Actually - the day BA flight from JFK to LHR that arrives in the evening London time is almost always sold out. It is a great way to go if you can afford the day that you lose going over - much less jet lag than arriving early in the morning London time.
New LHR service.
- Thread starter az_wild727
- Start date
Actually - the day BA flight from JFK to LHR that arrives in the evening London time is almost always sold out. It is a great way to go if you can afford the day that you lose going over - much less jet lag than arriving early in the morning London time.
AlleghenyVista
Advanced
- Nov 30, 2006
- 189
- 1
Its one of the most popular flights to Europe. AA has one or two in the am from JFK and BA does the same in the moring from JFK. Arriving at 8pm in London gives you a good nights sleep and your ready for work and pleasure the next day.
I don't know if you are responding to my 757 theory to LGW or not, but if you are - I'm quite familiar with the differences between the 767-200 and 757-200 cargo capacities. My point is that it's common knowledge the PHL-LGW 767 run has been just (at best) marginally profitable (in high season). Consequently, wasting a 767 on a low/no profit daily run, considering US's lack of long haul aircraft and the added LHR flight, is probably not a very wise decision. I therefore project they will continue with, but down gauge, the service to a 757, which holds only about 30 less passengers than the 767. Now if someone can relate that the 767 cargo history on the route is required to attain an annual acceptable profit margin and it cannot be bettered by another TA 767 route, that would be a different matter. Further, ignoring everything else, why should US waste 2 wide bodies on services to the same city (unless of course they're both LHR) and be short one for 2008?
PHX PHLyer
Advanced
- Nov 22, 2006
- 235
- 0
I think the press release said available for sale on December 1....wonder why the delay....they must be signing the slot sale on or right before that date
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
- Aug 17, 2005
- 2,873
- 18
It will be loaded Dec. 1.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
Tell that to the wonderboys in Tempe then. Didn't they say the reason they added seats to the A330 was to boost sagging revenue or something to that effect? Not disagreeing at all but I'm just sayin'.
US AIRWAYS FAN
Senior
I for one am going to keep flying to LGW if London is my final destination. LHR just has too many delays and too much congestion. I have only flown into LHR a handful of times (when I could not fly into LGW) and every time we were either waiting 30 minutes before we could land (doing the circle dance) or waiting on the runway FOREVER to take off. Gatwick is a breeze and I use Gatwick express to get downtown.
I can understand if you are using LHR to connect onward to other cities ok, I understand that. But for me personally if I am terminating in London it's LGW for me.
If I had to connect in the EU I think I would rather use FRA than LHR. LHR just has too much congestion. And the security lines at that airport. Good grief.
I know some of you have said on here you're losing half a day once you land in LHR. You will be lucky if your hotel room is ready for you most of the time once you land that early in the afternoon. Unless you are going straight to your business meeting before going to your hotel.
I can understand if you are using LHR to connect onward to other cities ok, I understand that. But for me personally if I am terminating in London it's LGW for me.
If I had to connect in the EU I think I would rather use FRA than LHR. LHR just has too much congestion. And the security lines at that airport. Good grief.
I know some of you have said on here you're losing half a day once you land in LHR. You will be lucky if your hotel room is ready for you most of the time once you land that early in the afternoon. Unless you are going straight to your business meeting before going to your hotel.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
I wonder if the company will bus the LHR crews to the LGW overnight hotel? Instead of waiting in the lobby crew lounge for their rooms to be ready, they would wait it out in London traffic! An elegant solution!
AlleghenyVista
Advanced
- Nov 30, 2006
- 189
- 1
I know that UA and AA house crews in central London due to LHR being closer to the city than LGW. Im hoping US will do the same with its crews.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Unless they can find some fleabag that will bid on the rooms at 15 pounds a night, the crews will not be staying in town. Do you remember the film "National Lampoon's European Vacation" and the stay at the British hotel that the Griswalds won from the "Pig in a Poke Show"? If the US crews get to stay in London, THAT is the type of place the company will find for us.
PA18
Senior
- Aug 12, 2004
- 398
- 9
Too much competition.
AA, BA, and VS all fly BOS-LHR, with BA and AA offering morning as well as evening departures.
Besides, US can't even figure out that more than half the passengers departing BOS in the winter time are going to Florida.
That's "Florida" with an "F". Not "Philadelphia", with a "Ph", which is where US still insists on sending everybody.
PHX PHLyer
Advanced
- Nov 22, 2006
- 235
- 0
Oh because Boston-area to Florida is such a lucrative and uncontested market....US is throwing away tens of millions in profits by not flying those routes....
c'mon....I think US knows where the people from BOS are flying...they just rightlfully would rather not be in the market and would rather send their planes on more profitable and less saturated routes. There is a reason that Boston-area to Florida has so many passengers....because there are so many flights!
Source?
