Aa/ac: Lax-hkg $381-$423 rt
Amazing deal to HKG!!!
Thanks to TPG! TONS of availabilty through Mar 2018, too!!!! EDIT: There are a couple of DL fares for $443 through Mar 2018, too!! |
Just booked a next-day-turn LAX-SEA-HKG-SEA-LAX on DL's A332 for $502 RT. The cheaper price was for Basic Economy.
14,886 MQMs for $500!!!! WOOHooooo!!!! ^^^^ |
May I please ask how you booked that? Separate segments LAX-SEA or LAX-HKG-LAX?
|
Originally Posted by DesertCat
(Post 28775276)
May I please ask how you booked that? Separate segments LAX-SEA or 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. :) |
Thank you so much!
|
Is anyone finding any of these fares in Oct-Nov on AA? I'm seeing some in the $400s in Feb-Mar, but only mid/high $600s for the remainder of 2017 out of LAX or SFO.
|
Fares seem to be in response to HK Airlines launch.
|
Good one.
thanks |
Great one! Thanks TPG ^
|
Warning for those who saw AC in the title and thought this would be good for Star Alliance - that's YVR to HKG on the 777HD. Operative term here being "HD" or "High-Density."
In other words - don't. |
Originally Posted by Boogie711
(Post 28867438)
Warning for those who saw AC in the title and thought this would be good for Star Alliance - that's YVR to HKG on the 777HD. Operative term here being "HD" or "High-Density."
In other words - don't. |
Originally Posted by Jasper2009
(Post 28871098)
I'm certainly not a fan of the AC 777HD, but most airlines now have a 3-4-3 config on the 777.
AC HD - 398 'Y' pax, with 6 lavs UA 777 - 306 'Y' pax, with 6 lavs AA 777 - 246 'Y' pax with 8 lavs |
Originally Posted by Boogie711
(Post 28867438)
Warning for those who saw AC in the title and thought this would be good for Star Alliance - that's YVR to HKG on the 777HD. Operative term here being "HD" or "High-Density."
In other words - don't. |
Originally Posted by Boogie711
(Post 28871516)
Sure - but even United, on the SAME airframe, puts a whopping 92(!) less people in economy class on their same 777.
AC HD - 398 'Y' pax, with 6 lavs UA 777 - 306 'Y' pax, with 6 lavs AA 777 - 246 'Y' pax with 8 lavs |
Originally Posted by Boogie711
(Post 28871516)
Sure - but even United, on the SAME airframe, puts a whopping 92(!) less people in economy class on their same 777.
AC HD - 398 'Y' pax, with 6 lavs UA 777 - 306 'Y' pax, with 6 lavs AA 777 - 246 'Y' pax with 8 lavs The AC HD layout has only 28 J seats, whereas UA/AA each have 60 (including 8 F for AA). That's a huge difference in floorspace. Take a peek at the seatguru maps for the planes in question and look where the economy seating starts relative to the wing...the AC HD has about 9 rows of economy seating and 3 of premium econ forward of the first econ-plus row on UA. Those 12 rows have 114 seats. Indeed, seatguru suggests the Y cabin pitch is the same on both aircraft (31") and they're both ten across. The situation on AA is similar; economy starts even further back (due to the F cabin) and pitch is similar in Y (31-32", because consistency isn't AA's bailiwick). 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. |
Originally Posted by HLCinCOU
(Post 28899161)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by Boogie711
(Post 28900431)
Whoa - of course the seats themselves are similar. But - "The lavs are a drag, I suppose?"
No. Just no. |
He already acknowledged that
|
Originally Posted by HLCinCOU
(Post 28904843)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by Boogie711
(Post 28915223)
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
(Post 28915223)
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.
|
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. |
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.) |
Originally Posted by 355F1
(Post 28775418)
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. :) 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. |
Originally Posted by 355F1
(Post 28775418)
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. :) 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. |
Originally Posted by usafltg
(Post 28953286)
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.
|
Noticed some good fares in the other direction.
HKG-LAX MU: $371 AA: $419 ANA/UA: $424 |
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 |
Originally Posted by ianmanka
(Post 28958501)
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 |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:34 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.