However I do think that generalised badmouthing of US carriers is uncalled for. I used to fly UA in a past life and did think it wasn't too bad. Very average, uneventful experience, no better or worse than the industry norm.
It's all about managing expectations. If you're used to a high level of service on the likes of SQ, QF, NH etc - naturally you'd be in for a shock on a US carrier, IMO these other carriers are the exception rather than the industry norm.
There are two main arguments against these:
- Most people that are not in the know would not be able to know what is "normal". They have little relatively baseline, or they are not intent on setting one. Most therefore hold a rating view which is primarily bipolar, i.e. an airline is good or bad, not say average or is "within the norm". Badmouthing the US-based carriers is just part of this. People assume the best service they've had as a pseudo-baseline and work from that.
A good example is the recent arrival of VA on the Transpac scene, which then saw Transpac prices drop to record levels. The claim was then made (and somehow "validated") that QF had been ripping off people for a very long time on Transpac. Which is a ridiculously bold claim. There are no benchmarks to say what is a "rip-off" and what is not a "rip-off"; it just so happened that someone decided to offer lower prices. So now is it by definition that if you so happened to offer fares at a price higher than what is now a new price in new market conditions, that makes you a rip-off merchant?
- The fact that any airline performs to an industry norm does not mean that the performance may or may not be satisfactory. This is especially true because the airline / commercial aviation industry doesn't have many prescribed benchmarks (e.g. what constitutes a minimum acceptable OTP %?)
Having had a second read of the article, there are a few....childish.....and dubious claims there. For one, I was rather surprised that just because an airline decides to leave at a time like 11.47am, this is ridiculous. Ummm....right.
I didn't know that SSCI was so convoluted to try and tack on extras - wouldn't some of this class as entrapment or a similar thing? Where are those infamous litigations that we love and hate of LOTFAP?
Then LAX-SYD with no telly. I assume he means personal IFE/AVOD for Y. I don't know what UA have (the only US-based airline to fly LAX-SYD); I think QF do not have AVOD on their 747s, particularly the older ones, but they do for their 388s. VA definitely do have AVOD for Y. Perhaps I'm being too picky on the accuracy of the thing, but a bold statement to make nonetheless; I would have stopped at claiming that no IFE/personal telly for CHI-SEA is annoying, which is fine. A 5 hour Transcon would probably send you insane without some entertainment of sorts.
I don't really want to tell him that except for DJ and JQ (which comes at a price anyway), there is no AVOD in Y in AU domestic - let alone Trans-Tasman - including the longest sectors viz. to/from PER with flight times between 3 and 5 hours. The only exceptions are 332 services, NZ Trans-Tasman and QF Trans-Tasman if you are seated in Y rows 4, 5 and 6 (which will soon be moot when the new 738s with AVOD for all start service).
For someone like me that doesn't watch a whole lot of TV, it's rather amusing to observe the whole eruption over issues pertaining to IFE/AVOD.
I also don't know what UA or DL serve in international Y, but I'd be a bit miffed if it were just say a packet of peanuts or one pizza. I think the blogger is being hyperbolic on this one. Of course, you probably wouldn't expect it to be significantly good grub, but this is Y after all. In saying that, many Asian carriers carry a lot of the gongs related to good grub in Y (and less so when we move to premium classes).
Apart from their knack for landing safely in the Hudson, I never thought much about their service on the handful of short US flights i flew and can't imagine what it'd be like long haul.
