[ginger]

After recently flying transatlantic with AA for the first time recently, I have to say that I was unimpressed with the airline and it's onboard Staff. To say they are rude is an understatement. They way they talked to the passengers in economy was disgusting. It was as if the plane was split between two 1st class and cattle class.
First of all I have flown with many other major airlines and their service is impeccable no matter what class you are in. I was surprised to find that you have to pay for Alcholic drinks (provided free by others), the hostess's were old, haggered, untidy and damn right disrespectful. We were informed at the outset of rules we should stick to throughout the flight "Remaining seated at all times, no walking up and down the aisle, No congregating in galley areas, Only use the toilet in the cabin assigned to you. The seatbelt sign was on for 95% of the flight (with very little turbulence) and when one guy had been sitting for 6 hours he got up to stretch his legs he was promptly told off by the hostess. They also informed us that when they served the food you had to lay your folding tray in the down position to indicate that you required your meal otherwise if your tray was not down they walked straight past you. One guy questioned why he had not been served a meal and got the reply "No tray no food".

This was an experience and one I will never repeat, Planes were untidy and seem worn (although it was a 777), entertainment was poor and outdated (not on demand like others).
After landing in London I caught an onward flight with BA and it was a breath of fresh air.
May I remind AA that although in economy the seats still cost an awful lot of money but the service does not reflect the cost.
As it was my first taste of AA It may have been a one off, but first impressions count for repeat business.

Come on AA sort it out your rivals are 10 years ahead of you.

[ginger]

After recently flying transatlantic with AA for the first time recently, I have to say that I was unimpressed with the airline and it's onboard Staff. To say they are rude is an understatement. They way they talked to the passengers in economy was disgusting. It was as if the plane was split between two 1st class and cattle class.
First of all I have flown with many other major airlines and their service is impeccable no matter what class you are in. I was surprised to find that you have to pay for Alcholic drinks (provided free by others), the hostess's were old, haggered, untidy and damn right disrespectful. We were informed at the outset of rules we should stick to throughout the flight "Remaining seated at all times, no walking up and down the aisle, No congregating in galley areas, Only use the toilet in the cabin assigned to you. The seatbelt sign was on for 95% of the flight (with very little turbulence) and when one guy had been sitting for 6 hours he got up to stretch his legs he was promptly told off by the hostess. They also informed us that when they served the food you had to lay your folding tray in the down position to indicate that you required your meal otherwise if your tray was not down they walked straight past you. One guy questioned why he had not been served a meal and got the reply "No tray no food".

This was an experience and one I will never repeat, Planes were untidy and seem worn (although it was a 777), entertainment was poor and outdated (not on demand like others).
After landing in London I caught an onward flight with BA and it was a breath of fresh air.
May I remind AA that although in economy the seats still cost an awful lot of money but the service does not reflect the cost.
As it was my first taste of AA It may have been a one off, but first impressions count for repeat business.

Come on AA sort it out your rivals are 10 years ahead of you.

[Silent Bob]

I have to say madam I don't believe you fly that often if you find other airline's flight attendents "impeccable". Even I find that a little hard to swallow. The only airline I know where they have such service is either Korean Airlines... and really that's about it. Sure I have an affinity for United, but even their FAs can be a bit snarky. p

the hostess's were old, haggered, untidy and damn right disrespectful

That's opinion and if you want anyone to take your complaint seriously you should refrain from such comments. Actually the entire complaint is a bit off. There is simply no way in hades an FA can tell anyone to stay in their seat during a 6 hour (or more) flight, especially if you're sitting in coach. If it was a short 1 hour plus flight, maybe... MAYBE that I could understand. You need to stretch your legs, or you might develop a clot that can cause some serious damage.

http://preventdisease.com/news/artic...ssengers.shtml

http://www.economyclasssyndrome.net/

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

So unless there was heavy turbulence, you could have gotten out of your seat. Otherwise the rest of your complaint is pretty general towards most U.S. airlines. And I for one will start to push my congress and tell them we want the airlines re-regulated....

HA! I can't say that with a straight face.

[ginger]

I take on board your comments but as reiterated in my post, I can only relay to everyone my experience. I have never felt the need to post on such a website until now and am not a serial complainer . I dont believe my post was 'A bit off' only the truth, and as I understand the issues regarding sitting in your seat for such a long time, I was there and it was not a pleasent experience.

I see you posted as an Airline Sympathizer, but in this case you cannot defend the undefensible

[Silent Bob]

I see you posted as an Airline Sympathizer, but in this case you cannot defend the undefensible

I didn't post as a sympathizier, its a label that was given and i take it with no objection. But about defending the indefensible..... no truer words have ever been spoken, especially in the case of your post.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

The seatbelt sign was on for 95% of the flight

Asking that customers keep their seat belts fastened, while seated, is one thing. Using the seat belt sign as a means of avoiding inconvenience to the cabin crew is inexcusable. Absent a legitimate reason to have the seat belt sign on (bad weather, etc.) customers, particularly on a long haul flight, deserve ample opportunity to access the lavs.

I've seen this issue come-up before, not necessarily on this board. The DOT needs to issue somes rules. If pilots knew they might have to justify use of the seat belt sign for, nearly, the entire flight more responsible use of this device might result.

And, in anticipation of the howls from the idiot squad--the airline stooges on here: If a pilot get his kicks by keeping the seat belt sign on for a one hour flight I guess it doesn't matter that much. I can also understand the reason for keeping the sign on during the flight of a relatively low-flying commuter aircraft such as a Beech 1900. I'm not even sure if the latter HAS a lav!

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

And, in anticipation of the howls from the idiot squad--the airline stooges on here: If a pilot get his kicks by keeping the seat belt sign on for a one hour flight I guess it doesn't matter that much. I can also understand the reason for keeping the sign on during the flight of a relatively low-flying commuter aircraft such as a Beech 1900. I'm not even sure if the latter HAS a lav!

Per the FAA, 19 seats or less, no lav and no flight attendant required.

Derogatory names reported to moderator.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Jetliner: I would submit to you that door swings both ways. If you want to start something like that you might want to have a discussion with your friend, Silent Bob, about his "puffer fish" cracks. Check-out his definition for the terms.

Both sides on here can spend all day flooding the moderator with "offenses"--real and imagined.

In your haste to exact reprisals, you failed to note I did NOT refer to any specific person.

Again, you and your friends on here would do well to stop trying to claim this board as your personal private property.

I was talking about crew abuse of a seat belt sign and you chose to nit pick about a passing comment I made about the absence or presence of a lav on a Beech 1900.

YOU, are, likewise, reported.

[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

Again, you and your friends on here would do well to stop trying to claim this board as your personal private property.

Evidenced by what?

It seems to me you're the only one who feels the need to monopolize every single thread on this forum sometimes posting multiple times not even allowing comment in-between. Your use of non-standard font also illustrates your need to call attention to yourself. Most everyone on this forum is satisfied using the standard font and occasionally will use boldface, italics or color to emphasize a point. You seem to use color and boldface in almost every single post.


Your consistent use of of terms such as "stooges" is getting tired as well. Crack a thesaurus every now and then.

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

In your haste to exact reprisals, you failed to note I did NOT refer to any specific person.

And your point is what exactly? You're right, you didn't name any one person. Instead you called a whole group the name. I wonder if that counts a multiple violations of the rules.

PHX - The only reason he does the other fonts is to make it difficult to quote him. It makes it harder to find the actual text with all of the code in the way. Why do you think he has each sentence with a font change and bold, except it's the same font selected.

[AADFW]

Ginger, please ignore the petty bantering on this thread. I couldn’t agree more with the service issues you have raised. I have experienced many of the same differences on AA, and find myself at a loss to understand why the airline consistently refuses to get its affairs in order so it can compete with foreign carriers on international routes where capacity is regulated – particularly in the premium cabins.

There are several reasons for this. Among them are that AA’s management team (including its CEO) are mostly accountants who don’t seem to understand that the most clever marketing in the world doesn’t matter without a solid core offering.

Let’s start with the issue of alcoholic beverages. This is one of a host of “fee-based services” that AA has implemented in recent years in an effort to change its revenue model. Consumers are now lured by deceptively low one-way-based-on-roundtrip “base fares” and then made to cough up extra charges for just about everything from baggage to beverages. The airline is hardly alone in doing this, and many would say it is simply responding to competitive forces. The practice is at the very least annoying nonetheless, and it is an excellent reason for greater regulatory oversight.

Next, let’s address the issue of “old, haggered, untidy and damn right disrespectful” flight attendants. Many of the AA international flight attendants are actually very kind, respectful, and responsible (I’m even good friends with a few). Far too many, however, fall in the category you’ve described. The reason for this is simple: once they get enough seniority to fly on the international routes, many of them are old, jaded, overweight, unhappy, and know that there’s very little they can do in terms of providing poor customer service to suffer any meaningful employment consequences. This is mostly due to the overly-powerful unions that protect them – but it’s also partly because of the corporate culture at AA. Both need to change.

