Originally Posted by igopogo
(Post 17269041)
I'm in SFO and I'm wondering why I would want it to be a hub? Wouldn't that mean I'd pay hub fares for every flight? Also, as a mileage runner, I consider longer itineraries to be a bonus.
|
Originally Posted by raucous
(Post 17362512)
And by the way, for you SFO-haters out there, I second someone's comment earlier that it's tiring to hear the negativity from you all. This thread was clearly titled SFO, so if you don't want to listen in our conversation about painful changes to the airline we love and rely on, just don't click on the thread please. Recognize we are largely still trying to stay with AA and that in its own small way helps makes the airline better and viable for all of us, even those who don't live in the Bay Area.
|
When I look at a lot of award travel that requires me to do silly things like SFO->DFW->ORD->NRT, I'd definitely rather SFO be a hub. Granted, there are better routes if I book further out, but having direct flights if booked within 3-4 months, that would be wonderful.
|
Originally Posted by planetcub
(Post 18060904)
I, too, agree on that. When it comes to MR, there is nothing better than an additional leg (e.g., SFO-LAX-JFK) without paying higher fare...(well, not include the tax and fees).
I'm fine with AA's SFO service. Also, SJC has early and late night flights for connections so sometimes I make my way down there. I've also flown SFO-LAX-SAN many times. AA does try to compete on this route because often they match the fares of its competitors. The only hole is SFO-SNA. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.