Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5842039/

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2013-08-10 22:51:56 and read 13220 times.

Heard a rumor that AA will be launching FLL-LHR next summer. How likely?

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: flymia
Posted 2013-08-10 22:56:14 and read 13211 times.

Never going to happen. That's how likely it is. They have a hub at MIA. LHR has valuable slots. Why start an operation at FLL like that when MIA is 20miles south and offers so much more for any AA flight. As for BA starting it, that also would make zero sense. The only US Airline I ever thought had a chance flying to Europe from FLL was DL to CDG.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-08-10 22:56:57 and read 13206 times.

Probably as likely as most rumors on this site. AA is big at MIA, right down the street, so that may be a deal breaker. Then again, we see DL fly out of EWR to Europe, so who knows. Where did you hear this rumor?

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: BOACCunard
Posted 2013-08-10 23:04:53 and read 13154 times.

Given that AA just cut FLL-LAX and FLL-JFK this seems even less likely than it would have already... Which is pretty unlikely.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: tommy767
Posted 2013-08-10 23:06:43 and read 13144 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):

DL is #2 at EWR. AMS and CDG are the strong cards for them -- sky feed at both ends, it makes sense.

I feel they are being conservative at EWR. LAX I hope will be added soon.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-08-10 23:13:15 and read 13093 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 4):
DL is #2 at EWR. AMS and CDG are the strong cards for them -- sky feed at both ends, it makes sense.

Yes, I was pointing out that AA may be similar. Not sure how much flying AA does out of FLL. Sometimes, a carrier will be dominant at an airport and still fly out of a secondary airport (DL in JFK/LGA and then out of EWR) and sometimes they won't serve the other airport at all (AA at DAL? They don't serve DAL, right? May be wrong on that)

Then on the other side, AA has a lot of BA feed in LHR. So not too implausible, I think there are many random LHR routes AA may get to work. Look at DL with its JV, they fly to some pretty random cities out of CDG and AMS (I understand how JVs work, I'm just simplifying it for time's sake)

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-08-10 23:18:36 and read 13056 times.

Quoting usflyguy (Thread starter):
How likely?

I've fed this question into the Westy-Predict-O-Meter™ which has returned with the answer of a 0.314159265359% chance for FLL-LHR to occur in the given time frame.

Oddly, it also asked if I would like a piece of pie with my answer!

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: AS737MAX
Posted 2013-08-11 00:18:28 and read 12858 times.

I think what this site needs is a Rumor forum! Right between Travel Polls/Prefs and Tech-Ops. On topic now: FLL-LHR is not happening, as mentioned above here's why: MIA-LHR is served by 3 airlines: AA, BA, and VS. AA has 2 777s daily, BA has 2 747s daily, and VS 1 747 daily. Feed for these flights is already coming from the FLL area is it not? Stranger things have happened though.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: finnishway
Posted 2013-08-11 00:26:42 and read 12824 times.

FLL-LHR is not likely, but LGW-FLL could happen. FLL is cheaper to fly to than MIA and LGW is cheaper than LHR. It could make sense for some airlines. Norwegian starts flights to FLL from Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm, who knows if someday from LGW too.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: BOACCunard
Posted 2013-08-11 01:15:43 and read 12660 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 4):
DL is #2 at EWR.

But EWR is the kind of airport where there's #1 and there's everyone else. Being #2 at EWR is not like being #2 at JFK, it's like being #2 at DTW. Almost meaningless.

DL serving CDG and AMS from EWR really has nothing to do with DL's strength at EWR, it has to do with AF's and KL's at CDG and AMS. These routes are long-standing AF and KL routes that would be served by those carriers if there were no JV, and were when there wasn't, and sometimes are even though there is. The market from EWR to these cities is way too big for their hub carriers to not serve it.

Now, you could say that AA flying FLL-LHR would have nothing to do with AA's strength (or lack thereof) at FLL and everything to do with BA's at LHR... Which is true. But FLL is nothing like EWR. For DL, EWR is a competing carrier's hub in a city where it has a hub at a different airport. Whereas, for AA, FLL is the LFCs' alternative to its hub. FLL is more like OAK to SFO than it is EWR to JFK. (And even then, LFCs serve SFO; they don't serve MIA!)

I'm not saying FLL-LHR would necessarily be a colossal failure, but I don't see why AA/BA would cannibalize their own MIA-LHR service and use valuable LHR slots for that. If someone absolutely must fly from FLL rather than MIA, they can connect (even if it is DL/VS or UA, I can't see AA/BA losing sleep over that lost business). Most people, certainly high-yield passengers, will just drive to MIA and take an existing nonstop.

Clearly AA does not see much value in maintaining more than a minimal operation at FLL -- it has cut and cut and cut, and soon it will just be ORD and DFW (until the merger adds more volume from US, though of course AA need not keep all of it). AA has a considerably smaller FLL operation than DL or UA, and it seems obvious that's because it has a hub at MIA and they don't.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
Not sure how much flying AA does out of FLL.

