MrMan

Stephen,

Any news with these changes on the ability to book award travel on BA, IB or other OneWorld Partners online and avoid the phone?

Hyperacusis

Stephen - I don't think hillrider's question had to do with the number of codeshares, but rather whether certain fares can be used on those codeshares.

For example, there are a number of cheaper business class AA fares (I-class fares) that require you to fly on an AA transatlantic flight, and do not allow you to use a BA transatlantic flight (or even an AA codeshare on a BA operated flight, such as the 61** codes). Similarly, there are cheaper BA fares that require the transatlantic flight to be BA operated, and those cheaper BA fares are not valid when trying to use AA operated flights, even if there is a BA codeshare on those AA flights.

To repeat the original question, will we see fares that do not force you to use a certain operating carrier on transatlantic routes? If so, when will these fares be implemented?

skunker

Military? US military? Where exactly would all this traffic be going? I assume you mean all the military would generate leisure traffic, not the military would would use the flight on official business, right?

Cruise traffic is down in SAN, we lost our full-time homeported Carnival cruise last year. I don't see people wanting to fly from Europe to take a 3-7 Mexico cruise.

For what it's worth I don't mind the LAX transfer: nicer AC, faster customs, and if you are correct, full F. But, I'm sure BA knows more than I do since there are plenty of pasty Brits on the beaches already.

steve32

Need to be careful about "separate fare beyond", given the large fee for departing the UK unless it's a transit, and there have been previous reports of difficulty in getting the airlines to not collect that fee if the transit is via a different ticket, even though it's the same day.

Getting the three airlines to be able to truly mix/match fares for each leg as announced will go a long way towards making both our lives and those of the TAs/GAs easier on this point.

Steve32

Tries

IMO: DFW-HEL, or MIA-HEL would be really better than ORD-HEL as it could serve people living on the West Coast (plus LAS) or the South-East area. Not sure though, if it wouldn't be too far for the 763.

And LHR-SAN is really a lottery ticket as SAN is not OW hub. Let's start counting when it will discontinue. It's highly weak bet on SAN

AmericanAirlines

You can view video highlights from today’s press conference hosted by AA, BA and IB announcing the official launch of the JBA here: http://bit.ly/JBAVideo Let us know what you think!

ashill

Huh? The military uses commercial flights for official business all the time. The government has so much volume that they can negotiate special fares (so-called "military/government fares"), which are fully refundable/changeable but much cheaper than those available to other customers, for official business travel on commercial airlines.

Blumie

I could be wrong about this, but I think the airlines do a bit more market analysis than is involved in our armchair quarterbacking of their operations. You may not think SAN-LHR or ORD-HEL are going to do well -- and they might not -- but I suspect a fair bit of market analysis, with data that is not readily ascertainable by us amateurs, is conducted before new routes are launched.

skunker

Exactly, and NONE of those special fares are on foreign carriers.

http://www.tvlon.com/resources/FlyAct.html

i_fly_AA

Yes, but LHR is OW hub. If you're saying that both ends of TATL flights have to be hubs, then by your theory, the current LHR flights to BOS, RDU, SEA, YVR, YYZ, DEN, SFO, etc. would not exist.

skunker

I just thought they threw darts.

SAN has had numerous new destinations announced in the past few years, most have failed. I'll set the over/under at the duration of the AA SAN-BOS flight. A lot can happen between now and June 2011.

http://www.san.org/documents/announc...AN_Service.pdf

oscietra

I probably should have clarified Military as Defense-related business.

Plus plenty of conference traffic.

But the fundamental driver will be the leisure traveler and business people for whom LAX would have been the natural choice, but for whom the drive from Southern California to LAX is not ideal, and who therefore prefer to travel direct to London, and also for those tourists who have seen the light about TBIT, and wisely choose to avoid it.

Remember LHR is all about connecting traffic, and T5 is a superb gateway to the rest of Europe. That makes this route different from the other Domestic routes which have not succeeded, and also the fact that the recession is (gradually) drawing to a close so that once things are improving, the route will be properly established, and able to take advantage of growth.

ashill

None of them are marketed by foreign carriers. They can be operated by foreign carriers. I flew on QF LAX-SYD and back on an AA flight number on a government fare this year. QF Y sure beats UA Y!

ETA: Note the last section of your link (re code sharing).

On-topic: this is yet another (albeit relatively minor) advantage of ATI: it lets AA/BA/IB compete easily for those government contracts on each others' flights.

elitetraveler

Earlier it was operated SAN-LAX-LGW (late 80s/early 90s) with a 747-200. Interestingly it was an easy F award if you went down to SAN when the same flight and the LHR flight didn't have availability ex-LAX. On the return, you simply deplaned at LAX if you didn't check luggage.

skunker

Here is why they are trying it for the third time:
http://www.signsandiego.com/news/201...ht-third-time/

"There were also some hefty local incentives for British Airways to return to San Diego. The Regional Airport Authority has granted BA an attractive package that includes $750,000 in marketing incentives over the first two years as well as a 100 percent rebate of landing fees in year one. Half the landing fees will be returned to BA the second year of the contract."