mlibers

I was informed that Continental cannot service from the NY area a flight to Argentina.

Now they fly LAX IAH EZE, I believe as CO52 and CO53, IAH is feeder they use older B762.

So it becomes a hassle to fly to EZE from EWR on CO now that it requires two different flights, before was CO51 EWR IAH EZE and cannot hold flights for delayed arrivals.

nwa330

Are these flight weight restricted? I heard DL takes a lot of cargo and leaves with empty seats.

AznMadSci

On the plus side ... you get more miles for the 2 different sectors than you would EWR-EZE as a single sector.

njcommodore

UA's flight from IAD is a nice one, and more direct.

tex1899

Forgive my curiosity, but since when does CO51 not originate in EWR? Who said CO can't service Argentina from the NYC area? IIRC I flew 51 EWR-IAH in early Oct. Just curious.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the coming years we see more South American flights from LAX, either on CO or UA metal.

njcommodore

51 is now FRA-EWR, EWR-CLE

52 is just IAH-EZE

This must have been recent.

EWR764

That is incorrect, CO continues to serve Buenos Aires with the routing EWR-IAH-EZE. A connection at IAH was always required, there was never a direct CO service EWR-EZE.

Under the same flight number, yes. The 762 has always been used to EZE, except for some periods where a 772 was scheduled on certain days of the week.

The 762 is not a particularly old airplane. CO's deliveries date from 2000 and are quite pleasant to fly on, despite an aging IFE suite.

CO51 EWR-IAH has been replaced by CO405 EWR-IAH. It's no different from before, and more often than not the IAH-EZE segment will be operated by the same airplane as the inbound CO405, just using a different flight number. The flight numbers were switched to give CLE a direct service (with change of gauge) to FRA over EWR now that IAH-FRA is served nonstop by CO and LH.

EWR-EZE always required two different flights, EWR-IAH and IAH-EWR. Now that CO has independent flight numbers, it ensures you will receive actual flown mileage, not the distance between EWR-EZE as if it were a nonstop flight. This is a gain of about 1200 credited miles.

In my experience, CO/IAH is usually pretty good about holding last-flights-out (reasonably) if inbound flights with a lot of connecting pax are slightly delayed. It also helps that the same airplane that makes up CO405 EWR-IAH is likely to operate CO53 IAH-EZE.

All that's changed is the flight number. And, as njcommodore points out, EWR-IAD-EZE on UA is a very good option as well, definitely better in terms of routing efficiency.

rkkwan

Changes start 11/1, with the introduction of CO47 IAH-FRA. Like njcommodore says, the 50/51/52/53 numbers were changed to make it consistent both ways.

Now, 50/51 are the CLE-EWR-FRA flights, while 52/53 are EZE-IAH. The 8:00a IAH-EWR is now 408 with a 738; while the ~4:30p EWR-IAH is 405, though it retains the 762. CO53 to EZE may still use this aircraft, but also may not.

There are other changes in flight numbers that start a week prior. IAH-CDG is changed from CO10/11 to CO32/33. The early IAH-LHR changed from CO32/33 to 34/35 (along with the DEN-IAH segment).

I wonder what flights will they use CO10/11 for.

EWR764

Prime numbers like that (not in the mathematical sense) are ripe for a marquee route like EWR-DXB...