Not much. It's even moving LAX-FLL to PBI, presumably to overlap less with MIA, and axing JFK-FLL.

Edit: And US just moved PHX-FLL to MIA. So AA's post-merger size at FLL just shrunk from the US side, too.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
Look at DL with its JV, they fly to some pretty random cities out of CDG and AMS

Yeah, but none of them are both a. right next to a DL hub, and b. not previously served by AF/KL. EWR fulfills a, PIT fulfills b, but nothing fulfills both. As I said above... FLL is not EWR.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 8):
Norwegian starts flights to FLL from Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm, who knows if someday from LGW too.

That I could see happening... DY on FLL-LGW. It fits in perfectly with FLL's role as the area's LFC airport. If I were DY I'd take a serious look at the USA from LGW.

[Edited 2013-08-11 01:21:09]

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-08-11 02:08:26 and read 12485 times.

The light rail links FLL airport with MIA airport and it is not that far away. Anyone wanting cheaper direct to LHR flights should head to MIA. I really like FLL airport vs MIA airport but I don't see it happening on AA.

tortugamon

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: FlyCaledonian
Posted 2013-08-11 03:28:05 and read 12220 times.

If there was to anything to/from FLL within the AA/BA joint venture then the only route I'd realistically see would be LGW-FLL using a BA leisure fleet 777. Even then, either another route would have to be cut or BA would have to add a 7th three class 777 to the LGW fleet.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-08-11 06:28:16 and read 11775 times.

IF Broward county wants a flight to London they should subsidize an airline to do it. It doesn't have to be AA or BA it could be Delta

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: migair54
Posted 2013-08-11 08:12:17 and read 11078 times.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 11):
If there was to anything to/from FLL within the AA/BA joint venture then the only route I'd realistically see would be LGW-FLL using a BA leisure fleet 777. Even then, either another route would have to be cut or BA would have to add a 7th three class 777 to the LGW fleet.

Adding flights to FLL with any plane, specially with high density plane is reducing yields on the MIA flighs so it will never happen, I´d rather see a MIA-LGW than a FLL-LGW, as everybody has said before the distance between MIA and FLL is very short and why are they going to divide between MIA and FLL?? it makes no sense.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 8):
FLL-LHR is not likely, but LGW-FLL could happen. FLL is cheaper to fly to than MIA and LGW is cheaper than LHR. It could make sense for some airlines. Norwegian starts flights to FLL from Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm, who knows if someday from LGW too.

I think we can see Norwegian flying the route one day, i´m not sure about LGW or LTN or STN.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2013-08-11 08:17:25 and read 11008 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
Where did you hear this rumor?

AA flight attendants were talking it and that it's going to be a 5 day trip for them.

ORD-LHR-FLL-LHR-ORD

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: SCQ83
Posted 2013-08-11 08:42:37 and read 10640 times.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 13):
Adding flights to FLL with any plane, specially with high density plane is reducing yields on the MIA flighs so it will never happen, I´d rather see a MIA-LGW than a FLL-LGW, as everybody has said before the distance between MIA and FLL is very short and why are they going to divide between MIA and FLL?? it makes no sense.

LGW-FLL certainly makes more sense than LGW-MIA.

LGW is where the BA leisure fleet is based... they could offer a kind of "low-cost" option other than MIA-LHR and maybe target whoever finds more convenient to fly from/to FLL (passengers heading to Palm Beach, for instance), maybe connected to some tour operators for cruises in Fort Lauderdale. Condor does the same, they fly FRA-FLL while LH flies FRA-MIA.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 13):
I think we can see Norwegian flying the route one day, i´m not sure about LGW or LTN or STN.



DY is based in LGW... why should they open routes from another airport?

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: DL747400
Posted 2013-08-11 08:54:32 and read 10471 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 10):
The light rail links FLL airport with MIA airport and it is not that far away.

Have you ever taken the Tri Rail and made the transfer to/from the FLL airport? It is a logistical NIGHTMARE. Not a practical option in the slightest.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: EASTERN747
Posted 2013-08-11 09:11:18 and read 10240 times.

It doesn't have to be daily, but think about the huge cruise ship business now at FLL. The airport is a stones throw from the port. And FLL isn't the awful immigration mess like MIA..

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: STT757
Posted 2013-08-11 09:17:27 and read 10152 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 4):
DL is #2 at EWR. AMS and CDG are the strong cards for them -- sky feed at both ends, it makes sense.

I feel they are being conservative at EWR. LAX I hope will be added soon.
Quoting BOACCunard (Reply 9):
But EWR is the kind of airport where there's #1 and there's everyone else. Being #2 at EWR is not like being #2 at JFK, it's like being #2 at DTW. Almost meaningless.

