UAalltheway From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 4716 times:
I'm looking at going to GLA next summer, and so I was looking at the flight schedules that most airlines have already released for next summer. It's too early to tell what the fares are going to be like, but they should all be about the same. Now I need to decide which airlines. Here are the possible routings I'm looking at:
LH: JAX-IAD/ORD (operated by UA; CRJ), IAD/ORD-FRA (LH), FRA - GLA (LH)
AA: JAX - ORD (express), ORD - GLA (direct; 767)
CO: JAX - EWR (737/express), EWR - GLA (757-200)
I'm really working towards sticking with one main airline next year so I can become elite. Seeing how UA is the only airline I can do unaccompanied mileage runs with I'm going to try to go with them. The only problem being I'll be travelling with my father and possibly my grandmother, so I'm not sure how they will feel about connecting internationally. Can someone tell me about connecting in international-transit? Do you reccomend it? What's the minimum amount of ground time I would need connecting in LHR or FRA?
Also- can someone please compare the service (economy, of course) of LH, UA, AA, and CO trans-atlantic?
Fbgdavidson From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3697 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 22 hours ago) and read 4713 times:
Quoting UAalltheway (Thread starter): Can someone tell me about connecting in international-transit? Do you reccomend it? What's the minimum amount of ground time I would need connecting in LHR or FRA?
Not connected through FRA before (or LHR for that matter!) but I know enough about LHR to tell you that UA arrive at T3 and bmi depart from T1. Both midfield terminals and there is a Flight Connections Centre, my advice would be to leave at least two hours, if not three at LHR to be on the safe side. Even then your luggage probably won't make it!
If you want to make elite on *A then LH is probably the best way to go. Amongst those who transit a lot LHR doesn't have many fans! But just think of the segments towards 2P status
As for the service I've only done UA E+ once so am not the best to comment. Although of course my LH suggestion gives you no PTVs.
I guess there is a trade off between doing a connection at LHR and getting PTVs versus the more civilised connection at FRA and no PTVs!
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
I'm seriously considering LH through FRA, and I'd have to check on in-seat power with LH but I'd get on one of their US/FRA routes that had the Connexion by Boeing on it. And I'll take some netflix movies with me too.
Also- Can anyone tell me if when connecting through FRA or LHR even though I'm connecting would I still have to go through either customs or immigration? Or would I just say I'm an "international transit passenger" or something like that and deal with customs/immigration in GLA?
Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 4687 times:
Well, for starters, I would try to get it down to as few connections as possible in order to eliminate the chances of missed flights, delays, etc. This narrows it down to AA and CO. Considering that AA no longer has MRTC, it's not a big point for them anymore. One thing to consider is that EWR is considerably less out of the way for a connection than ORD, and you would have a particularly easy connection in both directions at EWR considering that you would be able to use CO's own FIS facilities and stay within Terminal C.
I would go with CO, unless you have some incredible allegiance to AA (which doesn't seem to be the case here).
Tsaord From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 4684 times:
not a frequent flyer but i would go with the least connections. i work in the international terminal at ord and people coming in from multiple connections to ord internationally seem to file claims on lost baggage the most with aa and ua. so i think if something like that concerns you, go with aa or co.
UAalltheway From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4662 times:
Ehh.. even though CO is my runner-up favorite carrier (under UA, of course) I'm not too excited about being on a 757-200 for 8/9+ hours. I would be okay if they had laptop power in economy like AA does on their 763's, but I'm not sure. I'm definitly interested in UA and LH now. So now I guess I just have to decide between connections in LHR or FRA.
I'm a little iffy on LH, though. Even though they would have connexion by Boeing on the routes I would want to be on there's no laptop power. But I don't need a TV for 9 hours, I can go without.
So can anyone give me their oppinions on travelling in LH in Y?
BRAVO7E7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4659 times:
Quoting UAalltheway (Thread starter): I'm really working towards sticking with one main airline next year so I can become elite. Seeing how UA is the only airline I can do unaccompanied mileage runs with I'm going to try to go with them.
