August 2010

Wizz Air: An Honest Review

by Limbic on August 14, 2010

Earlier this month, I decided to try out the new direct service between London and Belgrade from Wizz Air.   I had previously used Wizz Air in 2009 on their service between Timisoara in Romania, and London and it was a relativly good experience, in fact, having researched the company alot prior to that flight and finding alot of negative feedback and reviews, I was pleasently suprised with the service I got back in 2009.

So I went into Nikola Tesla airport on August 4th with a sense of optimization, looking forward to another no frills, but puntual flight with Wizz Air………little did I realize what was about to occur.


On August 4th, I was due to be on the 21:55pm flight from Belgrade to London.    Check-in went very smoothly and I arrived at my gate about 70 minutes before the flight was due to leave.  There was a resturant just opposite the gate so I decided to head in there and have a late meal (A plate of Pasta with 4 different cheeses, very nice).    I rushed to finish the meal as by this time, it was about 21:15pm so I knew the gate should be opening up soon.    As i finished my meal, the screen above the gate updated saying the flight would be arriving early, at 21:35pm – which I was quite happy with, however a couple of moments later, it updated to say 23:55pm – a delay of 2 hours.

By this time, all the stores and almost all resturants in the airport were closed or closing, and NO representatives from Wizz Air were available to provide information or any kind of compensation in the way of food vouchers or otherwise.   In fact, an extensive search of the airport and chat with a couple of airport staff revealed that all Wizz Air staff had gone home after check-in closed!

The plane arrived at about 23:15pm and we were allowed to board at 23:40pm – it was obvious that the plane would not leave at 23:55pm and I think we finally took off at around 00:30am.     The boarding process went smoothly, but the staff were quite rude about the delay, especially when asked about the compensation that they state they provide on their website after a 2 hour delay.

Fast forward now to the return flight, from London Luton on 11th August, which was meant to take off at 5:35pm Local Time and actually did leave on time.   I was quite happy with the return flight, that is, up until around 40 minutes before we should have arrived in Belgrade.

About 3/4 of the way through the flight, I noticed the plane making some odd turns, as if the course was being changed, and sure enough about 15 minutes later, the captain came on the intercom to say that there was a minor electrical issue and that we would be landing in Budapest to have it looked at.

We were on the ground for about 2.5 hours in Budapest, confined to our seats on the plane with no food or refreshments offered. We were only updated 2 times by the captain during the whole two hours, and the cabin crew were EXTREMELY rude. Several passengers went asking for information and the cabin crew were not very polite in their responses, at one point I think I heard one of them say “I understand your concerns, but this is budget airline so its your own fault for choosing to fly with us”.

2 – 2.5 hours later, we took off again and arrived in Belgrade about 3 hours later, we had to circle Nikola Tesla for a bit to wait for a landing slot.


All in all, I paid 200.98 euros for this flight, I paid an extra 8 euros for priority boarding, otherwise its manic and you don’t get a very good seat.

It is obvious that the cause of ongoing flight issues, is that being a budget airline, the planes are used many times during each day, sometimes making 6 or 8 flights with only 45 minutes – 60 minutes at the MOST on the ground. Maintenance is not carried out on the planes on a regular schedule, so electrical issues and other issues are dealt with “as and when they occur” – often forcing the plane to land in Budpest or wherever Wizz has a “base” and the proper technical support available.

It also obvious that this was the reason that the outbound flight to London on the 4th was delayed, there must have been an issue that caused them to land in Budapest, as the delay was about the same.

I will not be using Wizz Air again – the only good thing to come out of the whole Wizz Air venture in Belgrade, is that airlines such as British Airways are now lowering their prices to compete – a return flight to London with British Airways is now 224 euros, a mere 24 euros more than Wizz Air (or 32 euros when you do not have priority boarding). Considering that with BA, you get a complimentay meal and drink on the plane, more leg room, your choise of seating when booking, and very rarely any delays, I would be happy to pay the extra 20-30 euros. All in all, I experienced over 6 hours of frustration and delays during this flight.



Quality of Airplane: 4/5 – the planes looked fairly new and were fairly clean, barring any technical issues

On Time: 1/5 – the plane was basically late both times by 3 hours or more.

Cabin Crew: 1/5 when there is an issue, they appear to have almost no decent customer service training, and are very rude when there is any kind of situation. 3/5 when things are running smoothly. When things are running ok (such as when I used them from Timisoara) – the staff are polite to an extent.

Value for Money: 0/5 – I’m sorry, but I expect a budget airline to be at least 80-100 euros cheaper than a non budget airline. British Airways is only 20-30 euros more expensive.

