Hosed by Travelocity (again)

[Rags]

I know, I should have know better but...hosed again.

I tried and tried (for hours) to book a flight on Aeroflot for my in-laws online through Travelocity. I would get half way through and the web pages would not build even though we have our own LAN at work. I went home and tried from there with the same results so I called to try to do it realtime and was told that those flights were not available. Right...I should have quit right there, but nooo.

I went back and found a flight on Aerosvit to JFK connecting to United on to SFO. Again no luck getting the webpages to build so I called direct and got it booked for an additional $20 service charge.

Two days later I get a call from Travelocity telling me that there is another $40 charge because Aerosvit does not have an contract with United and the tickets will have to be issued as though they were separate round trips. O.K., they've got me over the barrel. I complain as to why I wasn't told this to start with seeing as I had TALKED directly to their representative to book this flight. No explaination...I'm pissed.

Now the topper! As I'm getting ready to hang up the rep tells me "by the way, since there is no baggage agreement between the airlines, you will have to check your baggage in again at United". Now let's see... my 60 y.o. MIL and 70 y.o. FIL are suppose to go through Immigration, get their bags and go through Customs, then drag their bags from terminal 7 to terminal 4, AND check in all in two hours and ten minutes. This sounds like a disaster in the making especially since this is the first trip to the US for my inlaws who barely speak any English and are not in the best of health. I could probably pull this off myself but I know the terrain, language, and can lug my own bags.

I guess that I'll send them a wad of cash so that they can grab a taxi and have a sky cap help them check in. Even then the chances that they will arrive (with their bags) on time is pretty remote. Definitely not how I wanted this trip to start.

[keithandkatya]

... in response to Hosed by Travelocity (again), posted by Rags on Apr 25, 2004

Hey Rags,

  It is Keith.. remember me... a bit ironic that I will also be spending some quality time with inlaws soon.. I will be seeing my MIL and FIL soon too... I only met them for a short time on my last trip.. and at that time it was to ask for Katya's hand in marriage... now I will be spending more time and this time as son in law... life is interesting!

Keith

[Apk1]

... in response to Hosed by Travelocity (again), posted by Rags on Apr 25, 2004

Rags I feel your pain....
Aeroflot no longer flies into west coast except for L.A., which messes up my M.I.L. flight this summer also.
The only way now is to book a flight non-stop from Moscow to L.A. and meet her at LAX, so she does not get confused in switching terminals from International to Domestic...
  "Oh-well" we all wanted to see Disneyland anyway....
Aeroflot is still cheaper by far than any other carrier, unless someone has a better solution to fly from Moscow to the west coast...I would like to hear about it.

[davet]

... in response to Re: Hosed by Travelocity (again), posted by Apk1 on Apr 25, 2004

Are you sure Aeroflot doesn't fly into Seattle -- nonstop from Moscow?

[Apk1]

... in response to Re: Re: Hosed by Travelocity (again), posted by davet on Apr 26, 2004

It was my understanding that they discontinued the "aeroflot" Seattle to San Francisco flight in March. It might still be flying to Seattle...but the problem is my mother in law will have to change terminals and lug her baggage after going through customs. I read in the Moscow times that the reason for this was just economic...they reduced the number of flights and eliminated the connecting flights to USA because Aeroflot can make more profit on their own domestic destination...they were losing profit due to the limited number of planes (777) that were allowed to fly in USA airspace.
  Correct me if I am wrong LP.

[LP]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Hosed by Travelocity (again), posted by Apk1 on Apr 26, 2004


Yes, in order to operate to the US foreign carriers must meet standards for all kinds of things. Equipment, maintenance, security, crew training, ect. It's why Aeroflop bought those triple sevens to begin with. Foreign based carriers can lose their privledges at anytime too. Here a tidbit that came across my desk just the other day:

"U.S. authorities have prohibited Peru's largest airline, Aero Continente, from flying to the United States because of safety concerns, U.S. officials said Thursday. U.S. Embassy spokesman Michael Stanton said Aero Continente, which flies four times a week to Miami, lost permission to enter U.S. air space following an inspection last week by Federal Aviation Administration officials."

Also note the FAA is now refusing to allow the Israelis to operate in our airspace because of the newly installed anti-missle systems on their aircraft. Seems carrying a bunch of incendiary flares on board passenger flights is considered unsafe. Who woulda thunk it? (Must be cuz everyone loves them so much huh WmGo?

Can't say I blame Aeroflop for the belt tightening, even though they were stripped down they still cost lots 'o roubles. Too bad about the SFO stop, I can see how it'll cause hassles for you. Look on the bright side: At least that flight will finally have a consistent on time record...

Yeah, they make more on domestic flights and for good reason: They skimp. Flying domestic is Russia can be risky business and it's not much better in Ukraine. It's amazing how they get away with it but like dead men, dead pax tell no tales.

Since US carriers can't use the same tactics to bolster profits they aren't exactly getting rich these days either. Between fuel prices, new security procedures, competition, inflated crew and management salaries and the usual cheap azz pax who want everything for peanuts (and still complain when that's all they get), most carriers are barely hanging on. When you add in the antiquated, bursting at the seams ATC system and the incompetence of the FAA in general, a total collapse is a given in the not too distant future. Better be thankful for what we've got, it's only going to get worse.

[TwoBitBandit]

... in response to Re: Re: Hosed by Travelocity (again), posted by davet on Apr 26, 2004

I forgot the exact date for the final flight out of SFO... but Aeroflot is definitely stopping the direct SFO-Moscow flight.

If you try to book a flight after a certain date you see there's no nonstop anymore.  Now, if you want to fly out of SFO-Moscow on Aeroflot, you have to lay over at LAX.

Bad new for me...I live just south of SFO.  

[Rags]

... in response to They are stopping that flight., posted by TwoBitBandit on Apr 26, 2004

There never was a direct flight to Moscow. You have always had to catch the flight from Seattle or LA.

They (Travelocity) still offer the connecting service from Seattle via Alaska Airlines. It may be the same deal where you have to recheck your bags but at least it is in the same terminal.

[gator70]

... in response to No SFO-SVO flight., posted by Rags on Apr 28, 2004

Try another route.

[TwoBitBandit]

... in response to No SFO-SVO flight., posted by Rags on Apr 28, 2004

I guess it depends on how you define "direct".  There was a direct flight... it took off from SFO and touched down in Seattle and took off again... but it was the same airplane.  The stop was very short.  I've flown on it.

[davet]

... in response to Re: Re: Hosed by Travelocity (again), posted by davet on Apr 26, 2004