Continental First(?) Class Redux

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

>The OP's is complaining about something that is quite common worldwide,
>and certainly not limited in the US to just CO. While he might have paid
>$2500 extra for the SFO-IAH segments, it certainly could have been done
>cheaper on a separate ticket. That would be a violation of the rules of
>some airlines, but would not be a violation if flying on separate
>carriers as the OP flew.

No, whoever wrote the ticket didn't know how to price it properly.
The fares are combinable, so an agent who knew what they were doing
would have used the SQ C fare SIN-SFO and the CO A fare SFO-IAH.
Same flights, single through ticket, about $1700 less expensive.

Same crappy domestic F seats, of course, no matter what airline you
fly.

R's,
John

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux


"John L" <johnl@iecc . com > wrote in message
news:ev0vuj$1j65$1@gal.iecc . com ...
> >The OP's is complaining about something that is quite common worldwide,
>>and certainly not limited in the US to just CO. While he might have paid
>>$2500 extra for the SFO-IAH segments, it certainly could have been done
>>cheaper on a separate ticket. That would be a violation of the rules of
>>some airlines, but would not be a violation if flying on separate
>>carriers as the OP flew.
>
> No, whoever wrote the ticket didn't know how to price it properly.
> The fares are combinable, so an agent who knew what they were doing
> would have used the SQ C fare SIN-SFO and the CO A fare SFO-IAH.
> Same flights, single through ticket, about $1700 less expensive.
>
> Same crappy domestic F seats, of course, no matter what airline you
> fly.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
Maybe the "same crappy domestic F seats," but still better than most of the
European airlines' Business seats on intra-Europe flights where they are
using "convertible" economy seats (go from 3-3 to 2-3 by spreading the seats
on one side of the aisle and compressing them on the other).

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

>Maybe the "same crappy domestic F seats," but still better than most
>of the European airlines' Business seats on intra-Europe flights
>where they are using "convertible" economy seats (go from 3-3 to 2-3
>by spreading the seats on one side of the aisle and compressing them
>on the other).

Oh, I know. Within Europe there's rarely any reason to buy anything
other than the cheapest available seat. (Well, unless it's on Ryanair.)

R's,
John

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux



John L wrote:
>>Maybe the "same crappy domestic F seats," but still better than most
>>of the European airlines' Business seats on intra-Europe flights
>>where they are using "convertible" economy seats (go from 3-3 to 2-3
>>by spreading the seats on one side of the aisle and compressing them
>>on the other).
>
>
> Oh, I know. Within Europe there's rarely any reason to buy anything
> other than the cheapest available seat. (Well, unless it's on Ryanair.)
>
> R's,
> John
>

So, fundamentally, the situation is just as bad in Europe as Tchiowa
complains about on COntinental. Of perhaps worse.

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
> So, fundamentally, the situation is just as bad in Europe as Tchiowa
> complains about on COntinental. Of perhaps worse.

BA has First Class for international. Club World for Internationals. Club Europe
for short hault to europe.

It is thus more obvious to someone shopping on their web site to know that those
products are different.


US airlines still use the term "First Class" for their domestic offering that
isn't even a business class.

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

Nobody wrote:
> Frank F. Matthews wrote:
>
>> So, fundamentally, the situation is just as bad in Europe as Tchiowa
>> complains about on COntinental. Of perhaps worse.
>
>
> BA has First Class for international. Club World for Internationals.
> Club Europe for short hault to europe.
>
> It is thus more obvious to someone shopping on their web site to know
> that those products are different.
>
>
> US airlines still use the term "First Class" for their domestic offering
> that isn't even a business class.

It isn't that difficult to find info on seating on the major airline
website and/or places like SeatGuru.

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

>US airlines still use the term "First Class" for their domestic
>offering that isn't even a business class.

Well, the 0.1% of buyers of US domestic first class tickets who
believe that they're the same as international first class are
certainly in for a surprise, as we've found out. What I don't
understand is why someone who knows what the deal is would keep
pretending to be surprised.

R's,
John

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

On Apr 5, 1:40 am, "js" <jonathansmit...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 7:31 pm, "Tchiowa" <tchio...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 10:06 pm, "js" <jonathansmit...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 2, 11:10 pm, "Tchiowa" <tchio...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > I get a little pissy when you spout off on a tirade based on
> > > ignorance.
>
> > > You didn't pay FC, you paid for business and got the connection based
> > > on that.
>
> > Wrong. I paid for First Class.
>
> Then why did you write:
>
> "I just had "another" similar experience. Flew Singapore Business
> Class from Bangkok to SFO then Continental First Class from SFO to Houston.
>
> You paid for Business class.

