advertisement


the end of the airbus A380

This is way off topic, but I stand by what I said. You yourself in your first and second post indicated precisely why a lot of it is not necessary. If a large European company, partly funded by EU nations, can hold regular conferences including countries in Latin America without the need of travel, so can many others.

It still doesn't alter the fact that a high percentage of business travel is not necessary and is more of a reward than anything else, so perhaps we should agree to differ. There is also, of course, the environmental costs which should be considered, but never are. However, I've yet to work for a company, bar one, that would even want to talk about this, business travel is the holy cow.

Perhaps an easier way would be to make all businesses use economy class. I suspect, even on an A380, demand would drop dramatically.
 
This is way off topic, but I stand by what I said. You yourself in your first and second post indicated precisely why a lot of it is not necessary. If a large European company, partly funded by EU nations, can hold regular conferences including countries in Latin America without the need of travel, so can many others.

It still doesn't alter the fact that a high percentage of business travel is not necessary and is more of a reward than anything else, so perhaps we should agree to differ. There is also, of course, the environmental costs which should be considered, but never are. However, I've yet to work for a company, bar one, that would even want to talk about this, business travel is the holy cow.

Perhaps an easier way would be to make all businesses use economy class. I suspect, even on an A380, demand would drop dramatically.

My first two posts in this thread indicated that the company in Wales would likely continue making wings for Airbus planes; the second one that BA didn't make the best use of space available in the airframe. I don't see how that addresses the need to travel for business.
I don't see how you can hold a conference, which itself is generally held to be a gathering of people, without travel. I don't understand your reference to EU firms and funding. If you're referring to my company, it's not, technically, in the EU, and it's certainly not funded by it.
We will have to disagree about the percentage of travel that is necessary or not, and disagree more on it being a reward. It may be a perk at your company, it isn't in mine, or at any of the other companies that I deal with on a regular basis. Many firms do address the environmental impact of business travel, and of other activities they are engaged in. Read their annual reports: shareholders require it.
I have direct experience of travel policies being economy only. It doesn't change the need to engage face to face with people, or the frequency of it. The direct effect was increased staff turnover, or increasing the length of a trip to allow the person to recover at either end of the journey. The reason we are allowed to travel in business for long haul is that we are expected to hit the ground running when we arrive. Business class means reducing a lot of the hassle of getting through the airport, a better chance of sleep on board, some privacy and space to work if you need to. The perk/reward aspect of it is a better chance of not feeling like you've been twelve rounds with Muhammad Ali when you get back from a 12 hour, 8 timezone, flight on Saturday morning and being able make the most of the time with friends and family before heading out again on Sunday evening.
 
I read in the past that there is a huge underground, maybe dirty, maybe illegal, influence of the US administration to support Boing around the world. Maybe what we see is not a result of a pure commercial reasons.

Arye
 
I have been away from this thread for a day or two but BTC3 is spot on. Every global company has huge oversight on international travel especially the class. I work for a medium sized company (7000 people) with an economy travel policy except to Asia. I have spent years of my life sitting in longhaul economy seats to and from the USA. I refuse to work on these flights and I also refuse to fly at weekends. If they want me to work and give up my time then I expect it to be comfortable and more spacious than economy seating. Occasionally I get an exception to the West coast of if I can find a sale price but on the whole it is economy.

All the flights I travel on are full to capacity, empty seats are rare and that include the premium cabins as we. It seems a perk to those who don't do it and for the first couple of times it is cool but seriously the novelty wears off real quick. Business travel is alive and well for thousands and enables the rest of us to get cheap economy flights when you want them.
 
My point is that the majority of business travel is entirely unnecessary, and, in fact, is helping destroy the planet. There is no doubt, however, it makes people feel as they're an important cog in the wheel of the business.
 
I read in the past that there is a huge underground, maybe dirty, maybe illegal, influence of the US administration to support Boing around the world. Maybe what we see is not a result of a pure commercial reasons.

Arye

Steady on. That is not the official party line.
 
The A380 is very comfortable and quiet. Unfortunately the B777 isn’t. We usually fly Thai airways to Thailand but have stopped as they have swapped A380for B777.
The good news is that other airlines are introducing the A350-900 which is actually as nice as the A380.
 
The A380 is very comfortable and quiet. Unfortunately the B777 isn’t. We usually fly Thai airways to Thailand but have stopped as they have swapped A380for B777.
The good news is that other airlines are introducing the A350-900 which is actually as nice as the A380.
Wow, you had me worried there, until I realised you must be flying from the UK. Paris is still safely Boeing free with Thai.

Agreed about the A350, which is what Vietnam Airlines fly. In fact any A350 is better. I do hear Boeing have tried to up their game with the newer 787, which has a gimmicky windows, I'm told. I assume that's so you don't notice the increased noise level.
 
My point is that the majority of business travel is entirely unnecessary, and, in fact, is helping destroy the planet. There is no doubt, however, it makes people feel as they're an important cog in the wheel of the business.
I'm sure I've read somewhere that around 50% of communication is non verbal. Which means teleconferencing is only a realistic substitute for more routine communications, I suspect. That's certainly my experience anyway.
 
Vietnam airlines also have 11x 787 and another 10 in order. Their 787s were flying before the 350s arrived in service.
 
I thought the 787 wasn’t up to much- cramped for long haul compared with the 747/777. Not been on a 350 or 380 yet owing to BA loyalty which has now ended after the last experience.
 
BA have done a gorgeous re-livery of one of their 747's

britishairways_2168615066724321.jpg


http://aeronews.ro/video-boeing-ul-...6EOjt0xyYfHglvg322eWOmEOYJwCEEAn21gKQ0632qYZg

Link to web site with some videos as well
 
Excellent. But where's the small speedbird just under the cockpit? Or was that after the rebranding to BA?

Yerp, I stand corrected

4635.032l.jpg
 
I’ll be very sorry when the 747 goes out of service. I first flew on one as a schoolboy in 1976 and was totally wowed by the experience. Only a third full on a BA transatlantic route, I stretched out to sleep on an entire central bank of seats.
 
Excellent. But where's the small speedbird just under the cockpit? Or was that after the rebranding to BA?

Yerp, I stand corrected

4635.032l.jpg
It's on the fin in the BOAC livery. Speedbird was originally a BOAC motif, retained under the BA branding.
 
I expect there to be a souvenir edition short haul plane with the BEA logo and low cost scruffy plane with a BCAL logo to complete the set.
 


advertisement


Back
Top