CBS News report

[vantheman63]

Well, it's not silly because that routing would be on a very decent airline, Van. One that values its higher-yield customers. I enjoy connecting in Houston because it breaks up a transcontinental flight into two more manageable legs. That and the facilities in Terminal E at IAH are very impressive. There aren't many delays and the airport is very easy to move through. I can see doing it. I don't know why anyone would needlessly transfer through a bunch of sub-par airports.

I don't disagree with a transcon....I myself am flying though IAH next week on my way to ABQ out of PVD on CO...quick stop.

But to fly up and down the east coast via IAH....or DFW....or ORD....or MCI....or STL doesn't seem to make a lot of sense from a time stand point...from my point of view.

And I can guaran-damn-tee ya, I would NEVER fly ORD-MSP via CLT & PHL....on the highest, best quality airline on earth...that's a stupid way to spend time.

 

[SS255]

Well, it's not silly because that routing would be on a very decent airline, Van. One that values its higher-yield customers. I enjoy connecting in Houston because it breaks up a transcontinental flight into two more manageable legs. That and the facilities in Terminal E at IAH are very impressive. There aren't many delays and the airport is very easy to move through. I can see doing it. I don't know why anyone would needlessly transfer through a bunch of sub-par airports.

I agree with all of this. And in addition, I like to use my layover time to check e-mail. It really helps to break up the trip when you have time-sensitive work, and can actually make you more productive when you arrive at your final destination.

 

[Bobbie]

And I can guaran-damn-tee ya, I would NEVER fly ORD-MSP via CLT & PHL....

For me, I just cannot imagine getting up in the morning, playing the US Airways theme song on my iPod all the way to the airport, hopping on a plane and flying US Airways around the country all day just for the sake of flying US Airways.

Maybe it's because I'm a charitable person, and I do live well, but I don't understand the value of spending money for flying with no particular destination, just for the privilege of availing myself of all of the amenities US Airways offers.

Even if I had those compulsions, i would choose to take the money and donate it to a charity of my choice. For me, I'd probably do a local animal shelter or perhaps Angel meal, or something like that. Imagine the amount of good that could be done in place of one needless revenue ticket. We all can make a difference. There's entirely too much wrong with this world for people who have money to genuinely throw it away and get nothing in return.

 

[SS255]

Even if I had those compulsions, i would choose to take the money and donate it to a charity of my choice. For me, I'd probably do a local animal shelter...

See my signature.

And you're very correct. Flying without a purpose (or "mileage running," if you will) serves absolutely NO purpose......other than to occupy a seat (or seats) that could be used to accommodate someone who was displaced by irregular ops.......or to allow a hard-working employee to actually use their flight bennies, which are impossible to use anymore.

 

[signals]

Free. What a laugh. Why should anything be free?

Nowadays when you get something free you have to 'buy' alot!

When nickle candy went up to a dime, did it ever go back down? It's a buck in some places now. Sometimes you find deals for fifty cents.

If people pay less for the @$$-end of the plane, why should they be given anything free. If fas disagree then trade your 1st class seniority with coach. As with anything else in life money talks and others can pay now or pay later!

 

[mga707]

Airplanes are nowhere for a person to spend their childhood.

Back in the 'good ol' days' (70s) when I was a teenager and had non-rev priveleges, I would love nothing more than spending several days of my summer vacation flying around on passes, sleeping on planes and trying to log as many airports as I could.
Several examples: (Home city)--SFO--DTW(redeye)--IND--DFW(spending the entire day at that then-brand-new wonderland!)--(home).
And several years earlier: (Home)--LAX--JFK(redeye)--taxicab across Queens to LGA--DCA(on a BAC-111!)--ORD--(home).
OK, fellow airline geeks: From the above itineraries and timeframe (1970-75), name the airline!

Airplanes are a GREAT place to spend one's childhood--although I am glad it was 35 or so years ago and not present day.

Mod note...lets not make it personal.

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP>Airplanes are a GREAT place to spend one's childhood--although I am glad it was 35 or so years ago and not present day. You rock on, "kinglobjaw"!

I think the point here is that our young friend Grasshopper has a delusional sense of US being of value to a VFF.


New FA sales contest; first prize a Cadillac, second prize a set of steak knives, third prize you’re fired!

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Oh, BS, "Bobbie"! (and what is the deal with that picture? )
Back in the 'good ol' days' (70s) when I was a teenager and had non-rev priveleges, I would love nothing more than spending several days of my summer vacation flying around on passes, sleeping on planes and trying to log as many airports as I could.
Several examples: (Home city)--SFO--DTW(redeye)--IND--DFW(spending the entire day at that then-brand-new wonderland!)--(home).
And several years earlier: (Home)--LAX--JFK(redeye)--taxicab across Queens to LGA--DCA(on a BAC-111!)--ORD--(home).
OK, fellow airline geeks: From the above itineraries and timeframe (1970-75), name the airline!

Airplanes are a GREAT place to spend one's childhood--although I am glad it was 35 or so years ago and not present day. You rock on, "kinglobjaw"!

TWA

 

[LD3]

It would serve you well to actually get out of the airport in those cities and maybe take in some fresh air, meet some new people, etc. Airplanes are nowhere for a person to spend their childhood.

Either is a message board complaining about an airline you refuse to fly on....

 

[mga707]

TWA

Sorry, no. TWA never flew BACs, nor did they serve DFW prior to deregulation.
But you ARE close, if you get my drift... B)

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Sorry, no. TWA never flew BACs, nor did they serve DFW prior to deregulation.
But you ARE close, if you get my drift... B)

Braniff

 

[mga707]

Braniff

No, try AAgain...

 

[BuffaloJoe]

No, try AAgain...

I originally wanted to say AA, but when did they have Bac-111's? I know in the '90's they flew F-100's.

Edited: OK I see the AA BAC-111's in the Retro Scheme. Never knew they had them. Even though AA was the first Airline for me to fly on, PHL-LAX-SAN on a 707.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

And these were hot mother Fokkers in the summer

And the Pilots were Gaylord "Gay" Fokkers!

 

[mga707]

I originally wanted to say AA, but when did they have Bac-111's? I know in the '90's they flew F-100's.

AA flew the BAC-111, which was always the "400 Astrojet" in AA parlance (their BACs were series -400 aircraft, unlike Braniff and Mohawk/Allegheny which had series -200s), from 1966 until 1972. Only six years, as short a fleet lifespan as the Convair 990 (1962-68).
None were ever painted into the 1969 (and STILL current!) colors, all wore the "lightning bolt" scheme throughout their AA lives. None were lost or even written off in AA service.
They normally stayed in the northeast, especially on the LGA-BOS/DCA "Jet Express" hourly services. They did get as far west as ORD and STL. I never recall seeing any at DAL, but they might have been used briefly on the DCA-DAL 'milk run' via TYS/BNA/MEM/LIT.
Guess they would have had to cycle through TUL, via either DAL or STL, for maintenance.
Anyway, like AA's Electras, they never came out here to the 'wild west'.
The main reason for their short AA life is that by the early '70s AA was getting a bunch more 727-200s, which pushed the 727-100s down the chain to the former BAC routes.
...and that's probably more than you wanted to know about AA's "400 Astrojets"!