Jump to content
Instructions on joining the Members Only Forum

unbelievable price for December flight


Recommended Posts

Bored at work 2day, looking at flight prices over xmas and wondering who is going to pay 800+ for flights, when i noticed on Airline network China Eastern Airlines have flights available most days for around 440 uk sterling.

 

Not sure if they are a 5 star airline though....................................... B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Winston_Churchill

Bert i just got an email off westeast

BANGKOK FROM ONLY: £335

 

 

 

INCLUDES FREE DOMESTIC FLIGHT WITHIN THAILAND, CHOOSE FROM KRABI, PHUKET, CHIANG MAI, CHIANG RAI & MANY MANY MORE!

 

 

 

Valid for sale until 30 Nov 05. Valid for travel from 24 Oct - 30 Nov 05. Departures from London Heathrow.

 

 

BANGKOK FROM ONLY £335 !

 

 

 

Valid for travel 09 / 16 / 20 / 22 / 23 / 29 Nov 05. Valid for sale until

 

04 Nov 05. Departures from London Heathrow. Free National Express Coach transfers from anywhere in the UK to London Heathrow!

 

 

 

*************************************************************

 

 

 

New BOEING 777-300ER - New Economy Class 33" Seat Pitch / 18.5" Seat Width Adjustable Headrest / Configuration : 3-3-3 8.4" Seatback TV + AVOD (Audio Video On Demand) & SMS Message Facility On Every Seat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ONLY 4 DAYS REMAINING!

 

 

 

ANY DESTINATION FROM ONLY £370!

 

 

 

Singapore, Balikpapan , Bangkok, Brunei, Cebu, Chaing Mai, Davao, Denpasar, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh, Jakarta, Krabi, Kuala Lumpur, Langkawi, Manado, Manila, Mataram, Medan, Padang, Palembang, Penang, Phnom Penh, Phuket, Siem Reap, Solo, Surabaya, Yangon, or Hong Kong

 

 

 

Valid for sale until 31 Oct 2005. Valid for travel from 24 Oct - 30 Nov 05 & 15 Jan - 03 Apr 06, Departures from London Heathrow or Manchester.

 

 

 

 

VIETNAM SPECIAL - FROM ONLY £377 - HURRY ONLY 5 DAYS LEFT!

 

 

 

Choose to fly to Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City.

 

 

 

Valid for sale until 30 Oct 2005. Valid for travel 01-30 Nov 05, 01-25 Jan 06 & 06 Feb – 23 Mar 06. Departures from London Heathrow

 

 

 

 

PRICE BEAT PROMISE

 

 

 

We are so confident that our flight prices are the most competitive around, if you find the same flights cheaper anywhere else, we won’t offer to match it, we’ll simply “beat†it

 

 

 

 

 

For all our latest unbeatable offers visit www.westeasttravel.com or call now on 0870 220 1001

Edited by Winston_Churchill
Link to post
Share on other sites
  Barrington_Tenchanall said:
Bored at work 2day, looking at flight prices over xmas and wondering who is going to pay 800+ for flights, when i noticed on Airline network China Eastern Airlines have flights available most days for around 440 uk sterling.

 

Not sure if they are a 5 star airline though.......................................

Probably closer to £550 for those flights.

 

The 5 hour stopover on the outbound is probably bearable for those on a budget.

Watch out for the inbound though, anything from six and a half to a thirteen hour stopover.

 

17th Dec to 9th Jan available at £550 though

Read more  
Link to post
Share on other sites

BT. When I was looking for my flight I tried repetedly to book with SAS through Airline Network. Saw it serval times for 650 something. Every time no proplem until I finished paying " Sorry flight is not availible" Ended paying 800+, at least economy+.

 

Moral of the story, even though the flight is on the site there might not be any seats, when you see ok price jump on it and finally make up your (mine) blody mind soner to book so you get lower price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was, and still is coming up at 445 for boxing day.

 

I thought they checked availability before you got the end with payment details, i know some shit heap sites quote cheap prices then ask you to call and the price has doubled by the time you have made the call, many do this from pricerunner.

I thought airnet was pretty reliable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boxing Day is not "over Xmas", it's after Xmas. Anything before Xmas Day is £550.

 

17th Dec to (8th)9th Jan this year would be the typical three week break taken over Xmas. That's why it's the most expensive period. £550 is a good price. The connections may not be. 6/7 hours each way. Better than nothing though. Good spot.

Edited by valentinoxxx
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to dissapoint but I just called them up with that fare and also the 17th DEC - 26th DEC which was coming in at £550 and she turned around and said to me that there is no flight at that price! I then told her that it was in black and white on the web-site with two ticks by the side of it meaning very good availablity at this price, her answer to that was there must be something wrong with the web-site!

