With airline travel like this, I’d rather swim

John C says:

09:14am | 20/09/10

Whats next? Space in a container in the hold?

Ned says:

09:51am | 20/09/10

I’m fortunate enough to be a frequent air traveller who can afford to avoid Jetstar and Tiger. You could not pay me enough to travel with these airlines. However, I have a certain sympathy for some of the extras these airlines charge. If you want to keep costs low then things like charges for catering and extra baggage are probably fair enough. And, anything that halts the increasing tendency for air passsengers to travel with half their worldly goods can only be applauded. Tiger’s check in charge, however, is beyond the pale.

Too fat to fly is also fair enough, particularly if you are the normal person who’s paid their fare then has to be sit next to one of these leviathans - sometimes for many, many hours. Why should I be inconvenienced - I have the same rights as the fatty.

The point about staffing is not a real issue in Australia - yet. However, reduced training hours for pilots is a worry. I for one, am happy to pay a little bit more each flight if I can be sure the pilots are trained to the highest standard.

Recycled air: just another cost saving measure by airlines. If they don’t do it, you pay. Again, I wouldn’t mind paying another dollar on my fare for fresher air, but it’s not something I’m going to get worked up about.

Carbon offsets are interesting. I don’t pay them because I can’t be sure the money I contribute will actually make it to where it’s supposed to go. Do the aitrlines actually buy a tree or something similar? I’m yet to be convinced.

As for saddle seating, this is an abomination and surely someone is just running it up the flagpole to see who salutes. As others have point out, anyone over five feet tall would not be able to fit in the space proposed.

Overall, you gets what you pays for in the airline business. My real worry is that the choice remains. Unfortunately we are seeing it vanish in some instances with, for example, Jetstar taking over previous Qantas routes meaning there is no longer a full-service option available.

wendy says:

11:22am | 20/09/10

The woman in the photo certainly looks like she is enjoying it - does it vibrate?

rufus says:

11:34am | 20/09/10

When most of the world’s population is unable to afford air travel at all,  I think it’s poor form for those who can afford it to whinge. It’s pretty simple. If budget airfares don’t suit, pay more and shut up.

Louisa says:

11:38am | 20/09/10

What’s that container under the seat - a toilet perhaps?

Darryl says:

11:39am | 20/09/10

For 20 years from 1972 to 1992 I lived in Melbourne and regularly visited my parents who lived in Brisbane. Back in the 80s I used to consider a return flight for less that $600 a bargain. How much profit were “The Heavenly Twins”, ( TAA & Ansett) making in those days?

Soames says:

12:26pm | 20/09/10

In the current situation on domestic east coast routes, one finds it difficult for airlines to justify the provision of refreshments onboard, for the few hours of air travel, if in fact there is a motive to increase airfares for the current economy class.  If one has special needs, by all means let the Commonwealth review the legislation, in terms of proscribed items, should there be a necessity. One can although, calculate one’s on-board hand luggage weight to include some home prepared soft-boiled eggs, toast fingers and flask of tea etc, on red eye flights, and suitable cuisine on evening flights, with perhaps a mug of cocoa, and a cold pre-buttered scone. There’s no need for those trolleys to wend their way down the aisle, disrupting passenger comfort,  catering to the ‘needs’ of ordinary passengers, particularly , those poor souls who may or may not think this is their last day on earth, having little faith in rising above the earth, to get to a destination of their choice. In those circumstances, one would not deny their need. One has noticed however, the valued overweight members of our community seem to take more advantage of these provided airborne services, and as a consequence, ought review their own needs and modify them, in the interests of the economy class flying community,  which one is sure each of us is committed to, and who feel aggrieved by airline behaviour.

Mark says:

12:32pm | 20/09/10

The optional extras, in my opinion anyway, seem to be a moot point these days. Want to watch some videos? Theres an iPod for that. And food/drink only needs to be smuggled on in your carry-on luggage.
Your third point worries me, I’d rather pay extra for a properly trained pilot…

But my main point is about the carbon offsets, and one area where a budget airline outdoes the big boys.
I recently booked a flight from Syd-Melb through Qantas, and as always, ticked the Carbon Offset. I got to payment, and found that paying by credit card would incur a further $17 fee. ‘Too easy’ I thought, I’ll pay by BPay. To which I was informed that carbon offsets could not be paid for using BPay!

