You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Which one?
LHR to SFO (and then more destinations but internal flights are easy)
In August
Economy
with 2 kids
Same price
You decide.
BA.
Terminal 5 is a whole load better than Terminal 3 for departing and arriving 🙂
T5 is ace, but I prefer Virgin
Miles better than AA or other domestics
Flown back from SF twice, once Virgin and once BA. Virgin plane was much newer, better seats, cleaner, better t.v's. Think a lot of it is luck of the draw though really...
Agree about T5.
Both airlines have had broken kit inside when I've flown them in the past.
50/50!
Never flown Virgin, but the BA flight I took to SF was 10 hours of pure hell. It was quite an old jumbo and I've never experienced noise from the engines like it. I felt like I was being tortured with white noise, and the interior was rattling so much it felt like the plane was about to fall apart any minute. This was the only time I've been on a 747 so it might be perfectly normal, but still wasn't good.
Virgin - but then I dislike BA generally
Virgin'll let you take a bike for free too 😀
BA - never been impressed with Virgin, in any cabin
If AirNZ still fly from LHR to SF then perhaps try them. I have had very positive experiences with them over the years.
If AirNZ still fly from LHR to SF then perhaps try them. I have had very positive experiences with them over the years.
The still fly to San Francisco but that would mean going through Terminal 1 which is a real dump!
Leaving from T1 also means leaving from the gates that are miles away from the main departure lounge 😯
I think both BA and VA 747s are same age fleet, they're all noisy in economy.
Think I'll probably go BA, as the airmiles are easier to spend.
And hope for one of those 'good days'
Free booze on BA.
No experience of Virgin.
Therefore. BA.
How much flying do you do at other times? If you all join the BA Executive Club you'll get enough miles to do a European or UK return from Heathrow. Each.
Slight hijack ... if you are a pilot then you may know the answer.
I was flying in the far east on many occasions with my father who is an experienced aircraft engineer and we noticed that the pilots, after climbing to certain altitude, level the plane rather quickly. Freak me out a bit and my father commented that the pilots were too quick to level the plane after gaining altitude. For safety reason my father said that the plane should have maintained gaining higher altitude before leveling. We were all flying in Airbus 300/200 with powerful engines but then my father commented the engines would have to work harder at lower altitude (higher altitude safe fuel too) ... something like that.
By comparison to BA pilots I was far more confident as I noticed pilots kept gaining altitude for sometime before leveling ...
Here are some sample clips that I noticed the plane actually level 3:42 after taking off ... you can see the ships clearly ...
[img]
Another clip ...
In this clip the pilot actually make a turn immediately after taking off ... then leveling within 5 mins of taking off ...
So what is the leveling altitude?
Bet this low cost plane get mass produced pilots from some factories ...
😯
SLIGHT?
😯
dazzydw - MemberSLIGHT?
Okay ... massive hijack ... 😆
Anyway, I rather fly with experienced pilots ... plane is secondary to me.
The levelling out can be due to local restrictions from ATC. Over London aircraft departing Heathrow are restricted to something like 6000 feet until they're out of London airspace.
There's more info about it here:
i don't know but it always amuses me to read commercial pilot forums, its a bit like STW but more about how to fly planes
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/
I love that that go to forums to ask about whats wrong with their 747s
notmyrealname - MemberThe levelling out can be due to local restrictions from ATC. Over London aircraft departing Heathrow are restricted to something like 6000 feet until they're out of London airspace.
Yes, something like 6000 feet (I cannot remember what my father said now) but the fact is that the pilots at British airspace kept gaining altitude for sometime ... the above simply level within 5 mins and immediately went into cruising speed. (not busy airspace btw).
I am trying other airlines from now on and not the above ... flew 8 times within 1 month with them ...
Fly LHR to SFO with American Airlines. After that you will be delighted with either BA or Virgin and will hardly notice any slight failings they might have.
Keep talking, this is fun. 😆
The only advice I have is be sure to wear some flowers in your hair.
W
T
F
?
?
😐
No idea whats going on with the plane spotters vids. They will mostly be doing what air traffic control tells them to!
After that, see who's actually running the service as most will be codeshares anyway. After that whoever you have more points with.
Go Air NZ. Great wine and relaxed atmosphere. However be prepared for the 'trolley dolly' to look like a prop forward. Every time we have flown Air NZ have had great service but certainly no eye candy.
[b]chewkw[/b]
I am not a pilot but I do know that:
1) altitude clearance decisions come from ATC not the pilots. Skill doesn't dictate altitude.
2) normal cruising speeds are not achieved after 5 minutes climb only.
3) LoCo pilots fly more sectors usually than BA long haul crews. They may be better at this climbing lark... Except the actual controlling bit climbing will be done by the flight management system...
4) Even planes out of lhr or lgw often fly at a middling altitude for sometime before climbing higher.
5) that a steady ascent may be difficult to detect.
6) that some planes such as RJ100s produce an interesting noise and effect as their flaps retract to a clean configuration as they climb. Can make people think you have levelled out.
7) that your posts are some of the weirdest on STW...
Stoatsbrother - Member7) that your posts are some of the weirdest on STW...
😆 What award do I get for that? 
Will check the information with those foreign airline when I have time ...
Kevsterjw FTW!
Never BA. It's where air hostesses go to die.
The worst / slowest / least attentive service I've ever received.
I travel long haul 3 - 4 times a year. I usually go for the cheapest but would always pay a little extra to not have BA.
Ba are streets above airfrance and lufthansa for long haul.
No experiance of virgin but ba are no where near as bad as folk say - try turkish airlines istanbul to ashgabat - you will never moan again !
Only saving grace for lufthansa is its remarkably easy to climb the tier tables.
Best airlines ive used are actually turkmenair and ukraine air internals- unlike the uk where we run really old crappy planes both those co's use modern new planes.
All great till your discussin with your aircraft engineer mate who informs you - new they may be but turkmen air get their collars felt all the time for not having their engines serviced to code :/
Serious answer. Flew Virgin to Cuba and back a few weeks ago. Good entertainment system in a clean 747-400, moderate food, but laziest and least professional service I've had for years. United , AA, BA all better. Only Air Canada nearly as bad. I don't fly that often, but that's over about 20 round trips across tha Atlantic.
BA for T5. They seemed to have sharpened up their children's packs and entertainment when I flew coach to San Diego last month. Either will feel great compared with the internal flights. Flying home, you'll be sleeping if you have any sense, so service is irrelevant.
If you need to include internal flights someone like United would be worth pricing for the full trip as SFO is a hub city for them. BA, Virgin, United and AA are all very average.