AA or CO to Europe?
 

The thought of making 6 trips to Euroland in the next 5 months (albeit in paid business class) is leading me to revisit the wisdom of flying AA. They run their 777s from ORD to LHR (I don't want to use JFK) and 767s for Paris.

Alternatively, I can routes though EWR on 777s to LGW. To CDG, they have a mix of 777s and 767-200s.

So, is CO any better than AA on these routes?

The only domestic advantage of AA is that PLATs can select exit rows (which is a HUGE advantage of Embraers and MD80s). Will CO ever allow elites to select exit rows? [It appears that GOLDs have to call customer service to request an exit row].

If only SkyTeam had better Asian connections. Not a big NW fan.

Golds can now reserve exit rows on CO. And with those business trips you be platinum anyway.

I would answer your question with several *depends*. I am top tier on both carriers. I fly both to Europe.

1) Where are you flying to? AA only flies to FIVE cities in the winter and SIX in the summer. This means you have to fly on partners to go anywhere else. And there is no real Business intra europe. And you can't upgrade on partners with Systemwides etc. Co flies to more cities in Europe than any othe US airline by a huge factor. You could add all of UAL, AA, NWA, and US air and have less cities. CO has a huge scope.

2) Are you tall or fat? AA has MIDDLE seats in Business. The put an extra seat on each roww on the 777 and 767 verses CO. CO thus has much wider seats. AA also has some pitch issues in the fron trow of the 767 (like no darn pitch). If you are under 6"3 and are skinny... maybe it doesn't matter.

3) AA gives Executive platinums 8 systemwides Co, doesn't.

4) CO planes are clean and modern. AA's planes are tired and old.

The real answer really depends on where you are flying to.

I agree that AA's planes are tired and old. That is part of the problem.

I will be going to London, Frankfurt, Lisbon, Paris (2) and Geneva.

Although I am big, I don't care about domestic upgrades per se. Just as long as I get an exit row.

Well, AA flies to LHR, FRA, and CDG, but not GVA or LIS. (The closest you could get would be LHR/ZRH/MAD.)

CO flies nonstop from EWR to LGW, FRA, CDG, GVA, and LIS. (as well as nonstop IAH-LGW and IAH-CDG.)

I always say taking a nonstop beats connecting (doubly so considering you would have to connect *after* your 6-8 hour transatlantic flight), especially when you would have to deal with intra-euro "business" class, and connecting in either LHR (to BA) or MAD (to IB).

I'm sure CO would be happy to comp you to gold based on your AA status, and with those five paid business trips, you'd be about 500 miles from plat (flying CMH-EWR-Europe- swap a paris or london flight to CMH-IAH-europe and you'd clear platinum extremely quickly.) I think CO's J (BusinessFirst) class beats out AA's C class to europe heartily, though if you can confirm upgrades to AA F then it might be worth it. For me, the convenience of nonstop flights USA-Europe would be worth taking CO.

I will be at GOLD after 4 trips, so no need to bother with a Comp to CO GOLD.

But I think I am going to switch to CO for 2007. The thought of nonstop flights AND a clean aircraft are enough to sell me!

Well, just remember that if you get comped to gold, you'll get a 50% bonus in earned RDM for those four flights too ;) That comes to a bonus of about 20k miles!

Take Continental! :D

I dont have long term experience like you veterans.

I started with CO silver and will be hitting GOLD this year. I've been able to grab the Exit Rows at the time of Online Check-In so far.

I am not sure if Gold will allow me to HOLD them sooner.

Even being Silver I've gotten upgraded to BF a lot of times automatically.

Thats my CO experience thus far. AA I really dont know.

You have to realize, American and United have huge revenue streams in Europe (larger than Continental) because they fly to the KEY world destinations. London Heathrow, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. While Continental flies to many more cities, they still don't have the large presence in these key markets (namely Heathrow). United is very large in both LHR and FRA. Continental (and Delta) spreads it out over many smaller markets.

Well that isn't a problem with those new Business seats of American's. Too bad they are not deployed anywhere near systemwide.


I disagree; American has a much larger fleet of very modern 777-200ER aircraft than Continental, and thier 767s are reasonable. The reason CO has such a modern fleet is because they don't own many of their aircraft.

So.. AA and UA are making money in europe. Wonderful. But they still don't fly to many destinations; if I want to get anywhere outside of three or four key cities, I have to connect to a european partner. After a long flight. To intra-euro "business" class. The convenience of a nonstop sells me. Their business decisions may be good, but it's not going to convince me to fly them.

Agreed. But AA will always lag in business class, because they want to promote their first class product. Nothing wrong with that, it's a business decision that sets them apart from two class carriers.
But for those of us who buy C/J, it's a valid consideration; I often find airlines with J class preferable to those with C class. (Parallel the more extreme cases of VS J and BA C.) (and, of course, assuming one can't guarantee an upgrade to F.)

Uh, is that a bad thing? Buying aircraft vs leasing aircraft is a business decision, it shouldn't influence who you decide to fly.

I switched to American on July 27th. I have flow business a few times to Europe. Continental has a better product. If you're paying for business, I'd select Continental. If you have a choice for international travel, I'd select Continental.

This is one of those situations where you have to balance your preferences.

