Miles Bader wrote:
"Buddenbrooks" writes:
Why settle for surly when for a little more you can have surly and
condescending.

Ha! If you'd fly a Korean airline, you could have violent and insane too!

-Miles

I would think that on Korean Airlines, they would go out of their way to
be hospitable.

Don't know about Air Koryo, however.

Buddenbrooks wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 00:17:30 on Mon, 12 Oct
2009, Miles Bader remarked:
Why settle for surly when for a little more you can have surly and
condescending.

Ha! If you'd fly a Korean airline, you could have violent and insane
too!

What a strange remark. Are you a xenophobic? I've been to Korea and
it's a much more civilised place than the UK, despite rumours to the
contrary. Their airport frequently wins awards, too; and deservedly so.
--



Well apart from being banned to fly to any country in the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Koryo

That's a North Korean airline, which is still flying Tu-154s anf Il-62s.

Michael wrote:

wrote in message
...

Never fly budget airlines. Pay the premium and just go on a normal
airline. In many cases it doesn't work out to be much more.



That may be an option if you live in SE England. But for the rest of us
it's not at all realistic. I live on Anglesey - getting to
Liverpool/Manchester for easyjet and Ryanair is tedious enough, going to
London so I could use the allegedly superior service of "normal"
airlines would be ridiculous.

Is Dublin or Cardiff not an option?

In message , at 22:12:09 on Sun, 11
Oct 2009, " remarked:
Still prefer classic airlines. At least theior cabin staff don't behave
like on the budget airlines.

I have no idea what you mean. I've been on five budget flights in the
last week alone. The cabin staff were impeccable.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 22:16:08 on Sun, 11
Oct 2009, " remarked:
Luton Airport is the worst of any of them.
In some ways it's pretty bad - but "worst" is a bit of a stretch.

No proper connection from the station to the airport terminals
themselves,
There's a bus every ten minutes, which is better than some other
airports (eg Bristol and East Midlands).

But there is no direct rail connection, which does not apply in the
case of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, City or even Southampton.

If there's no direct rail connection at East Midlands Parkway, there's
also none at Luton Airport Parkway.

And the queues to the busses at Luton Airport Parkway can be
riduculous.

Which is kind of where I came in: replacing the FTRs with the smaller
(well they seem smaller) Citaros.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 22:17:21 on Sun, 11
Oct 2009, " remarked:

I have no doubt that Luton is convenient for those who live nearby.

It's also more convenient (than Heathrow or Gatwick) for people living
almost any distance north of Luton. 100 miles in my case.
--
Roland Perry

wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

wrote in message
...

Never fly budget airlines. Pay the premium and just go on a normal
airline. In many cases it doesn't work out to be much more.



That may be an option if you live in SE England. But for the rest of us
it's not at all realistic. I live on Anglesey - getting to
Liverpool/Manchester for easyjet and Ryanair is tedious enough, going to
London so I could use the allegedly superior service of "normal" airlines
would be ridiculous.

Is Dublin or Cardiff not an option?


Cardiff is probably more difficult to get to than London (and a lot more
difficult than NW England). N-S transport links in Wales are very poor.

Dublin would require a ferry, and then probably a taxi or a couple of
buses - in theory it could work but in practice it wouldn't be pleasant or
cheap.

In message , at 22:12:45 on
Sun, 11 Oct 2009, Mr G remarked:
The boundaries are getting very blurred now though, especially on
shorter flights. I went to Bilbao earlier in the year, the best
option from Manchester being SN Brussels via, errm, Brussels. It was
either an hour's journey to Manchester or trying to get to Stansted.
Low cost, so no in-flight service but bookable seats and a luggage
allowance.

I always thought Brussels Airlines regarded themselves as a full service
carrier. They used to do codeshares with BA (when BA still flew from
regional airports up to about a year ago), and are a member of one of
the three big FF clubs.
--
Roland Perry

"Mr G" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:25:39 +0100, "Michael"
wrote:

I live on Anglesey - getting to Liverpool/Manchester
for easyjet and Ryanair is tedious enough, going to London so I could use
the allegedly superior service of "normal" airlines would be ridiculous.

I think more than those two fly from Manchester. Soon, there will be
only one as Ryanair pull out (though quite a few other budget airlines
in their place).

The boundaries are getting very blurred now though, especially on
shorter flights. I went to Bilbao earlier in the year, the best
option from Manchester being SN Brussels via, errm, Brussels. It was
either an hour's journey to Manchester or trying to get to Stansted.
Low cost, so no in-flight service but bookable seats and a luggage
allowance. For a couple of flights that take less than an hour then I
don't really care.

In the US, Virgin America have an interesting price policy, where they
offer no-frills or full service on the same planes. You pays your
money, etc. I got from San Diego to San Francisco for $49 to connect
with a KLM flight to Manchester (via AMS) - overall much cheaper than
any scheduled alternative.


I take your point, easy/Ryan were just examples. I have taken 2 stage
flights to Europe from Manchester, but never found it as quick or cheap as a
direct flight on a no-frills - assuming that one flies the route.

Michael wrote:

wrote in message
...

[from Anglesey]

Is Dublin or Cardiff not an option?


Cardiff is probably more difficult to get to than London (and a lot more
difficult than NW England). N-S transport links in Wales are very poor.

A twice-daily subsidised flight to Cardiff from Valley airport?

Charlie