Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Mileage Run Deals
Reload this Page > Aa/ac: Lax-hkg $381-$423 rt

Aa/ac: Lax-hkg $381-$423 rt

Reply

Old Oct 6, 17, 9:28 am
  #16
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kitchener, ON, Canada
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by HLCinCOU View Post
That's a really bad comparison. Looks to me like Y seats on all three are more or less equivalent. The numbers you quote are accurate...but it's the premium cabins that account for the difference.

Bottom line, they pack more people on the HD because they sacrificed premium seating (and lavs vs. AA), not because they made the Y seats smaller. The lavs are a drag I suppose, but unless you're angling for an upgrade I don't see a reason to say "just don't" if you're OK flying similar distances in Y on AA or UA.
Whoa - of course the seats themselves are similar. But - "The lavs are a drag, I suppose?"

No. Just no.

Imagine this - 50 minutes before landing, you're thinking "Hmmm... I should probably pee." Then the pilot comes on and says "We're anticipating turbulence, so we're going to turn the fasten seatbelt sign on early... you've got about ten minutes."

You're now competing with a whopping 65 people per toilet.

Hell to the No.
Boogie711 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 17, 2:12 pm
  #17
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott/SPG Plat, Hilton Silver (haha), National Exec
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by Boogie711 View Post
Whoa - of course the seats themselves are similar. But - "The lavs are a drag, I suppose?"

No. Just no.
Um, OK. First, UA has the exact same number of lavs. Second, your original point appeared to be that CA was packing way more pax into the same amount of space. My point was that's not true, because you ignored the space taken by premium cabins. Having fewer lavs is a drawback...but it's not evidence that they are using the same floospace for more people, which is what you claimed.
HLCinCOU is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 17, 2:22 pm
  #18
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Programs: Hilton, IHG, Alaska, Singapore, ANA, Delta, JAL
Posts: 4,245
He already acknowledged that
davistev is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 17, 8:54 am
  #19
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kitchener, ON, Canada
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,062
Originally Posted by HLCinCOU View Post
Um, OK. First, UA has the exact same number of lavs. Second, your original point appeared to be that CA was packing way more pax into the same amount of space. My point was that's not true, because you ignored the space taken by premium cabins. Having fewer lavs is a drawback...but it's not evidence that they are using the same floospace for more people, which is what you claimed.
I have NO Idea what you're reading. I re-read my quote, and my point was entirely based on the Lav's. I'm not sure what sort of weird spatial conspiracy crap you're trying to accuse me of here, but no - a seat is a seat.

But not being able to pee? Yeah, frankly, that's an issue.

And yes, UA does have 'the same number of Lav's." They have six, AC (not CA, by the way) has six. So, using that logic, an entire office complex with only a port-a-potty is the same thing as a 1 bedroom apartment. They're the same because they have the same number of washrooms.

It's a ludicrous assumption to make, isn't it?

Anyway, in a"Six Washroom Space" Air Canada has managed to shoehorn an extra 90 people on board.

What's that you say? That's not a fair logical argument to make? Air Canada actually devotes more physical space to a larger crowd?

Sure they do. BUT... where are the extra lav's then? That's right - they're not there.

It's a miserable flying experience. I made absolutely no claim whatsoever about lack of physical space. I told people not to fly it.
Boogie711 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 17, 6:54 pm
  #20
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott/SPG Plat, Hilton Silver (haha), National Exec
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by Boogie711 View Post
I have NO Idea what you're reading. I re-read my quote, and my point was entirely based on the Lav's. I'm not sure what sort of weird spatial conspiracy crap you're trying to accuse me of here, but no - a seat is a seat.

Well, you know what you were thinking when you wrote your comment, so fair enough. But I can tell you for sure that when I read it, it absolutely did not occur to me at all that the lavs were the thrust of it. And looking at it again I don't see how any normal person who didn't already know that was your complaint would take it that way. Here's what I was reading:

"...even United, on the SAME airframe, puts a whopping 92(!) less people in economy class..."

The SAME airframe! 92 more people! That sounds like you're saying they packed the airplane tighter to me. Especially after you pointed out in the prior post that HD means "high density." And given the fact that you were responding to somebody who noted both planes had the same number of seats/row. Nowhere in the post do you mention not being able to pee as your problem...but you do mention density and more people on the same airframe. That reads completely like a people/area conversation.