Poor effort, considering that when I usually book through Virgin Blue on domestic flights, I can pay my flight + carbon offset happily using my credit card, considering they don’t lump you with a fee!

Dan says:

01:03pm | 20/09/10

Wow, an airline seat that curves up into my crotch. Just right for that mid-flight turbulence. Tested by cowboys you say?  Yeah… that was your mistake, right there.

Will says:

01:43pm | 20/09/10

As more people fly and want to get to places faster, the airlines are trying to achieve it with the least amount of resources possible whilst keeping prices up. Resources are becoming much more expensive for them so they’re trying to do more with less. The result is we suffer as their efficiency-building ideas exclude more and more of the general populace. Soon it wont just be overweight people. It will be disabled people too..Perhaps eventually it will be anyone who doesn’t fit through a person-shaped cutout which doubles as the metal detector.

I’m all for efficiency, but not at the expense of exclusion. IMO, it means the think tanks the airlines are using aren’t trying hard enough. Perhaps they should employ some car designers? They know how to make little spaces feel big.

Anthony says:

01:44pm | 20/09/10

Carbon Offsets are the biggest joke of all time. What a waste of money. Perhaps the deluded people will think if they pay the money they will actually have some minor influence on the Earths climate. Comedy at it’s finest.

Whisperer says:

03:04pm | 20/09/10

I must remember my spurs and girth rope next time i fly

MDMConnell says:

03:12pm | 20/09/10

Never mind about the ‘convenience’ cutbacks on budget airlines, what about the safety cutbacks? Who knows how much servicing and maintanence has been slashed on some of these no-frills airlines….you read air crash reports where airlines cut back on lubricating Part XYZ which caused the engines to fail or the rudder to fall off.

I don’t mind going without a snack or restricting luggage size, but I’d want to be confident that pieces won’t be coming off the aircracft thanks to dodgy maintanence.

Michael says:

03:19pm | 20/09/10

It’s rather interesting that amongst all this spleen-venting as to airlines cutting costs that nobody, least of all the writer of this whingeing article, has gone to see whether costs are being cut on maintenance, safety, and replacement parts across the airlines.  Harder material to find, of course, but more important.

See, most of the planes in the airfleets of most airlines seem to be either the 747 vintage or Airbus A330s.  The new superliners are real luxury options.  That’s significant because those airframes were literally built back in the fifties or sixties.  Try and run your car for fifty years, making longhaul flights every day, and see how long it lasts before bits start falling off it.  An airframe is a miracle of engineering machinery, and they test for two, three times the expected lifespan of the plane—but it’s only as good as the maintenance done to it, the genuineness of the parts fitted to it, and the refits done to it to keep it up and flying.  Why are we not talking about cost cuts to maintenance or safety? Are we seriously suggesting airlines willing to pack people in like sardines on aircraft are suddenly paragons of public conscience when it comes to the safety or maintenance schedules of their planes?

CJ says:

06:27pm | 20/09/10

I know it’s only a minor thing, but check your facts on the Papal indulgences.

Amy says:

12:40am | 21/09/10

As an unfortunate person of average height with awkwardly long legs, planes infuriate me.  I always get the douche in front who puts their seat back for no reason on a mid day flight.  This bothers me more than the fatty in the next seat, because I’m sure the poor person doesn’t want to infringe on my personal space any more than I want them to, but the person in front with their chair reclined and my knees squished firmly up their butt certainly has a choice.

Andrew says:

04:36pm | 21/09/10

Planes don’t wait for no shows.  If they did, we would never get anywhere.  They ‘wait’ while they offload checked bags, or occasionally for connections, but if you check in and don’t turn up, too bad.

Saddle seats look fine to me if it saves a few bucks.  I stand on the train and bus, so for a 60 minute flight, why not?

Seems to me that airfares are cheap, in real terms.  There are still ‘full service’ seats to almost anywhere.  If you want to pay (real) 1980s prices and get 1980s perks, go ahead.  Jsut ask yourself why you expect so much more from your airline than you do from Greyhound.