Total: 6/20


Tomorrow, I will be posting a cross reference of ALL airlines that now offer flights from Belgrade to London, the costs, and my recommendations, however I do strongly recommend British Airways and not Wizz Air.


Nappy free baby and baby sign language

by Limbic on August 11, 2010

As I await the arrival of my daughter any day now, I spotted an article about teaching babies sign language.

Parents finding benefit in teaching babies sign language as well as speech

Toward the end of lunch, Phoenix Ferragame, 17 months old, raised both hands in front of his chest and tapped his fingertips together.

His mother smiled.

“You want more? More chips?” Gina Ferragame asked, mimicking the hand movement and then passing the bowl to her son.

For parents, hardly anything is as satisfying as being able to communicate with their children. But speech requires development of three muscle groups. Toddlers typically have motor control of their hands and fingers months sooner.

Teaching a short vocabulary of American Sign Language – milk, more, please, and a handful of other words – is so simple that parents are networking, classes are spreading, and how-to sites are booming.

Ferragame and her husband began working on basic signs with their older son, Theo, when he was 5 months old.

“I saw a response immediately,” she said. “I was inspired by the fact that I could acknowledge him.”

It reminded me of something I saw years ago on CoolTools, a post reviewing a book called “Diaper Free! The Gentle Wisdom of Natural Infant Hygiene

In my many years traveling throughout Asia I saw almost no babies with diapers. Yet I commonly saw infants who would seem to eliminate on command. Their moms would hold them over a gutter with their pants down, whistle a quiet hiss, or grunt, and then the baby would go. At one year! Two-year olds would find their own place to squat. The real story behind this magic is that the child communicates their elimination needs to the mom, who learns to understand their unique signals, and then she communicates back whether all is ready or not. The result is a baby toilet-trained long before anyone in developed countries believes is possible, or even healthy. And this diaper-less, yet mess-less, state is common in parts of Africa and Latin America as well.

I love this idea of teaching my daughter to sign, and being able to read her elimination signals, an avoid “walking toilets” that are nappies.

In practice I think these sorts of methods take enormous time and energy, and I am afraid those are in short supply with a new baby.

we’ll see….


Westerners have been getting fatter and fatter at alarming rates since the 80s. Now Chinese and Indians are rapidly catching up.

Now it seems, we have been unfairly blaming fat for the obesity epidemic, but it has been carbohydrates all along.

From End the War on Fat, It could be making us sicker.

Thirty years ago, America declared war against fat. The inaugural edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published in 1980 and subsequently updated every five years, advised people to steer clear of “too much fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol,” because of purported ties between fat intake and heart disease. The message has remained essentially the same ever since, with current guidelines recommending that Americans consume less than 10 percent of their daily calories from saturated fat.

But heart disease continues to devastate the country, and, as you may have noticed, we certainly haven’t gotten any thinner. Ultimately, that’s because fat should never have been our enemy. The big question is whether the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, due out at the end of the year, will finally announce retreat.

The foundation for the “fat is bad” mantra comes from the following logic: Since saturated fat is known to increase blood levels of “bad” LDL cholesterol, and people with high LDL cholesterol are more likely to develop heart disease, saturated fat must increase heart disease risk. If A equals B and B equals C, then A must equal C.

Well, no. With this extrapolation, scientists and policymakers made a grave miscalculation: They assumed that all LDL cholesterol is the same and that all of it is bad. A spate of recent research is now overturning this fallacy and raising major questions about the wisdom of avoiding fat, especially considering that the food Americans have been replacing fat with—processed carbohydrates—could be far worse for heart health. “

Scientific America also picked up on this theme recently.

From “Carbs against Cardio: More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart

Eat less saturated fat: that has been the take-home message from the U.S. government for the past 30 years. But while Americans have dutifully reduced the percentage of daily calories from saturated fat since 1970, the obesity rate during that time has more than doubled, diabetes has tripled, and heart disease is still the country’s biggest killer. Now a spate of new research, including a meta-analysis of nearly two dozen studies, suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit. Processed carbohydrates, which many Americans eat today in place of fat, may increase the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease more than fat does—a finding that has serious implications for new dietary guidelines expected this year.

In March the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a meta-analysis—which combines data from several studies—that compared the reported daily food intake of nearly 350,000 people against their risk of developing cardiovascular disease over a period of five to 23 years. The analysis, overseen by Ronald M. Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, found no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease.”

This is a staggering finding.

Its not that saturated fats are good, but its likely that carbohydrates are significantly worse, especially high GI refined carbohydrates.

“If you reduce saturated fat and replace it with high glycemic-index carbohydrates, you may not only not get benefits—you might actually produce harm,” Ludwig argues. The next time you eat a piece of buttered toast, he says, consider that “butter is actually the more healthful component.”