I paid for Business to SFO and First from SFO to IAH. Ticket in hand.
Class F.

> > > The service you received and the seat you sat in is a standard US
> > > first class configuration and product.
>
> > Wrong again. It was worse than other domestic US configurations that I
> > have personally experienced.
>
> No, it is not. I fly FC US domestic almost weekly - much on
> Continental but enough on other airlines to know.

Obviously our experiences differ.

> > > When you fly Business First internationally (Continental is a two
> > > class airline, not three), you have free access to all lounges in the
> > > Skyteam alliance.
>
> > > When you fly on a solely domestic itinerary, lounge access is
> > > restricted to MEMBERS and membership is PURCHASED, not earned.
>
> > So who do I believe? You or the staff at the Houston Lounge who very
> > specifically told me that the Lounge was available for Elite members?
>
> Me. You need to learn not to rely on your cognitive or listening
> skills - what you THINK youHEARD is not the reality. What was said
> certainly is. I know these folks and they know the rules. If you
> are confused, here they are again.
>
> IF YOU FLY FC on a solely domestic itinerary, irrespective of your
> elite status you are NOT admitted to the lounge for free. If you fly
> in any class of service INTERNATIONALLY and are a Skyteam ElitePlus
> (Platinum on CO) you are admitted to the Presidents Club ON THE~DAY OF
> TRAVEL of the International segment(s).

OK. Please inform the staff at the lounge in IAH about these rules.
They operate on a different set of rules.

> > > How many domestic flights does SIA fly?
> > They fly hundreds of regional Asia flights that are similar in length
> > and cost to US domestic flights.
>
> How many are domestic?

None. So what? Similar types of flights.

> > > Now, as far as your comparison is concerned - try flying BA
> > > "domestically" in FC. Yep, you got it - lousy service. Ever fly Air
> > > France domestically?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Good - so you know - what was the pitch in their "first class"?

I forgot my tape measure. But there is a whole lot more to comfort
than just "pitch".

> > > Yep, once again, crap.
>
> > But nowhere near as bad as Continental.
>
> Sorry - but you are wrong.

Again, my experience says different. And I've probably been on 50-75
Air France flights. Domestic France, intra-Europe, US to Europe,
Africa to Europe.

> > > Even intra Europe,
> > > service is not comparable to long-haul international - and intra
> > > Europe IS international. So quite your incessant bitching and quit
> > > flying to the US. We'd all appreciate it.
>
> We're done. All you want to do is complain - and do so based on your
> twisted view of reality. Personally, I prefer you never fly CO again
> - in that way, the likelihood of you in the seat next to me drops to
> zero.

Well I also prefer to never flight CO again. Interesting how you react
with anger when someone criticizes your favorite airline.

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux


"Mike Hunt" <postmaster@localhost> wrote in message
news:1sWdnZPe-azEd4zbnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast . com ...
> Tchiowa wrote:
>
>> Because the difference is so dramatic when flying internationally and
>> having to complete the trip on a second rate airline like Continental.
>
> Of course the difference is dramatic. You are comparing things are that
> similar. Don't you understand? Your logic is flawed. Why don't you
> compare INTERNATIONAL to INTERNATIONAL?

I think the comparison should be long-haul to long-haul.
I don't see why New York-LA seats should be smaller/worse than
NewYork-London, roughly the same distance (unless thay are much cheaper).

SQ's short-haul business and first seats are usually not as good/big as
their long haul, but of course they are only used near to Singapore.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from * w w w .teranews . com

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

RAK wrote:

> "Mike Hunt" <postmaster@localhost> wrote in message
> news:1sWdnZPe-azEd4zbnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@comcast . com ...
>
>>Tchiowa wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Because the difference is so dramatic when flying internationally and
>>>having to complete the trip on a second rate airline like Continental.
>>
>>Of course the difference is dramatic. You are comparing things are that
>>similar. Don't you understand? Your logic is flawed. Why don't you
>>compare INTERNATIONAL to INTERNATIONAL?
>
>
> I think the comparison should be long-haul to long-haul.
> I don't see why New York-LA seats should be smaller/worse than
> NewYork-London, roughly the same distance (unless thay are much cheaper).

NY-LA fares are usually much cheaper.

Re: the first class argument

>> I think the comparison should be long-haul to long-haul. I don't
>> see why New York-LA seats should be smaller/worse than New
>> York-London, roughly the same distance (unless thay are much
>> cheaper).

