Originally Posted by C17PSGR (Post 28718938)

Well ... as I was looking at a flight from LAX to Europe recently ... options were to connect at PHL, CLT, ORD, or JFK. Apart from avoiding the A332, JFK has a Flagship lounge while PHL and CLT don't. It also has the romance factor that PHL just doesn't have. All that being said, I find the PHL international experience to be fine. In comparison, my priority bags at JFK seem to come out last. Then again, my first few hundred thousand miles were on TWA, when they were failing and giving away status like crazy, even to college students who flew a lot!

I wonder if I'm not the only one on the West Coast who still thinks that connecting at JFK is the preferred connection even if reality suggests that connecting at PHL is fine and efficient, even if it lacks the romance of JFK.

Originally Posted by dkc192 (Post 28719257)

I'd agree, if originating in LAX and to a slightly lesser extent SFO. The key there being frequent A321T service (vastly superior in-flight experience than the nasty LUS A321s to PHL and CLT or a ho-hum 737 to ORD, especially up front). LAX has almost hourly service to JFK in the morning to connect to the European flights, and SFO has hung on to two morning flights (8am and 11am, IIRC) that can connect as well.

Originally Posted by LDVFlyer (Post 28718976)

Apparently, JFK-LHR alone may be enough to make AA a viable competitor in NYC.

How do we know that? Delta told us. When Delta acquired its stake in VS, it explained that despite its NYC network advantage, AA still had an edge with corporate customers because of its BA JV on JFK/LHR.

Originally Posted by perseus11 (Post 28719075)

Do you mean "Trenton" ??
This incessant nega-AA, nega-PHL posture is getting a bit tiring and contributes nothing, except a flawed personal agenda, to the Forum. Enough already.

Originally Posted by Adelphos (Post 28719451)

If you have to connect TATL from the West Coast, isn't the better option just to connect at LHR after flying BA?

I just got off of LAX to JFK, AA does offer a nice product on many routes to NYC. The fact they added JFK to DEN seems to suggest they will maintain key O&D routes from NYC. Ultimately in NYC it may be better to fly multiple airlines anyway

Originally Posted by JonNYC (Post 28720940)

For those who aren't adverse to connecting at LHR getting to Europe (and I certainly am, when given any choice,) there will soon be at least one more option to get to LHR from the U.S. on AA so that will, to a small degree, even further give folks option to "overfly JFK" (as it were) where they might connect at JFK now or have historically when flying AA.

Originally Posted by C17PSGR (Post 28718938)

Apart from avoiding the A332

Originally Posted by commavia (Post 28718362)

Some things are more multi-dimensional than two words. This, in my view, is one of them.

For the time being, I'll place more weight on the (more than two) words of AA's own executives on this matter, along with the "track record" of major investments AA has made, and is continuing to make, in the NYC market.

Originally Posted by tphuang (Post 28721239)

Outside of the flagship first dining, what other investments has AA made in NYC recently? Every time I fly out of terminal 8, I keep wondering why it has so few shops and restaurant options that I want to use compared to T5. And also have to go such a long way to reach Concourse C.

Originally Posted by Adelphos (Post 28720960)

PHX?

Originally Posted by Ldnn1 (Post 28721823)

Or BOS? Hard to think of any candidates beyond those two.

Originally Posted by JonNYC (Post 28720940)

For those who aren't adverse to connecting at LHR getting to Europe (and I certainly am, when given any choice,) there will soon be at least one more option to get to LHR from the U.S. on AA so that will, to a small degree, even further give folks option to "overfly JFK" (as it were) where they might connect at JFK now or have historically when flying AA.