Nevihta wrote:Thanks for info, as Biman was written in capitals in the title I thought it was something like a special flight, not a company. Wasn't aware that Biman was the name of a company.
OK Nevitha, but still a small correction about economics: the sole purpose of a company is to make profit. Disregarding the legal status of Biman - which is a company indeed - it is not profitable at all, due to all kind of things, let's say it as positive as possible: external interference.
If you ever had a bad flight or would be angry at one or other company, read the passenger reviews on skytrax. You will have some laughs, but you will also have wide open eyes

.
Anyway, I flew them several times - in business class.
Other members know my 2 addictions: Biman and Alitalia.
The difference is that I can say about Biman that I am happy that I had that experience. I deeply regret my flights with AZ.
If you read the other replies it all refers to some strange events of the days that Biman used Brussels as a fuel stop on its way to the USA with utterly run down DC-10 aircraft.
It took many airport and ground staff months of psychological care to recover from Biman experiences.
But at last Biman was gone and we had some better long haul carriers such as Hainan, Jet Airways and Etihad. Untill this week that Biman reappeared on the tarmac of BRU. The news mentioned that many ground handlers could not reach the airport because of the weather. Which is BS because there is an excellent train connection. I suppose that several hundred of workers called in sick when they were instantly allerted by colleagues that a Biman plane had landed at BRU and had no intention to leave for the next days.