 

I think it is very bad showing flights on a site that don't exist! you get your hopes up and then get them taken away again :chogdee2 should of booked far earlier to avoid dissapointment!!!

 

Jai yen yen!

 

Stiffler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did but after i typed in all my credit card details and clicked on buy ticket, it directed me to a page stating fares no longer available for this airline! so that's when I contacted them by phone!

 

Jai yen yen!

 

Stiffler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be upsetting. If this were the US we could sue them for the distress..

 

If you can be bothered connecting to FRA or PAR, they have Aeroflot for £400 to £425 respectively, for departures from the 17th. London for £537.70.

Edited by valentinoxxx
Link to post
Share on other sites
  valentinoxxx said:
That would be upsetting. If this were the US we could sue them for the distress..

 

If you can be bothered connecting to FRA or PAR, they have Aeroflot for £400 to £425 respectively, for departures from the 17th. London for £537.70.

Read more  

AEROFLOT??????

 

Should be called AEROFLOP!!!

 

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Val,

 

What tour operator is that with? Is it with Airline Network, I don't think they use that carrier?

 

I would be greatful if you can tell me where I can book this or just even where I can have a look at it! not real bothered what airline, just want to get there! I should get there with Aeroflot right guys :D LOL! I feel it's worth the risk!

 

 

Jai yen yen!

 

Stiffler.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  stiffler said:
I should get there with Aeroflot right guys

 

 

Jai yen yen!

 

Stiffler.

Read more  

LOL!!!!

 

Maybe!!I believe their safety record is not that good.

 

Good luck

Edited by farman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  stiffler said:
Val,

 

What tour operator is that with? Is it with Airline Network, I don't think they use that carrier?

 

I would be greatful if you can tell me where I can book this or just even where I can have a look at it! not real bothered what airline, just want to get there! I should get there with Aeroflot right guys :chogdee2 LOL! I feel it's worth the risk!

 

 

Jai yen yen!

 

Stiffler.

Read more  

stiffler

Details are with you.

 

farman, as far as I can remember the last Aeroflot crash was in 1994.

Not that I'm suggesting that I would fly with them, I'm just suggesting that their international product isn't as bad as you suggest.

 

http://www.airlinequality.com/Airlines/SU.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  farman said:
LOL!!!!

 

Maybe!!I believe their safety record is not that good.

 

Good luck :rolleyes:

Read more  

Long, though interesting article(couldn't provide a link)

 

Crash culture

Who is to blame when a 22-year-old 747 falls from the sky?

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By P. Smith

 

 

 

May 30, 2002 | Following the crash of a China Airlines Boeing 747 on Saturday, the press has been quick to bring up the seemingly related issues of aging aircraft and the questionable safety records of certain foreign airlines.

 

The aircraft, a 747 of the original, so-called "classic" series introduced in the early 1970s, went down under mysterious circumstances about 20 minutes after takeoff from Taipei, bound for Hong Kong. Not only had the airplane been in service with the Taiwanese carrier for 22 years, and was due for retirement in the next few weeks, but the airline itself has been battling a dubious reputation because of its record of 12 fatal accidents since 1969.

 

Although nothing has come to light indicating age-related structural failure or mechanical malfunction, coverage has consistently invoked the 747's age (and made cryptic reference to its ironically scheduled retirement) as a potential factor. "Why did they put this old plane in service?" asked El-Hinn Ibrahim, relative of three of the victims aboard the doomed flight. This inflammatory statement has given various reports of the crash a darkly suggestive tone. Twenty-two years, after all, surely would find most aircraft in the scrapyard, right?

 

No, actually. And the flying public might be surprised to learn that a 22-year-old airliner is hardly a geriatric jet.

 

Commercial aircraft are built to last more or less indefinitely, which is one of the reasons they are so expensive (over $150 million for a shiny new 747-400). Older planes are routinely upgraded with newer navigation systems and enhanced safety features, while the scrutiny of maintenance and overhaul procedures increases with an airplane's age. Generally, an older plane is no less safe or well-maintained than a newer one. Planes are retired not because they've become unsafe or are falling apart, but because they've become uneconomical to operate, and this may or may not be directly related to their age.

 

Nor is it correct, by any stretch, to assume U.S. carriers operate the newest and most modern fleets.

 

When ranked with the world's largest 100 airlines, U.S. carriers' fleets are among the oldest. Asian and European airlines, meanwhile, tend to fly the newest. Many of the most up-to-date fleets pop up in some surprising places: Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Morocco.

 

Often this is due to government subsidies or outright nationalization, or the tough noise restrictions in Europe that essentially mandate operation of newer planes. But just as frequently it's the result of the progressive attitudes of various carriers. Lufthansa, Emirates, and Singapore Airlines are just a few world-class companies of great prestige that make a point of quick turnover among their flying machines.

