Boeing 787

Just announced as expected by Thomsons that the new Dreamliner 787,greatly advertised by the holiday company,as the new plane they would be adding to their fleet in May is now delayed. All the people who thought that by booking a holiday with the company,they could then be the first in this country to fly in the new Dreamliner,will be disappointed. Will they get compensation because they booked their holiday believing that they would be flying in the Dreamliner as Thomsons brouchure promised is debatable.Do you think they should get compensation or be able to cancel their holiday at no charge? .

Would you choose a holiday based on the type of plane you'd be flying in? OK maybe I would reject one if it's an ancient 727 or something.

I think it would be reasonable to allow a cancellation at no charge if a customer claims he only chose that holiday to fly on a 787. But I see no case for compensation - it's not comparable to changing the hotel is it?

Certainly not. You'll be booked on a 'flight' it would be very unusual for the aircraft type to form part of this contract. As such the company can fulfil the contract with any reasonable aircraft.

Sometimes they can substitute a car for a plane. My flight from Charlotsville, VA to DC was cancelled because the plane broke down. The airline rented all cabs it could find and shuttled us to Dulles. Some missed their connections, but it worked perfectly well for me.

What I love is the trumpeting of the 787 as more fuel-efficient (which it is) then charging an extra £10 to fly on it. Cheeky feckers.

I'm sure we had a similar thread a few weeks back, and my view remains unchanged. The 787 seems like a lovely plane but if you're going to Orlando with Thompsons then you're going to be sharing it with a hundred screaming kids, thus ruining your holiday before it begins.

On a tangent, may I nominate the First Choice advert as the worst on TV at the moment? The high-fiving bell-end who is whisked to his dream hotel by gushing sycophantic staff. They missed out the two hours of sitting on the tarmac at Luton in a knackered 757, or the horrendous coach journey to the resort with a perma-tanned rep doing an impression of a comic from a 70's working mens club, or the hoards of brats bombing the pool when you're trying to relax.

No you can't Dave :p

The worst adverts are confused.com with their ripped chested cartoon figures and monstrously exaggerated boob bounce coupled with the solitary obese black woman.

It really infuriates me....

And worse than those — though what the skin colour of someone in the ad mentioned above has to do with anything I don't know — are the payday loans commercials, which I think should be banned.

Wasn't his point that one of tokenism. Firstly that there must be a non-white in there. But only one. And the stereo type of the overweight Afro-Caribbean lives on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Wasn't his point that one of tokenism. Firstly that there must be a non-white in there. But only one. And the stereo type of the overweight Afro-Caribbean lives on.

---

I don't think Ben will ever understand my posts and until he does, a little piece of my life is worthless :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I don't think Ben will ever understand my posts and until he does, a little piece of my life is worthless :D

---

Given that the only way I could respond directly to this would probably be worth an infraction, I don't think I'll bother.

It was a joke Ben. Lighten up; it's the weekend :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And worse than those — though what the skin colour of someone in the ad mentioned above has to do with anything I don't know — are the payday loans commercials, which I think should be banned.

---

Amen - how on earth do they know on what day everyone gets paid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

It was a joke Ben. Lighten up; it's the weekend :)

---

Actually, I am really upset you mention bouncing jugs - I have a real bout of faux offence coming on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Given that the only way I could respond directly to this would probably be worth an infraction, I don't think I'll bother.

---

You've just responded - directly - and there is no infraction.

Shall I raise a toast........

I am happy your offended Wilko. It's made my day and I shall endeavour to do the same tomorrow.

It's your god given right to be offended and until someone shows me physical harm that can caused by offending people, I shall continue to consider this 'heinous' crime as merely opinion :)

Of course, if someone is offended to death, suffers GBH through their sensibilities being offended, has a broken offence bone or even has a tiny bruise caused by too much offence, then I will change my mind but for now, may you suffer all the offence you want :p



Hang on a minute. Were you joking? How dare you! I'm offended!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I am happy your offended Wilko. It's made my day and I shall endeavour to do the same tomorrow.

It's your god given right to be offended and until someone shows me physical harm that can caused by offending people, I shall continue to consider this 'heinous' crime as merely opinion :)

Of course, if someone is offended to death, suffers GBH through their sensibilities being offended, has a broken offence bone or even has a tiny bruise caused by too much offence, then I will change my mind but for now, may you suffer all the offence you want :p



Hang on a minute. Were you joking? How dare you! I'm offended!!!!!

---

I'm still reeling from reading that Sid the Sexist liked the magazine 'Big and Bouncy', or was it 't*ts a f*nnies'? ;)

Well, I think it DOES matter what equipment you're expecting to fly when you book..
(Flew Concorde on a promotion...cost me $54.00)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edv

Well, I think it DOES matter what equipment you're expecting to fly when you book..
(Flew Concorde on a promotion...cost me $54.00)

---

Well, on the basis that that was THE only supersonic airplane, and was really something quite special, then that is an exception to the rule.

If it is airworthy, what's the difference between most planes other than design, capacity and route suitability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

What I love is the trumpeting of the 787 as more fuel-efficient (which it is) then charging an extra £10 to fly on it. Cheeky feckers....

---

Perhaps, but consider also the increased airport gate fees which typically vary with the capacity of the aircraft.