The passenger mobility issue is one I’ve also experienced before. I’m quite tall, and on one AA flight where I was stuck in the middle seat of a 777 and the seatbelt was turned OFF, I attempted to stand in an area in front of the galley only to be told to sit down by the flight attendant. When I politely asked her where would be an acceptable place to stand up, the boorish cow flippantly responded, “well, I guess you can’t really stand in the galley, you can’t stand in the isles, and you can’t stand in front of the bathrooms. I guess that leaves inside the lavatory.” I was shocked and offended, but said nothing and sat down as instructed. When I got back I contacted AA’s corporate offices to report the incident – they confirmed that standing in the galleys when the seatbelt sign was disengaged was acceptable provided no congregation was taking place. But how was I supposed to argue with her?

Finally, regarding the fact that AA aircraft, including the 777, are “untidy and seem worn…. with poor and outdated” entertainment. This to me is an even greater issue than the disservice previously mentioned. I truly just don’t get it. Whoever is in charge of designing the premium cabins either: (a.) is being given an inadequate budget by AA’s bean-counter management, (b.) has never flown on a competing airline in a premium cabin, or (c.) is grossly incompetent. Take the business class cabin with what I call the “torture seat.” These are dubbed “lie flat” but are actually painfully narrow, acutely angled seats that will crush the feet of anyone over 6 feet in height. What’s worse, if you’re in the middle (777) seat or window seat and the person next to you “goes flat,” you are literally trapped in your seat with no means of escape other than trampling that person. Yet AA’s marketing department loudly brags about how great these miserable contraptions are with slick flash websites and collateral overpromising a totally unrealistic customer experience.

Even in first class, AA is miles behind its competition with tattered old seats, disgustingly cheap food, grossly subpar wine selections, and a lack of basic international first class amenities such as proper bed padding for the seat (if you’ve ridden first on SQ, CX or QF you know what I’m referring to). Every time AA attempts to upgrade its entertainment system the airline cheaps out and gets it wrong – not nearly enough programs or variety for the length of the long-haul flights.

I digress. The point here is that I think your post is totally legitimate and you’ve offered many sentiments that are shared by a vast number of other consumers who have flown AA internationally. If the airline could see fit to make substantially greater investments in its international operations, I believe it could achieve far greater margins in those markets.

As you’ve pointed out:

Originally Posted by ginger

Come on AA sort it out your rivals are 10 years ahead of you.

Truer words are seldom written.

[getoutthere]

Were you already in a bad mood. You have a lot of generalizations here.

[AADFW]

Originally Posted by getoutthere

Were you already in a bad mood. You have a lot of generalizations here.

May I kindly suggest you refrain from random, vague, and completely unconstructive thread responses in the future?

[jimworcs]

Ginger wrote..

old, haggered, untidy and damn right disrespectful

Here we have a well written, intelligently observed comparison between a US carrier which is trying to compete on international routes with non US carriers which offer a far superior service. Ginger is spot on in comparing the equipment, nickel and diming, poor service, etc with other carriers and pointing out how unfavourably AA come out. However, this was then discredited by the pointless and unnecessary attacks of a personal nature. It is illegal for the airline to discriminate against staff on the grounds of age in the US. It is also morally repugnant to suggest or imply that someone who is "old" (whatever that is) is automatically less capable that someone younger. Indeed in a crisis, I would prefer an older experience FA to a younger, less experienced one. The use of the term "haggard" is equally offensive and unnecessary. It is however fine to complain about "untidy" and "disrespectful". You should consider the difference and try to avoid such gratuitously offensive personal attacks in future. Having said my piece, in all respects I fully support your position on AA, which falls far short of international competitors (even BA, which ain't what it used to be, is far far superior to AA, especially in Business Class and Premium Economy.

AADFW was equally offensive.. what is the point?

[AADFW]

You're absolutely correct jimworcs, and I sincerely apologize for not being more sensitive where age (use of the word "old") was reiterated in my post. I don't really agree that "haggard" is equally offensive, however.

This said, I hope that my transgression -- perhaps "unthoughtful oversight" is a better description -- will not unduly distract from the underlying issues mentioned here. AA's international service is astoundingly lacking in so many ways. Attitude, rather than age, is truly what's at issue where flight attendants are concerned.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

Definitely "haggard," and possibly even "old" are "ageist" terms. The "correct" equivalent for "old" would be "senior" (as in someone who has passed, or is near, the age of 65.) Having said that the descriptions here suggest AA (and maybe other US-based carriers) would do well if they took a page from their regulated days and resurrected the importance of proper make-up. I refer, of course, to the FEMALE flight attendants. The alternative would render the flight a real drag!

I wonder if the airlines with better trans-Atlantic service--yes, like, Lufthansa--go-through something that resembles orientation for new inmates at the big house. Actually, I had a job where I did just that and I can tell you it was a more civilized affair than the description of the OP. Indeed it sounds like Aeroflot might even be able to siphon-off some of AA's customers.