 

Here in America, most jets are between 5 and 12 years old, and as fuel-efficient 737s or Airbuses are swapped in for more thirsty 727s and MD-80s, that number is going down. The jets at Delta, for example, average 9.1 years. But even after last September's terrorist attacks, when many chronologically challenged jets were sold or mothballed, it is still not uncommon to find 20- or even 30-year-old aircraft in service with the major U.S. airlines. Minneapolis-based Northwest Airlines still flies many McDonnell Douglas DC-9s of mid-to-late 1960s vintage (but meanwhile has retired younger planes that grew economically unsuitable for its routes and operations). The average age of a venerable Boeing 727, still in the ranks of Delta and American: about 20 years.

 

Upstart JetBlue surprised the industry by inaugurating service with brand-new Airbus A320s, a break from the typical assumption that new entrants and old airframes go hand-in-hand. And other carriers, like Southwest and AirTran, have made a point to outfit themselves with the latest models. But among the majors, large numbers of planes and fleet-specific infrastructures make it far less practical for complete, short-term renewal. Despite the post-September cutbacks, you still might find yourself seated on a 727 or DC-9. (And incidentally, those puddle-jumper commuter jets many people hate to fly on tend to be the newest of all, and are at least as sophisticated as most larger jets.)

 

But not to worry. If your concerns rest with overhead luggage storage capacity or particle emissions from older-generation turbofans, go ahead and gripe. But from a safety standpoint the statistical difference is negligible.

 

The key to dependable longevity, of course, is the quality of maintenance and upkeep over the years. The greater the total of hours in a jet's logbook, the more and better care it needs in the hangar.

 

Which brings us back to China Airlines. Founded in 1959, the airline (not to be confused with Beijing-based Air China of the mainland) operates a 50-strong fleet of Boeing and Airbus jets, all but a few of which were constructed in the last 10 years. Yet the airline has suffered 12 fatal accidents since 1969, a number well out of kilter with its overall size. Other airlines, too, have earned reputations for danger. The stories about Aeroflot are notorious, while Korean Air found its code-share arrangement (dual use of routes and flight numbers) with Delta temporarily severed after a spate of accidents. So which airlines are safe and which are not?

 

There are only two things, alone or in combination, that can bring down an airplane: a failure of things mechanical or a failure of things human. Accident records prove there's a lot more to running a safe operation than buying the newest or most expensive equipment. Safety runs deeper than the shine of new aluminum. The tangibles of technology are easily addressed, while the long history of accident investigation has filled the industry lexicon with catch phrases like "human factors" and something the airlines call "CRM," or Crew Resource Management, which are, often enough, an ivory tower way of saying "the pilot did it."

 

Sure, some airlines are statistically less safe than others, but figuring out which ones, exactly, can get messy. And alas, the ugly American tendency is to invoke a certain conceit toward airlines from other shores. Thus the term "foreign carrier" has become a sort of collectively derogatory buzzword.

 

In 2000, some 60 million Americans flew foreign airlines to or from the United States. These range from highly respected European companies like Lufthansa, British Airways and KLM (the oldest continuously operating airline in the world), to less-renowned names like Ghana Airways and Uzbekistan Airways. Although some of these airlines are known for young fleets and a level of passenger pampering that often puts their U.S. counterparts to shame, a few notorious accidents have raised the specter of some unbelievably poor decision making on the part of foreign flight crews.

 

One of the greatest hits of the airline training school video circuit, for instance, is the morbidly hilarious reenactment of the Saudia L-1011 fire at Riyadh in 1980, when the crew inexplicably delayed an evacuation resulting in the deaths of more than 300 people. More recently, apart from the China Airlines crash, events involving Singapore Airlines, Gulf Air, and of course EgyptAir, have made the headlines, raising our suspicions about training, maintenance, and even culture, in airlines of distant lands.

 

But are we looking at things naively out of context? "There's no reason why Americans should be afraid of foreign carriers," said Robert Booth of Aviation Management Services, a consulting firm based in Miami, in an article in the Boston Globe. And all in all there are very few airlines this particular writer would refuse a seat on, none of the aforementioned among them. This is a realm where even tiny differences in statistics translate to huge differences in perception, often unfairly. To find anything close to a dangerous airline, one would have to break out the machete and jungle boots and scour the depths of equatorial Africa, or hitch a ride, perhaps, on a Sudanese-registered cargo plane.

 

The FAA has established a ranking system for the commercial aviation safety standards of other nations. The rankings, awarded to the nations themselves and not the specific airlines, are based on International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) mandated guidelines, with Category 1 status awarded to those who meet the mark, and Category 2 to those who do not. An airline in Category 2, of which there are surprisingly few, does "not provide safety oversight of its air carrier operators in accordance with the minimum safety oversight standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organization." Airlines from places in this classification, however, are still allowed to operate to and from the U.S. under careful FAA oversight.

 

Many misconceptions exist about the fleets and operational standards of airlines outside the U.S. Did you know that Colombia's Avianca is the second-oldest airline in the world, just behind KLM? A ground school instructor in a training class at a major U.S. airline recently lamented the "dangerousness of these third world carriers" when lecturing about operations in South America. I'd bet some folks at Avianca would take issue with that, as would the employees at LAB, the Bolivian national airline. LAB operates out of La Paz, the highest commercial airport in the entire world, and plies the high peaks of the Andes every day. Lo and behold, they haven't suffered a single at-fault fatality since the early 1970s. And there are dozens of examples of similarly tight-shipped companies worldwide.

 

A list of airlines around the world that have not suffered a fatal accident since 1970 includes the likes of Tunis Air and Air Jamaica. Allowing for one or two mishaps, the list expands immensely to include several airlines that, by name alone, might cause an eyebrow to arch. At the other end, China Airlines is joined by EgyptAir, Philippine Airlines and Indian Airlines, whose crash totals in the past three decades or so range from seven to 12.

 

But in either case, it's important to consider factors such as the overall size of the airline and the numbers of takeoffs and landings its crews make. A quick look at some stats on the Web does not see the whole story. Taking raw crash tallies out of context will misleadingly show American Airlines and United Airlines ranking with the worst, not accounting for their vast networks and frequencies.

 

One of the carriers with the worst legacies is Russia's Aeroflot. Put a checkmark next to Aeroflot for each accident, and compare that record to a given U.S. airline. (Before the breakup of Aeroflot into many smaller airlines, the World Aircraft Accident Summary shows nine accidents in the years from 1991-2000, involving 329 fatalities) But consider that Aeroflot was, at its peak, by far the largest airline in the world, with a fleet size approaching that of all U.S. major airlines combined. And today, still maligned and assumed to have a fleet of aging rust buckets, Aeroflot (though now considerably smaller) has a younger roster than most American majors.

 

In the backs of our minds can lurk a sinister suspicion -- one that suggests an airline's cultural, or even religious, orientation might be a weak link in the safety chain. In the summer of 1988 when the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iran Air A300 in the Persian Gulf, one pilot suggested that the Iranian crew had intentionally flown in harm's way in a suicidal gesture of Islamic martyrdom. "What the heck do the Iranians care if they die? They just go to Allah!" In reality, of course, you can find many millions of Iranians who very much care if they die. To lump all Muslim pilots together as suicidal commandos and violent fundamentalists is ridiculous, yet we tend to project all sorts of cultural biases onto situations we don't understand, and onto people we've never met, especially when entrusting our lives to them in an airplane. Although many stateside crews have committed some infamous blunders, we tend to judge our own airlines' actions through a quasi-scientific veil of human factors analysis, while sometimes dismissing similar behavior by foreigners as blatantly irresponsible or stupid.

 

Are U.S. airlines the safest in the world? Well, you'll get a good argument from the Europeans, but they're certainly on par with the very best. There are ways to measure, evaluate and quantify safety, and yes, some carriers will outscore others. But an accident can happen anywhere, to any airline. We are wrong to marginalize the crews and capabilities of another country's airline by virtue of some assumed cultural or technological superiority. We make such assumptions at our own cultural peril.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  Barrington_Tenchanall said:
In the summer of 1988 when the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iran Air A300 in the Persian Gulf, one pilot suggested that the Iranian crew had intentionally flown in harm's way in a suicidal gesture of Islamic martyrdom.

 

 

Was not aware of this, but cant say i am surprised. :o

Expand   Read more  

It wasn't an accident. The plane flew toward the ship and the Captain ordered the plane shot down.

 

edit in: if I remember correctly almost all the bodies on board the flight were naked.

Edited by BigDUSA
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is complete nonsense. I hope you are joking.

 

Read it again;

 

"one pilot suggested that the Iranian crew had intentionally flown in harm's way in a suicidal gesture of Islamic martyrdom. "What the heck do the Iranians care if they die? They just go to Allah!"

 

Just the words of a single xenophobe, with no basis in fact.

 

Dear oh dear.

 

Have at least a little respect for others; On July 3, 1988, during Operation Earnest Will, VINCENNES was situated in the Persian Gulf when the cruiser shot down an Iranian commercial Airbus A300B2-202 (Iran Air Flight 655) after mistaking it for an Iranian F-14. The total of 290 dead civilian passengers, included 66 children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...