Rome-Delhi flight on Eurofly (an Italian airline)?

I am considering a Rome-Delhi trip (about 8-9 hours?) for which the
only direct flight is provided by Eurofly, an Italian airline I have
never heard of. Some web research suggests it is a "budget" carrier.

If anyone has any experience with this airline, I would appreciate
feedback greatly.

B Vaughan <me@> wrote:

: I have flown them to New York and must say that it was very budget.
: The food was probably the scantiest I've ever seen. The seats were not
: particularly comfortable, but the leg room was acceptable.
:
: Recently there was a rather serious problem with them when a lot of
: their flights were cancelled because of an unusual number of planes
: pulled for maintenance. This was around the time of the Easter
: holidays and left people stranded in some places for 24 hours or more.
: I haven't heard of any other problems since. They are mostly a charter
: airline and have just recently gotten into the scheduled flight
: business.

Thank you! I was about to give up on anybody having heard of Eurofly.

The little info I could get from the web doesn't seem to be good. In
fact, minutes before i saw your reply, I posted another question on how
Emirates, Qatar, and Alitalia would be. All 3 provide decent
connections (11-12 hours; Eurofly nonstop is about 8 hours). I have
never traveled any of these. If you have advice, I would appreciate it,
preferably in the other thread.

Many thanks again. I was so excited when I unearthed the Eurofly
nonstop, but I guess I am losing the nerve to try them :)

Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote:

: Could your fear be media driven?

I suppose. Do you gather all the world news by yourself?

: I can see no rational reason to avoid the Emirates.

I agree. I wouldn't hesitate to visit UAE.

Stephen Farrow <stephen.farrow@> wrote:

: There is no such thing as complete safety. You could be hit by a car
: crossing the road this afternoon. The logical extension of your
: behaviour would be to stop interacting with the world completely. Of
: course, in your case, since you're apparently so scared of an event that
: may never happen and will probably never affect you even if it does, it
: may not be any bad thing if you stop interacting with the rest of the
: world. No bad thing for the rest of the world, I mean. You'd definitely
: lose out.

The problem with your thinking is "logical extension", i.e.,
extrapolating to the extreme. The question is not complete safety.
My neighborhood and city are not completely safe, but that is no
reason to move into Bronx or vacation in Beirut. Also no reason to
stop interacting with the world.

The point is, we cannot live everywhere or vacation everywhere
and a choice must be made, so we make it based on whatever
seems important to us. I do realize that respect that people live
in Bronx and visit Beirut for their own reasons. Others, including
us, decided differently.

People who buy insurance against improbable disasters, and
companies that do so, can also be said to "lose out" if their worst
fears don't materialize, but IMHO that is a wrong way of looking
at things. They got peace of mind even when nothing happened.

Newbie wrote:

> The problem with your thinking is "logical extension", i.e.,
> extrapolating to the extreme. The question is not complete safety.
> My neighborhood and city are not completely safe, but that is no
> reason to move into Bronx or vacation in Beirut. Also no reason to
> stop interacting with the world.

You weren't talking about vacationing in Beirut. You were talking about
Rome. Rome is NOT Beirut. How do you equate danger to Americans in Rome
to the danger level in Beirut? There is a big difference between being
cautious and being illogical.