paul4040

The cost of my positioning flight was 0 Avios and £0, because I tagged it onto a UK domestic redemption which I was going to have to take anyway. But yes in most cases you'll have an additional cost which reduces the saving somewhat.

I agree that hotels are much, much safer than running like the McAllisters from Home Alone through airports.

I still don't understand why the OP is returning to DUB when he can finish his journey in London and get the train back to Exeter. I think his biggest risk is in fact missing the LCY-EXT sector and then having a London hotel to stump up for.

Quote me on this: back to backs are mad!

NickB

I would have thought that taking an earlier flight is riskier than doing a back-to-back: with a back-to-back, if your outbound flight is delayed or cancelled, so is your inbound. Not so if you take an earlier flight, which could end up delayed or cancelled while the inbound on which you are booked is operating according to schedule.

NickB

A 40 mins connection on two tickets when the two flights are operated by different planes is asking for problems. When the two flights are operated by the same aircraft, then it is a different kettle of fish. I personally have no issue with this one as long as this is done HBO only and having OLCI'ed and with BP in hand for both flights before leaving LON. OTOH, arriving on an LCY flight planning to catch an LHR flight 60 to 90 mins later, this would be asking for problems.

Swiss Tony

But you can't just hang out by the gate in Dublin - you have go go through immigration & back through security, right? They could turn the plane in 25 mins, with boarding pax lined up ready to board in the event of a delay.

Anyway, I wouldn't do it - and can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to tackle this route this way, especially on a redemption, when they could just go straight to the US from Dublin with the bonus of pre-clearance.

NickB

Yes but going through immigration and security at DUB with access to fast track thanks to the J redemption (even if the OP is not SCH/GCH) is not quite like going through immigration and security at LHR T5 connection or at Pyongyang Sunan International Airport.
Sure: the risk is not zero but it is very small.

Actually, it would be much riskier to do a LON-DUB on a revenue ticket and then a separate (redemption) ticket direct to the US from DUB on AA or US: the risk of a misconnect is much higher in this hypothesis unless you stay overnight in DUB. In this latter case, your risk of misconnect is lower but not nil either: what if there is an issue in the evening at LHR resulting in all remaining LON-DUB being cancelled for the day? Admittedly, the odds are rather low but they are still higher than not making it on a back-to-back at DUB.

docgasman

Matt, NickB is a voice of wisdom on this - I agree with all he has written. I particularly would not advise taking the flight before a "back to back" flight. My specific example being 29th January when DUB services from T5 were operating out of sequence due to IRROPS - mechanical on that day. As NickB has written - entering jetway, through CTA identity check, blue customs channel and fast track security to DAA lounge - I estimate 12 minutes. I often arrive in the DAA car park 25 minutes before scheduled departure of LHR shuttle and, whilst I tend to go to Gate 301 / 302, I could nip to the lounge for some bottled water - best of luck and heed NickB - I don't concur with some of the other "advice" given here.

Calchas

AA undertake to protect you in this circumstance across separate tickets.
http://www.aa.com/i18n/agency/Bookin...tkt_policy.jsp

This is supposed to be a oneworld policy, but BA do not admit it.

MartinRattler

It's all a matter of risk assessment and tolerance for stress; I have a colleague who planned a back to back ex EU and then had a return to stand on departure from London, which would have resulted in missing the TATL. It took a bit of pleading to agree to let him depart on the TATL without the positioning flight.

It all worked out in the end, personally I wouldn't plan it, but everyone is different.

Globaliser

There is one partial defence against this, which some FTers seem to be unaccountably shy of doing: Before you disembark, tell the cabin crew that you are flying back with them and will see them again in a few minutes.

Obviously, they won't wait forever if you are seriously delayed. But people are people.

Calum

I took have an ex-EU booooking like this.

BA - LHR-CPH @ 12:50-15:40
EZY - CPH-EDI @ 18:35-19:25

I'm not looking forward to it... It's nearly 3 hours but I get the felling that I'll be wetting myself if my BA flight is delayed...

NickB

AA's policies would only help if the first ticket was on AA and the second one on another OW carrier. This is the opposite situation here. And if there is a OW policy that is applied by BA, then there is no issue with the back-to-back either so why the fuss, then?
The problem with the OW policy is that you have to rely on the goodwill of BA in following the policy. Even if that policy exists (which, as an empirical fact, is probably true), a passenger would have no legal entitlement to insist on it being followed. All in all, the back-to-back remains less risky because it lowers the risk of a missed connection and therefore the need to rely on that policy.

But if the outward from LON resulted in a return to stand and the flight was cancelled or severely delayed then presumably the ex-EU flight was also cancelled or severely delayed and passengers originating ex-EU would equally have missed the connection. Your argument would therefore not be against back-to-backing as such but against ex-EU generally or even against anything other than direct flights unless it cannot be avoided.

MartinRattler

As I wrote, everyone is different. In your example above, the ex EU pax would have mis-connected and those with through tickets would have been re-routed, those with separate tickets may have been re-routed.

Some people may find the risk/reward/stress/hassle coupling acceptable, others may not, there's nothing to argue about IMHO. Some may not have had a choice other than to take the connecting flight.

NickB

I do not understand what you mean by "those on separate tickets may have been rerouted"
In a typical ex-DUB (or ex-EU: just replace DUB by the relevant EU airport) positioning, there will be 2 tickets:
ticket 1: LHR-DUB
ticket 2: DUB-LHR-XXX

If back-to-backing and LHR-DUB is cancelled, then DUB-LHR will also be cancelled. Therefore all passengers due to fly on that cancelled DUB-LHR flight, both those 'truly' starting from DUB as well as those positioning at DUB from LHR on "ticket 1" above (viz. the equivalent of your friend in your example) would be entitled to rerouting.
I do not understand which are the passengers which you would regard as passengers who "may" be rerouted as opposed to those who "would" be rerouted.
In practice, moreover (and this seems confirmed by anecdotal reports), BA would typically allow someone who is already in LON and has their DUB-LHR cancelled to skip the initial leg and jump straight to the LHR-XXX flight. But even if they did not and insisted that the passenger must start ticket 2 from DUB, the passenger would still be entitled to be rerouted on a later flight.

golfmad

I follow your argument provided the above statement is true but I'm not convinced that it always is. It's more likely to be true the fewer daily flights there are from the outstation in question but with so many flights daily to/from DUB it's conceivable that the return flight DUB-LHR could be operated even in the event of a cancelled outbound.

These circumstances may be unlikely but defeat the logic of your argument and with it the conclusions that you draw.

Filthy Monkey

I'm with docgasman and NickB on this one. You fly in and out on the same plane and the route through the airport is quick and easy. I've done it a few times and the chance of anything going wrong is almost non-existent. As it happens, I'll be doing this very thing again on Thursday evening, so will report back on timings and any possible problems afterwards