flag carrier Olympic Airways went bankrupt. Olympic was mostly government owned and backed, but this could no longer be sustained. The airline could not survive. Aegean on the other hand always existed without government ownership and backup relying entirely on the market. Now Aegean has taken over the role as the Greek flag carrier.

What an interesting topic.

Andypp wrote:

As a Brit I despise BA... but this is not through familiarity. Having flown the airline 25 times and generally find the cabin crew mean and the seat pitch short.

As a Brit, living in the US, I gave up on BA a few years ago, World Traveler is cramped, Club World is pretty out dated, First is okay, euro traveler is cramped, club Europe is a total rip off.

Though I will say, I find their crews to be fine and up front some of the best in the air.

VS, well let me put it this way, in Upper, if you have a good crew, they are hard to beat, Premium is nice, economy, no thanks. Throw in the BS with the fuel surcharge (both the fact that they still have it AND charge US based passengers more fore it, so devaluing any redemption's) and I have moved away from them as well.

Right now I do most of my flying on DL, though I do have a flight on Austrian planned for a couple of months time. It's not so much a dislike for "my" national carrier it's more of a "am I getting value for my money" thing.

I'm a dual national, so I will comment on two airlines.

Firstly, have never understood why Australians bag QF and talk about "poor service". I have flown many, many airlines around the world and QF is one of the best. Friendly, welcoming service, terrific food in all classes, modern, generously stocked lounges, and the domestic travel experience within Australia cannot be beaten for its simplicity, ease and efficiency. To any Australian that criticises Qantas, I say: try flying Ryanair in August from STN to see how good you have it.

Of course, service cannot be 110% all the time and of course some people are going to have poor experiences with QF. But that is true of any airline. Even SQ and CX get it wrong occasionally. But where it counts, in my view, QF cannot be beaten. Yet still you will hear Australians complain...

I also like BA but I can understand why people criticise them. I have seen aircraft in poor condition, I have experienced downright rude crew, and of course Cruz's Cuts have cheapened the experience over the past two years. But I still swell with national pride whenever I jump on board a BA aircraft to head home and I get welcomed by an experienced crew member. T5 in Heathrow is amazing, particularly if you are travelling in a Premium cabin.

One bugbear I hate about BA is that they are £ first, customer service second. For example, they show no flexibility at all when it comes to changing a flight; you want to change, sir? Let me just calculate the change fee and the fare difference... QF, on the other hand, are always more willing to assist even if the ticket is non-flexible.

Some airlines are monopolists at the national market, so prices are inappropriate for that service. Maybe it's a reason why people dislike them.

Avinamaine wrote:

Some airlines are monopolists at the national market, so prices are inappropriate for that service. Maybe it's a reason why people dislike them.

This. I completely agree with you. I think it's a matter of people not being stupid and feeling their captialist mindsets try to money pinch them when there really isn't much need! I know that this is applicable to Swiss (especially in Zurich) where they do not have as much low cost competition as others in say the UK or Germnay... There really isn't a need and soon it will be even worse as amenities are stripped and prices don't lower.

I very much like Lufthansa and the service they provide which also applies to EW. Flying frequently between FRA and HAM, I only hate that the route is a monopoly and that LH is ripping me off all the time. I also have some sympathy for AB, considerably less though.

Im from the UK. BA is claimed to be turning into an awful airline and I have seen online and in person more and more people saying there a waste of time. Charging Business pax sometimes up to £90 to select a seat. I've never flown club and I hear its terrible. Emirates however gets a lot of praise in the UK as having spacious aircraft and good value for money. I always feel safe on BA and there cabin crew are always professional but its a shame the service is going down and down. Basically a lot of BA bashing going on in the UK these days, or where I'm from anyway. (Not london).