If you you also travel on personal, coach tickets, then the value of the upgrade certs is higher. It's also easier to redeem miles for business class travel, in my experience on AA. Or if you like to upgrade to F, well, I have the say AA's suites (and the entire fleet is being converted to suites, although most LHR flights already are) are the best thing I've ever sat in in F.

If you route through ORD, once you make EXP, you will also have access to the Flagship (First Class) Lounge in ORD.

The business class seats on the 777 are a 1.5" narrower than CO's. On the 767, they are annoyingly narrow (for my large shoulders), but you do get 60+" of seat pitch. I, for example, find the CO BF seats too short and I'm just 5'11" Not sure how taller folks manage.

You'll also, as an EXP, have access to the EXP desk for bookings, etc. The EXP desk is like getting the best RSA you've ever gotten on the phone...only every time.

Steve

For 2007 I would choose CO for European trips in business. The BF seats are much better than the seats on AA and the service on CO is superior. In 2008, once AA finishes rolling their new business seats, that might change, but for right now CO has, hands down, the better product. Now if you can get upgraded to F on AA, that is a different story!!!!!!

I agree. It's a tough call and there are several specific areas of competition you'd need to evaluate:
(sorry for the long post)

Transatlantic business class offering
Even this is a tough comparison. AA's 2-class 767 J soft product is pretty comparable to CO in terms of catering, etc. Hard product, namely seat comfort, is a toss-up depending on preference. CO gives more seat width (2-1-2 config @ 21" vs. 2-2-2 @ 18.5") and electronically-operated seats; AA gives more pitch (62" vs. 55") and thus greater recline. Depends on your personal preference. For IFE, AA hands out DVD players and Bose headphones, so it's basically VOD, but a bit clunky while dining. CO has a playback loop and no good headphones, but is installing a very good AVOD product into it's 757s, which service EWR-LIS and some EWR-LGW/CDG flights. Many people bring their own IFE, so this may not even be a relevant point of comparison. Note, AA is in the process of reconfiguring the 767 J cabin with lie-flat seats, closer to what CO has on their 777s but flatter and with greater pitch (although the hard-backed seat shells reduce effective space), also with a personal AVOD player. The reconfiguration is supposedly accelerating and is scheduled to be completed in Q1'07. Initial reviews are that the seats are pretty comfortable, a big improvement over the current AA 763-J seats, and I'm going to guess that they'll be better than CO's offerings on most metrics at the end of the day.

Now, if you connect through ORD-LHR, you would be on a 777. AA's J product here substantially lags CO in all respects except seat pitch (60" vs 55"). Catering is very weak. A 2-3-2 config in a 777 isn't bad; seat width is very reasonable, I think 20", same as CO 757, 1" less than CO 767 and 2" less than CO 777. Don't be turned away by the middle-seat argument which is a red herring IMHO. There is plenty of seat separation so you won't be touching elbows with anyone. It's better than a window seat in that you have 2 egresses to the aisle (but no window to look out of course). And note that the middle seats are last to fill up, and often remain empty, so if you're on one of the aisles in the center you have a decent chance at an empty middle next to you. So it would seem CO is the clear winner over AA's 777-J, but the wrench in the analysis is that you can upgrade from J to F with miles (25K o/w) and get a true flat bed. Availability is usually pretty good for these types of upgrades. Without going into details of the 2 different hard product F offerings currently, AA F > CO J. So you have to consider this possibility.

Domestic flights
CO is better, period, particularly in F. No cramped and dirty old MD-80 cabins, always the pre-departure drink of your choice, ceramic vs. plastic coffee mugs, and IMO, slightly better catering. AA is improving faster than CO, but off a much lower base; AA just recently brought back metal silverware, CO's had it for a few years now. However, CO F is harder to get into, either through upgrades and sometimes even paid F since they don't have as many seats (i.e., many planes with only 8-14 seats, AA has at least 16 on all mainline aircraft).

Frequent flyer program
AA wins hands-down here, and this is an important longer-term consideration.
If you can make Executive Platinum (100K miles), it will blow away CO's top-tier: systemwide upgrade certificates, fantastic agents (not that CO's are bad, but the AA EXP desk only services their very best customers), and a domestic (free) upgrade completion rate likely to be 90-100%. Many CO plats only report 30% upgrade rates. More FC seats on AA is the primary difference. Companion upgrades on AA clear in advance, so these are pretty easy to get too. If you only make AA Platinum, upgrades are much better than CO, although they are not free, which means you're not competing against ALL same-level elites for the FC seat like you are on CO. If you want the seat and don't mind paying (cash or earned points), you have a MUCH better chance of clearing.

Award availability much better on AA, IME, and a much better partner network (e.g., OneWorld vs. SkyTeam), with more opportunities to redeem awards in Int'l F class (CX/BA/QF/AA/JL/LA with AA, vs. only QF with CO).

Domestic upgrade award inventory is MUCH more readily available on AA.

Cheaper co-pays on int'l upgrade awards on AA. ($250 for most fare classes).

No 24-hour rule on int'l upgrade awards on AA; if a seat is availble before departure, you should be able to clear.

No saturday-night stay requirements on domestic coach awards on AA. One AA drawback is no combining award types, e.g., coach/first or cheap/double-miles awards if the one you want isn't available in both directions; CO lets you do this.

:confused: Can you please explain to me the difference between C class and J class? :confused: