SpinOn2

If only AA would have some AVOD in the 767, I know they are old planes but it's ludicrous to me they are upgrading all 767's and yet didn't want to spend to get a nice AVOD in them.... so old. At least they have tablets for J but still.

AA really has done a poor getting their widebody planes similar.

Like the poor 777 still vs the 772 and 77W. the poor 767 in coach to the nice A330's in coach, still using a 757 on long routes like AMS-PHL. But this is a gripe for a different thread so I digress.

Fanjet

The 763s were upgraded prior to the merger. In a little over a year's time, there will only be 18 (IIRC) of these birds still in service (they had originally upgraded a lot more). They're on their way out. Putting more money into them would be nice, but also a waste of money. Now, if AA starts replacing some of the 332/333 PHL-Europe service with 763s, I can see why people using that service being upset. But I don't think that is happening. (* PHL-ZRH is coming back and being flown with a 763. But keep in mind that service prior was being flown with a 762 until those were retired; and only flown with a 332 for two or three years). And PHL-PRG/BUD was never flown from there before. So it's a little hard to complain about the aircraft being used. There are no more "poor 777s" left. They have all been upgraded. Now, they will be fitted with a premium economy section.

SpinOn2

I am talking about upgraded in Y. The business upgrade is nice, but they barely did anything in Y at all. To not have a decent entertainment option in Y on the plane in 2017 is silly. From the sounds of it, AA did not want to pay for what it would cost to upgrade the wiring enough to ascertain AVOD. So the back of the bus, although nice with the 2-4-2 seating, is still insanely outdated.

And it appears you are right about the 777 my mistake. The AA wideboy schedule shows the 777 a lot still, unlike the 772 which is the refurbished one, so it is a bit confusing. However doing dummy bookings on the routes that still show that, it is appearing as the 772 with 36J or 44J on all, so that is a positive. Haven't flown in a 777 since December but I am still a little annoyed about the pathetic AVOD on that one at the time personally.

econometrics

You will be pleasantly surprised the next time you fly a 777, then. All the refurbished frames have excellent AVOD... particularly the 772's with Super Diamond seats (currently 26 of the 47 777-200's), as they have a stationary AVOD screen that does not have to be stowed for T/T/L.

Also, I'm happy to see more 763 TATL.

Give me the 2-3-2 seats without AVOD (I'll bring my iPad or just sleep) over the 3-4-3 of the 777 fleet.

AA is also installing wifi on these 763 pretty quickly. I know they have done the same with some of the A330's, but I'm not sure how that's progressing.

All in all... a direct US-BUD/PRG on an outdated 763 beats a US-LHR-BUD/PRG on an updated plane with a 2 hour flight in the vexing BA EU Y cabin.

AlwaysAisle

Yes, I agree about Y cabin. Starting back with 747-400s, then 777s, A380s, 787s, and A350s, now airlines have aircraft and route easily fly longer than 12 hrs. But I do not think airlines has looked into Y cabin regarding people stuck in the space for that long. I understand that I should appreciate those fare sales which allow me to visit far places for less than US$1000 round trip. But when passengers are stuck in aircraft for 12 hours plus, airlines should not design seats and space of Y cabin same as 737s doing three hours flight.

Even here at FlyerTalk, discussion is pretty much about new seats in Business and First. Hardly talk about Y seats on those long international flights lasting more than 12 hrs.

carlosdca

Why? There is nothing at WAW, it is a pretty inferior tourist destination when compared to BUD and PRG.
And these flights have been added to satisfy a seasonal demand from leisure travelers, haven't they?

econometrics

Having been in PRG, BUD and WAW all during peak tourist season this summer, I can easily say that the American tourist presence in PRG and BUD far outweighs any American presence I felt in WAW.

WAW would have to justify more seasonal, business travel to gain a direct nonstop. And then, I would expect UA to get their long before AA does.

The 3x daily BA WAW flights easily handle any ex-US traffic right now.

craz

BUD and PRG dont have long haul carriers any longer(BUD has WIZZ a LCC but no widebodys) WAW has LOT which has 787s and flys to a few US citys, so if LO doesnt fly into PHL there must be good reason, why would AA think they could make a go of it if LO doesnt think they can, or LO sees better citys to target before PHL.

LO which flew into only JFK at times is now 2x to JFK and also a flight to EWR, could be the 2x is during peak season.I think ORD is other city they fly into along with YYZ and LAX.

econometrics

LOT is also starting 787 service from BUD-ORD & BUD-NYC May 2018.

Calchas

AB are not part of the transatlantic joint venture, unlike like BA/IB/AY. That makes AB a competitor on this route, not a partner except for oneworld marketing purposes.

In fact AB's demise would be a good opportunity for another airline to mop up the spoils.

Ldnn1

Your argument doesn't really add up. Of the 18 EU cities AA now serves from PHL, only CDG, FRA and LHR are served by other carriers. Cities like ZRH, FCO, AMS and MUC have much bigger players than the likes of LO at WAW and yet none of those fly to PHL from those bases. So frankly the fact that LO doesn't fly to PHL doesn't reveal much at allabout whether it might work for AA. The only thing it means is that AA would have a monopoly on the route, like it does on most routes from PHL.

That notwithstanding, I wouldn't expect WAW to be top of the list for next AA destination.

DA201

A lot of the WAW traffic is VFR while the BUD and PRG traffic is tourism. This means that the WAW traffic is coming from more specific regions of the US (particularly ORD and NYC) while the BUD and PRG traffic is more spread out. WAW only has more traffic than PRG and BUD from 2 US cities: ORD and NYC. ORD and NYC already have nonstop service to WAW, so PRG and BUD make more sense.

SpinOn2

I did get to see the 772 with Super Diamond seats flying HNL-DFW earlier this year, but I was in Y MCE so didn't get to experience it, but it was nice looking. I personally didn't mind the 772 with the Zodiac seats personally, didn't really notice much rocking when I flew BCN-JFK on one in DEC.

As someone who personally uses AVOD more than wifi when in Y, I would have prefered a 332 or 333 on these routes, especially being from PHL when they are common anyhow. I am fortunate to get the front of the bus a lot, but one of my most pleasant Y long-haul experiences was VCE-PHL on the 2 side with my girlfriend, it was a nice ride.

In all, I am happy to have PHL-BUD and PHL-PRG though, definitely beats a connection in LHR that's true.

craz

Although Im 15 mins from EWR Id say Ive driven down to PHL more then to EWR. It makes no difference to me fromm where AA will fly to as long as they fly

Im begining to believe that SkyPesos are more valuable then AA currency heck I think Confederate money has more value then AAs
the unknown is if they will offer Saver and how close to the flight till they do so

nwflyboy

Oh, that's definitely true. Delta absolutely deserves all the contempt and scorn they receive.

But AA's program is far, far worse. As bad as they are, at least Skypesos are occasionally usable, and worth much more than AA's DisAdvantage Miles are.