[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Jordan

You ask “In all seriousness – which would you rather any airline do when the scheduled aircraft goes ‘tech’: run the flight with the best alternative aircraft available or scrub the flight leaving you stuck?”

I think that very much depends on the circumstances. If it is a complete one off at the last moment, which can happen to any airline, then any reasonable person would accept whatever aircraft they had.

However, if there is a pattern of failures, I don’t think it is acceptable – can you imagine if you bought a fillet steak from the butcher and when you got home they gave you braising steak instead?

[TominScotland]

Pixelmeister and JordanD – the only meaningful definition of European as opposed to long-haul routes is whether the destination country enters the Eurovision Song Contest or not. As Israel does compete in this amazing competition, it must be in Europe.

[MartynSinclair]

JordanD, aircraft maintenance is an absolute priority.

However, laying the blame on a series of continual tech faults should not allow any supplier to change a product for an inferior product, without some form of notidfication or compensation to the passenger.

A simple upgrade voucher would probably suffice.

It is not acceptable to pay for a NCW product and be supplied with a Club Europe seat, if indeed this was / is the case.

“Fillet steak to braising steak” a bit of an understatement…….

[JordanD]

Seeing as I’m sat on a train with good 3G connectivity, I thought I’d take a look at thebasource.com and see what it said regarding how often there had been a 767 sub from a longhaul aircraft to a shorthaul aircraft.

Taking the sample of Jeddah and looking back to April, it appears that on average there is 1 substitution per month; some months (Aug, Sept) there are none, others (Oct) there are 2. So it seems it isn’t overly high in terms of subbing one type of 767 for another; addtionally, it appears that other than the Jeddah route the only other recent trips for the Euro 767s have been once to Dubai, and once Baltimore. [Note: Happy for someone to go through all the flights more forensically on this second point, and prove me wrong]

Agreed that its not acceptable to pay for one product and get another, but it appears that compensation is offered, so this answer that point.

So to go back to the point made by Disgusted – it isn’t a one off, but it isn’t so frequent as this thread potentially suggested. I suppose (much like the newer 77Ws), with a smaller fleet, subtitutions are more noticeable, especially when the alternative product is different. [Separate point: if I book WT or WT+ on a 77W flight and it is subbed for a 772, with an older product, does that deserve compensation?]

No doubt more fat for people to chew on …

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Jordan

You ask “Separate point: if I book WT or WT+ on a 77W flight and it is subbed for a 772, with an older product, does that deserve compensation?]”

IMHO, no, as you are still getting a long haul product. I would also say the same if my 772 was subbed with a 763 and I got the first gen CW, it wouldn’t bother me, very much, if at all. Similar seat(if older design), similar pitch etc.

Your scenario will happen frequently over the next few years, as fleets are refreshed.

[LuganoPirate]

I think airlines substitute their Long Haul configured aircraft for short haul on flights up to 6 hours as this is about the limit a premium passenger can endure. They could not get away with this on a ten hour overnighter. I imagine it’s done when for example an aircraft destined for Hong Kong breaks down and the only plane ready is that for DBX. That done they then take the one for FRA since any delay to that flight will cost less in compensation than one to HK or DBX.

[Author]

Posts