EaglesOhThree

Considering the airline is based in the UK that's a pretty important clarification!

elitetraveler

If you look at my original comments it was in response to the coordinated operations of AA/BA in the U.S. so I do believe it was fairly clear.

sts603

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=oh%20snap

elitetraveler

Thanks for the nooner

sts603

ROFL ^

MAH4546

Schedules...

FLL:
AA633 JFK 0735-1050 FLL 738 Daily
AA821 JFK 1535-1900 FLL 738 Daily

AA644 FLL 1150-1440 JFK 738 Daily
AA824 FLL 2000-2250 JFK 738 Daily

JFK-LAS 2nd frequency
AA771 JFK 1925-2225 LAS 757 Daily
AA786 LAS 1055-1905 JFK 757 Daily

JFK-MCO, 3rd and 4th frequency
AA1464 JFK 1200-1500 MCO 738 Daily
AA1515 JFK 1930-2235 MCO 738 Daily

AA1516 MCO 0825-1055 JFK 738 Daily
AA1470 MCO 1555-1835 JFK 738 Daily

GVA

Half of these new frequencies seem to be slot holding flights rather than a real interest in serving the market. I think over time the flights will develop into trans-atlantic flights.

I wonder what is next for AA from JFK on the domestic front? DEN, PHX, IAH seem to be major markets currently left out from JFK. I could possibly see YOW as an eagle flight.

Wasn't an extra frequency planned on JFK-LHR ? Has this plan been dropped?

sts603

Now why would you say that? I think the focus is on feeding international connections (both AA and OW) more than the NYC market but I don't see any basis for the allegation that they are place holders. More international and less domestic feed doesn't seem to be a winning formula either.

salut0

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

Google or search for ITI and TWOV and you can read about two such programs that no longer exist. (Although one flight perhaps does this still, sort of: Air New Zealand LHR to AKL via LAX, though it's a horrible experience according to some).

sts603

On what grounds? NZ is a damn good airline.

Supersonic Swinger

Probably because it involves LAX...?

ijgordon

US airports are not set up for this. There is no mechanism to ensure that a foreign passenger from an international flight who has not yet cleared immigration remains "off U.S. soil" prior to boarding his departing international flight. The departure area of every single US airport is nonsterile, meaning anyone can just leave the airport. It could obviously be very very bad if an unscreened passenger just wandered out of the airport. You could theoretically herd international-to-international connecting passengers to a special secure lounge, but (1) it would need to be guarded, (2) the pax would need to be escorted to their departure gates (risky in a crowded terminal), and (3) they'd probably be bored silly in a secure departure lounge that likely had minimal services.

kebosabi

Not true. All deplaning passengers from inbound international flights (except from certain airports in Canada and Ireland) are always within a "sterile" area which directly lead into US immigration and customs. They don't deplane into the departure/arrival area like domestic travel and no one can walk out of the airport grounds without first going through immigration and customs.

When arriving into DFW from say NRT or LHR, do you deplane from the jetbridge into the open terminal area like arriving into DFW from LAX? No, all the doors are locked and all passengers go through a secure zone all the way into US immigration and customs. Same with JFK, ORD, MIA, and LAX; no one: US citizens, foreign passport holders, or crew members can simply walk out of the airport without first clearing US immigration and customs control. A sterile zone definitely does exist.

Canada and UK's immigration and checkpoint system is pretty much similar to ours: same redundant and doofus TSA like security, no passport checks or exit stamps to leave Canada, direct secure areas feeding into Canadian immigration and customs control from international flights, yet they have an efficient system for ITI passengers without the stupidity of all deplaning passengers to enter Canada and collect their bags to recheck. For many, flying NRT-YVR-MEX is much more easier than flying NRT-LAX-MEX because of this; Canada does not require passengers ongoing to an international destination to enter Canada, they can remain in a sterile zone by just following signs that says "international transit passengers." Without the need to wait in long lines or waiting for bags to come, ITI in Canada is much more smoother than any of all the mishaps that may happen when transiting in the US.

DLNYC

Two words: Global Entry.

kebosabi

I have a NEXUS card which also allows me to get Global Entry for free (see "Fee" section), but doesn't do much good because I still have to wait forever to collect my bags. No matter how fast I clear US immigration and customs, I still have to wait in a very gloomy area for my bags to come out.

BTW, if you live near Canada or travel quite often to Canada like myself, I'd definitely go for getting a NEXUS card than the Global Entry. NEXUS costs $50 for a five year membership, speeds up immigration into Canada plus it comes with Global Entry gratis, while Global Entry costs $100 for the same five year validity but doesn't help you get into Canada any faster.