Only think I dislike about KL is that they don't fly out of EIN. No, seriously good airline but not my piece of cake.

n729pa wrote:

I was flying back to LHR from MAD on Saturday on an Iberia flight, and it reminded me of something that got me thinking. I used to work with a Spanish lady and she'd fly back to Spain several times a year on Iberia. She would rant and rave about them, the staff were arrogrant, rude etc.... then there was Angelina from Sicily, who hated Alitalia for much the same reasons. My friend from Marseilles had no love for Air France so would always fly BA. My friend in Australia, her brother hates Qantas. I've got two Indian friends who both won't travel on Air India (both will fly Jet)....and myself I have a great love hate relationship with BA.

So why do we dislike our national carriers so? Does familiarity breed contempt?

I find IB/AZ/AF perfectly acceptable and QF one of the best Airlines I've flown with (68 times in fact) can't comment on AI.

Are there others who dislike their national carriers? Why does it happen?

To be honest especially with the likes of IB and other legacy European carriers they were old school and did not have a reputation for good customer service or on time performance. Of course these days IB is a totally different airline along with some others. They have had to go through pain and harsh cuts but have come out a lot better for it. I think AZ is one of the only legacy carriers that has not managed to fully adapt to the new world. I do think people are split though some will only fly their ''National carrier'' and others will fly anything but. It comes down to a number of factors I feel.

I might be one of the few who doesn't actively hate my national carriers. I find the USA's "Big 3" to be pretty average: generally acceptable fares, generic cabin service, and they've only stranded me once. I do make jokes about AA's operating reliability, which has snared me a few times (nonstop flights arriving 20 hours, 5.5 hours, and 5 hours late), but most of the time I just shrug and laugh. What else can you do?

I think one reason (but perhaps not in the examples OP had) for dislike of national carriers, is that many people believe that the national carrier should serve them, but doesn't.

For instance, BA have LHR as a main base, so people outside of London might feel that they are being let down by BA. Yet, their local airports are served by competition. Same happens in Australia, where QF is very SYD based. Same applies to most national carriers. Yet secondary cities seem to be served very well by other carriers.

-CXfirst

I'm not a huge fan of US carriers, but then European carriers no longer provide all the services they used to on short-haul flights, making them indistinguishable from US carriers and at times worse for short hops. The European carriers long-haul are generally better, especially in business, but the US carriers really aren't that much worse in coach and are at times better. Aircraft age and seat comfort are all I care about 90% of the time (after price and schedule), and frankly I rarely find one carrier holding all the cards in that area, though KL is great on long-haul routes. Have not flown BA in a long time.

My national carrier is more of a national disgrace, Qantas needs to be removed from Australia and leave it to Virgin Australia.

JQTECH25 wrote:

My national carrier is more of a national disgrace, Qantas needs to be removed from Australia and leave it to Virgin Australia.

What specifically makes you say that out of interest, can you elaborate on this statement please ?

My national airline is British airways.I hate them.Expensive for what you get on short haul flights.They only have services to and from London apart from seasonal charters with BA CityFlyer which to be fair they had no choice to really only have services from London because of the LCCs.The one main thing I hate is their product.They will only give you are about 29 inches of legroom which Ryanair will give 31 with new seats(apparently BA will give u 29 inches because they're adding seats).I found their food rubbish(some people may have different taste buds)
I will be flying BA in summer NCL-LHR-LIS & MAD-LHR-NCL so I will see if I think they're better,we are using EZY for LIS-MAD.

The US doesnt have a national carrier, and since im Indian, ill talk about Air Hell, sorry, Air India
Air India is the WORST airline you will EVER fly! Food sucks, IFE sucks, seats sucks, everything is horrible. The crew don't care, and when my aunt came back to EWR from BOM, their bags went missing! It took them 1 1/2 MONTHS to get them back. I swore to myself NEVER to fly Air India, and I advise you do the same. I now fly via europe, United, or via the middle east with EK, QR, or EY.

I think the view you have depends on how long you have been around your airline.When they were bad and then got better and then went bad again. This is what is happening with BA at the moment I feel.Airlines have to change with the times I understand, but they need to do their best to carry you along with them.