Originally Posted by Boogie711 View Post
And yes, UA does have 'the same number of Lav's." They have six, AC (not CA, by the way) has six. So, using that logic, an entire office complex with only a port-a-potty is the same thing as a 1 bedroom apartment. They're the same because they have the same number of washrooms.
Well obviously that's a wild exaggeration, but point taken; CA has almost 30% more pax/lav vs. UA, and that's not good. If I had thought your comment was at all about the lavs/pax ratio, I wouldn't have taken issue. But your post doesn't read that way to someone not already inside your head. Not at all.
HLCinCOU is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 17, 7:29 pm
  #21
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott/SPG Plat, Hilton Silver (haha), National Exec
Posts: 179
I just re-read the whole thread and now I'm even more mystified how you can think anybody thought your main point was about the lavs. You didn't even mention lavs in a sentence until you responded to my comment. Your first comment said nothing except the "high density" line...how's that supposed to be about lavs? Clearly Jasper didn't think that's what it was about, or he wouldn't have mentioned the seats/row similarity to other carriers. Clearly olouie thought the conversation was about people/area, given that in agreeing with you he said he "felt crushed" on the HD. Then you go into "more people on the SAME" airframe. The lavs are mentioned in the numbers supporting that other argument. But they aren't given even one sentence of the actual argument.

In other words, when I wrote the last comment I figured, "OK, I didn't read it that way, but I'll take Boogie's word for it." But now that I've re-read, that's frankly a bit hard to swallow.
HLCinCOU is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 17, 7:04 am
  #22
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kitchener, ON, Canada
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,062
This has ventured into the ridiculous. Thank you, HLCinCOU, for the reading comprehension lessons.

My point remains, the 777HD on Air Canada is bad news. Everyone have a great day now.

(Except for the people reading this on the aforementioned plane... I'll just say "I hope your day sucks less once you get off that plane.)
Boogie711 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 17, 5:04 pm
  #23
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by 355F1 View Post
DL.com. LAX-HKG-LAX.

There were only a few dates available. I'm going Mar 7-9.check google flights--that's what I do.

i just checked and those dates are still available.
I'm confused.... I can find no reference via google or by the forum search as to what "dl.com" is, and www.dl.com is not a real website.

If I try to look up any HKG flights on aa.com for november / december, i get prices in the $1000 range.

I'm looking to make the trip on AA metal, but trying to figure out where you guys are getting these prices from... ?? I'm originating from ORD and trying to take the 77W airframe from either LAX or DFW and back again so I can use my systemwides for upgrade to Business.
usafltg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 17, 5:12 pm
  #24
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by 355F1 View Post
DL.com. LAX-HKG-LAX.

There were only a few dates available. I'm going Mar 7-9.check google flights--that's what I do.

i just checked and those dates are still available.
I'm confused.... I can find no reference via google or by the forum search as to what "dl.com" is, and www.dl.com is not a real website.

If I try to look up any HKG flights on aa.com for november / december, i get prices in the $1000 range.

I'm looking to make the trip on AA metal, but trying to figure out where you guys are getting these prices from... ?? I'm originating from ORD and trying to take the 77W airframe from either LAX or DFW and back again so I can use my systemwides for upgrade to Business.
usafltg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 17, 5:49 pm
  #25
Moderator: Fairmont Hotels
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FRA / YEG
Programs: AC Super Elite, Club Carlson Concierge, Accor Plat, Fairmont Platinum
Posts: 10,858
Originally Posted by usafltg View Post
I'm confused.... I can find no reference via google or by the forum search as to what "dl.com" is, and www.dl.com is not a real website.
DL = Delta Airlines; www.delta.com
Jasper2009 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 17, 6:49 pm
  #26
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: LAX
Posts: 54
Noticed some good fares in the other direction.

HKG-LAX
MU: $371
AA: $419
ANA/UA: $424
FlyingChuck is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 17, 3:24 am
  #27
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: 8CL8 (LAX) (Hometown: CAK)
Programs: AA EXP, DL Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, SPG Gold, A3 Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 665
The fare war continues even further.

$287 HKG-LAX-SMF/RNO/FAT on AA

DL pushes it even lower:

$246 HKG-SEA-SFO
$267 HKG-SEA-PDX-SLC-FAT
$267 HKG-SEA-SLC-RNO
$267 HKG-SEA-SLC-EKO
$267 HKG-SEA-GEG/BOI-SLC-EKO
$281 HKG-SEA-BOI/GEG-SLC-IDA
ianmanka is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 17, 7:22 pm
  #28
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Upper U.S.
Programs: AA EXP x 1.5, DL GM, JB, HH GLD
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by ianmanka View Post
The fare war continues even further.

$287 HKG-LAX-SMF/RNO/FAT on AA

DL pushes it even lower:

$246 HKG-SEA-SFO
$267 HKG-SEA-PDX-SLC-FAT
$267 HKG-SEA-SLC-RNO
$267 HKG-SEA-SLC-EKO
$267 HKG-SEA-GEG/BOI-SLC-EKO
$281 HKG-SEA-BOI/GEG-SLC-IDA
Are these fares only ex-HKG?
Flyerhandle is offline  
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:59 am.

Home - News - Forum - Hotel Reviews - Glossary - Contact Us - Airport Code Lookup - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy - Advertise on FlyerTalk - Archive - Top

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by Flyertalk.com. Copyright 2017 FlyerTalk.com. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.