You answered your own question right there. It comes down to LH and uA.
Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 3): One thing to consider is that EWR is considerably less out of the way for a connection than ORD
He IS trying to make elite, so the more miles the better!
Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 3): Considering that AA no longer has MRTC, it's not a big point for them anymore.
And CO does have MRTC?
Quoting YOWza (Reply 5): Not a big fan of GLA or any of the carriers you've listed but if you've got to do it CO is your best bet. They've come a long way.
Just cause they went from failure to success means they should be flown? I am missing your reasoning here.
No worries! It should be under 6 hours on the outbound.
I would say that you should go with UA! The problem of course being the price, which I am sure will differ when it actually comes time to book it. I can promise you that there will be some serious price fluctation between the airlines when it comes time to book, so that still needs to be left open, because UA could very well be a LOT more. Anyway, LH transatlantic is an absolutely dreadful expereince, mainly because of the inflight service. The flight crews are about as arrogant as they get, and the meals are sunstandard. I can't speak for LHR connections, but FRA connections are teribble. Lastly, on UA you have the chance at Economy Plus, which is definitely feasible if you play your cards right.
"To find fault is easy: To do better may be difficult." -Plutarch
ZKEOJ From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 972 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4645 times:
I never had problems connecting in FRA, and I love that airport. But I heard many people complaining about FRA, saying it is confusing and has long distances to walk. If you connect LH/UA it shouldn't be too far apart though.
LHR is much more time consuming and complicated to connect. However, if you are an experienced traveller it is a piece of cake as well.
Another option for you would be AC - they do have a non-stop B767 service from YYZ to GLA, and connecting with AC, UA or US from the US to YYZ...
And US is flying to FRA as well...
Personally, I didn't like my two flights (IAD-LHR-ORD) on UA's 777. Don't really know why, but it seemed more cramped in economy than other aircraft and airlines, although it was just a feeling since they have the standard 31/32" pitch as most other carriers as well. So it must have been just a very subjective feeling... Service was good and friendly (after all they are they Friendly Skies ), and Channel 9 is awesome!
All options (LH/UA/US/AC) are Star Alliance, so good for your mileage...
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4653 times:
Nobody flies FRA - GLA nonstop ! If you want to connect through FRA on *A, you should change your Scottish destination from GLA to EDI, but check on connections in FRA. Furthermore, flying through FRA would include a serious backtrack ! If you´re lucky, you´ll see GLA from FL370, continue flying another 1.5h to FRA, deplane, connect and fly back another 2h from FRA to EDI (!) ... - Have fun selling such a routing to your grandma ...
Re: ORD - MAN on BD: I wouldn´t dare to book this flight ! Taking BD´s ridiculous fleet/route/service-strategy into account, I wouldn´t be surprised if this ORD-MAN-service would see a number of alterations until next summer (timing/aircraft/suspension)
Though I do prefer to fly on *A, taking into account that your party of 3 will include your grandma, I would recommend (like others did before) to use a 1-transfer connection. My primary suggestion would be CO via EWR. Flying time EWR to GLA is 6.40h with 7.30h for the return (using a B752). Still EDI would be a very good alternative (unless your final destination is west of Glasgow, the difference in driving distance should be no big problem).
AA via ORD: Flying time for the trans-atlantic flights are 30 min more than from EWR, but on a B763. OTOH currently JAX - ORD is 2:30h on a ERJ 145, while with CO to EWR (about the same duration) you have the chance to get a B735.
EDIT: Keep out of LHR if you want to make connections from/to intercontinental flights (maybe apart from flying on BA). But it´s okay as a O&D destination.
EDIT #2: Use www.amadeus.net to check for non-stop services, flying times and a/c in use.
[Edited 2005-09-23 14:38:27]
[Edited 2005-09-23 14:39:55]
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !