mydreamvacation

Each year we fly first/envoy to Rome in the summer usually out of clt or phl but this summer we are going from Boston via frankfurt outbound and ewr on the return using *A.
Will I still be able to pull this off in the future-I have 300K dividend miles I was planning on using for 2014- getting nervous that I am going to be stuck going via London which I would rather not do

pb3623

AA also opted out of FlightStats.

FWAAA

AA flies nonstop to Rome from JFK and US flies nonstop to Rome from PHL, so why would you have to connect at LHR? The world's largest airline will probably continue to fly nonstop to Rome.

It is certainly possible that to get the exact dates you want, nonstops might not be available and you might have to connect at LHR. Tens of millions of people do it every year, and they survive. It's really not as bad as it sounds.

LM225

Ugh. Forgot about this, too.

skycubbie

NYC may well have more O/D internationally than any other US gateways. Why, then, didn't AA run year-round more flights to major European cities? I cannot imagine business travellers wanting to transit through LHR to FRA or MUC or - worse yet - AA business travellers needing to double connect through both JFK and LHR to get to Germany or Italy. Someone posted a list of those European cities US serves from PHL that does not face comparable AA competition out of JFK. If anything I see international feed from/to PHL expanding to other major European and Middle Eastern cities on AA/US metal.

FWAAA

Until a few weeks ago (when AA's pilots finally accepted their bankruptcy contract), AA had the highest costs in the industry. That's a big part of why AA didn't fly to more European cities from JFK. I get the impression that some may not appreciate just how much higher AA's costs were compared to the competition. High cost airlines tend to shrink, and low-cost airlines tend to grow. Until recently, AA was in the former group.

Another reason is historical. When the domestic legacy airlines began flying to Europe in the 1980s, before AA had access to Heathrow, AA flew from Chicago to several European cities. Once AA gained access to LHR by purchasing the TWA routes, Crandall was quoted saying that AA only flew to AMS, MUC, DUS, etc. because it couldn't serve LHR, and that once it bought those rights, that's where the money was and thus, the flights to secondary European cities were reduced.

Until 2008, when Open Skies took effect between USA and LHR, and anyone could fly to LHR if they obtained slots, US, CO and DL had no choice but to fly to all the other European cities because they could not serve LHR. AA (and UA, BA and VS) could serve LHR and rake in the money there. And with LHR-based partners, they could connect passengers from LHR to many other places.

When Open Skies took effect, AA had about 16 daily flights to London. But thanks to Open Skies, the growth to London has stopped. Last year, AA had about 19 daily flights to LHR. Now that anyone and everyone can serve LHR, margins there have been reduced and it's time to look at serving those other European cities. But think about recent history: Open Skies took effect in March, 2008. Economic meltdown not long afterward. As the economy improved, AA was clearly the highest cost airline. European expansion? Not until costs came down, either thru waiting for others' costs to increase (Arpey's plan) or thru Ch 11 (the board of directors' eventual choice). Now, costs are down.

As I've posted, I suspect that the PHL-European routes are safe. Perhaps they'll be expanded. And now with lower costs, I suspect that new AA will expand at JFK. It's not an either/or proposition. Both cities are huge markets. I don't see anyone in NYC (where there is substantial international O&D) voluntarily choosing to fly down to PHL to get to Europe anymore than you envision business travelers wanting to connect at LHR on their way to non-London European cities.

skycubbie

Completely forgot about the history regarding LHR access. Your reasoning makes a lot of sense, including in light of the historical high costs at pre bankruptcy AA. You may be right: both JFK and PHL should see an increase in TATL flying overall. I suspect that additional OW carriers, such as IB and JL, may land in PHL. Isn't IB in the AA/BA immunised joint venture and didn't AA and JL form one for the TPAC flying? Would seem sensible for wither carrier to tap into all that feed in PHL.

rltycheck

I miss my orange and turquoise America West.

That said, I rolled the dice on the merger and took a cheap biz-calss flight to FRA. Say what you want about the S80, but up front their pretty peaceful. but the 763 we took across the pond sucked about as much as the 57s and 67s US is driving across in the summertime.

Maybe with the merger we can see some of the oldies retired. Can we start with the PHX-hawaii 757s???

skycubbie

....which alliance carrier are you most looking forward to accruing miles and/or redeeming points on? For me it's British Airways, Qatar Airways, and Cathay. If an AA/Emirates code share arrangement a la Qantas/Emirates becomes a reality I will be well nigh ecstatic - well, as can be expected, as this is only commercial air service!

To quote Aragorn, "what say you?"

Skycubbie

twa777

I'm looking forward to the option of flying BA over to London, as that's one of my favorite destinations. While I love the new Envoy seats on US to LHR, sometimes it would be nice to have a good cup of tea on the flight over as well (Mother Parker's doesn't cut it). An occasional scone would be nice as well.

For similar reasons, I'm most going to miss flying on Thai. The couple times I was able to travel with them to BKK, they provided not only great service but also a nice bit of Thai flavor that really started things off right.

SOBE ER DOC

I have flown CX in F on a 3-class 747. I have to say it was the most amazing in-flight experience I have ever had. I cannot wait to fly them again.

Cloudwanderer

eek. Sooo expensive on an award ticket - with taxes etc. But I will be happy to be able to fly them on a paid E+ direct from west coast - which I actually prefer to US envoy with a connection via PHL.

Looking forward most to awards on CX including CX F YVR-JFK!!!

MikeLaw

I'm equally enthused about CX and Qantas (assuming I can ever manage to find premium award availability on QF). Given the fuel surcharge issue, it is hard to get excited about BA redemptions (the luxury tax is bad enough).

jbcarioca

I fly CX F frequently. I agree with you. I rate them above SQ for soft product. For hard product I find SQ and EK A380 suites to be unbeatable, with an edge for EK due to showers and over-the-top services.

TonyBurr

oneworld FF tickets will kill you. Availability is no where near as good as *A. If you use BA you will pay huge fuel surcharges. US pax will be kicking and screaming within a short time. I have over 500,000 AA miles and find it almost impossible to use. US was never great by any means for FF tickets, it just got worst and much more expensive.