NYC-LON is a thousand miles longer than NYC-LAX.

>NY-LA fares are usually much cheaper.

A typical round trip first class fare NYC-LAX is between $1300 and
$1500. NYC-LON is between $7000 and $10,000.

You can get business class seats NYC-LON for $1500 on the Maxjet, one
of the new biz class only airlines, which is a much fairer comparison
with domestic first, and Maxjet is a lot nicer. But again, people
actually pay $1500 to Maxjet, nobody pays for domestic first.

R's,
John

Re: the first class argument

On Apr 3, 10:59 am, j...@iecc . com (John L) wrote:
> >> I think the comparison should be long-haul to long-haul. I don't
> >> see why New York-LA seats should be smaller/worse than New
> >> York-London, roughly the same distance (unless thay are much
> >> cheaper).
>
> NYC-LON is a thousand miles longer than NYC-LAX.
>
> >NY-LA fares are usually much cheaper.
>
> A typical round trip first class fare NYC-LAX is between $1300 and
> $1500. NYC-LON is between $7000 and $10,000.
>
> You can get business class seats NYC-LON for $1500 on the Maxjet, one
> of the new biz class only airlines, which is a much fairer comparison
> with domestic first, and Maxjet is a lot nicer. But again, people
> actually pay $1500 to Maxjet, nobody pays for domestic first.
>
> R's,
> John

You aren't part of the Thursday afternoon club transcon - we all pay
for the upfront seats - no upgrade lottery for us.

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

On Apr 3, 11:04 pm, "RAK" <rakn...@gmail . com > wrote:
> "Mike Hunt" <postmaster@localhost> wrote in message
>
> news:1sWdnZPe-azEd4zbnZ2dnUVZ sjinZ2d@comcast . com ...
>
> > Tchiowa wrote:
>
> >> Because the difference is so dramatic when flying internationally and
> >> having to complete the trip on a second rate airline like Continental.
>
> > Of course the difference is dramatic. You are comparing things are that
> > similar. Don't you understand? Your logic is flawed. Why don't you
> > compare INTERNATIONAL to INTERNATIONAL?
>
> I think the comparison should be long-haul to long-haul.
> I don't see why New York-LA seats should be smaller/worse than
> NewYork-London, roughly the same distance (unless thay are much cheaper).

Logically they shouldn't be. But as others have pointed out the US
carriers have been in kind of a "race to the bottom" in order to cut
fares. My point is two-fold:

1) Continental is winning the race.

2) First Class should mean something, particularly given the fare
price if you pay for it. My Round Trip BKK/IAH/BKK was about $2,500
higher than my normal BKK/SFO/BKK so the SFO/IAH/SFO accounted for
that cost.

> SQ's short-haul business and first seats are usually not as good/big as
> their long haul, but of course they are only used near to Singapore.

That's very true. But they are still orders of magnitude better than
Continental's First Class.

For example: Bangkok to Singapore, less than 2 hours as compared to
SFO to IAH over twice as long. The Coach seats in SQ are more
comfortable than the First Class in Continental.

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

>2) First Class should mean something, particularly given the fare
>price if you pay for it. My Round Trip BKK/IAH/BKK was about $2,500
>higher than my normal BKK/SFO/BKK so the SFO/IAH/SFO accounted for
>that cost.

The first class SFO-IAH round trip fare on CO is $834, so somebody did
a pretty poor job of pricing your ticket. Yes, that fare is
end-on-end combinable.

R's,
John

Re: Continental First(?) Class Redux

Tchiowa wrote:
>
> 2) First Class should mean something, particularly given the fare
> price if you pay for it. My Round Trip BKK/IAH/BKK was about $2,500
> higher than my normal BKK/SFO/BKK so the SFO/IAH/SFO accounted for
> that cost.

Your logic is a bit flawed.
This doesn't mean a SFO-IAH-SFO ticket would cost $2500.

>
>>SQ's short-haul business and first seats are usually not as good/big as
>>their long haul, but of course they are only used near to Singapore.
>
>
> That's very true. But they are still orders of magnitude better than
> Continental's First Class.

And any other US carriers standard first classs.
>
> For example: Bangkok to Singapore, less than 2 hours as compared to
> SFO to IAH over twice as long. The Coach seats in SQ are more
> comfortable than the First Class in Continental.
>

In YOUR opinion, but you also believe the seatbacks on CO only bend at
the top half. You would certainly agree that CO First Class has more
distance between seats and wifer seat than international coach on SQ.
You do agree? After all the stats are easy to find.