DL serving CDG and AMS from EWR really has nothing to do with DL's strength at EWR, it has to do with AF's and KL's at CDG and AMS. These routes are long-standing AF and KL routes that would be served by those carriers if there were no JV, and were when there wasn't, and sometimes are even though there is. The market from EWR to these cities is way too big for their hub carriers to not serve it.

I made a similar point in another thread recently;

DL in 2013 is the #2 carrier at EWR, DL in 2000 was also the #2 carrier at EWR. The difference is though that while DL is much bigger today, thanks to their merger with NWA, they're only handling half the travelers they handled at EWR in 2000. DL today at EWR handles more than a million less passengers per year than they did in 2000, when they were a smaller carrier. Plus back then they had no CDG or AMS flights from EWR. DL, as the #2 carrier at EWR, today is handling roughly the same amount of passengers as NWA was in 2000 at EWR when NWA was the 6th largest carrier.

I would hazard to guess that DL in 2000 was flying roughly the same if not a few more passengers from EWR to MCO, TPA, FLL, PBI and RSW than DL flies today from EWR to ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC, AMS and CDG.

Being #2 at JFK, LAX etc.. where there are no dominate carriers is a lot different than being #2 at EWR, MIA, ATL, DFW, IAH where there is one dominate carrier and then everyone else.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: greenjet
Posted 2013-08-11 10:00:39 and read 9666 times.

Quoting BOACCunard (Reply 9):

Clearly AA does not see much value in maintaining more than a minimal operation at FLL -- it has cut and cut and cut, and soon it will just be ORD and DFW

And PAP but yes AA's presence at FLL is clearly shrinking.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
Oddly, it also asked if I would like a piece of pie with my answer!

That's just pi in the sky  

Personally, I would love to see AA serve FLL-LHR but the only way I can see it happening is if they Dolphins play a game at Wembley! Norwegian is probably the best bet for a FLL-LON service and it's probably only a matter of time. FLL has a larger catchment area within one hour's drive than MIA including some pretty affluent folks to the north.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: scorp82
Posted 2013-08-11 10:01:34 and read 9666 times.

Quoting usflyguy (Thread starter):
Heard a rumor that AA will be launching FLL-LHR next summer. How likely?
Quoting BOACCunard (Reply 3):
Given that AA just cut FLL-LAX and FLL-JFK this seems even less likely than it would have already... Which is pretty unlikely.
Quoting usflyguy (Thread starter):
I'm not saying FLL-LHR would necessarily be a colossal failure, but I don't see why AA/BA would cannibalize their own MIA-LHR service and use valuable LHR slots for that. If someone absolutely must fly from FLL rather than MIA, they can connect (even if it is DL/VS or UA, I can't see AA/BA losing sleep over that lost business). Most people, certainly high-yield passengers, will just drive to MIA and take an existing nonstop.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
Then on the other side, AA has a lot of BA feed in LHR. So not too implausible, I think there are many random LHR routes AA may get to work. Look at DL with its JV, they fly to some pretty random cities out of CDG and AMS (I understand how JVs work, I'm just simplifying it for time's sake)

With all the upcoming service cuts in FLL, I'd also say a possible FLL-LHR service by AA is unlikely. All of the above points are very valid, and who knows, it may be that AA can make FLL-LHR work. Nonetheless I'd say a more suitable route would be FLL-LGW.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 8):
FLL-LHR is not likely, but LGW-FLL could happen. FLL is cheaper to fly to than MIA and LGW is cheaper than LHR. It could make sense for some airlines. Norwegian starts flights to FLL from Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm, who knows if someday from LGW too.
Quoting usflyguy (Thread starter):
That I could see happening... DY on FLL-LGW. It fits in perfectly with FLL's role as the area's LFC airport. If I were DY I'd take a serious look at the USA from LGW.

Indeed. The target market for FLL-LGW versus MIA-LHR can indeed be explored by some airlines as a separate and independent segment taking into consideration each airport's role in their city and the leisure component of the route. I wouldn't be surprised at all if DY is evaluating routes from LGW. For instance, LGW-FLL-LGW fits their business model quite nicely.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: flymia
Posted 2013-08-11 10:30:35 and read 9350 times.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 17):
And FLL isn't the awful immigration mess like MIA..

Not until you have a full 777 arriving into the small, outdate international terminal. You have two or three other international flights arrive at the same time that place would be a huge mess. However, long immigration waits are really only a problem for connecting passengers which FLL has very little of.

Quoting scorp82 (Reply 20):
DY is evaluating routes from LGW. For instance, LGW-FLL-LGW fits their business model quite nicely.

This does make sense to happen sometime.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: oc2dc
Posted 2013-08-11 10:45:29 and read 9206 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
I've fed this question into the Westy-Predict-O-Meter™ which has returned with the answer of a 0.314159265359% chance for FLL-LHR to occur in the given time frame.

So you're telling me there's a chance...Ok, ok, I read you. (Movie Quote)


Why would AA ever in their right mind waste a LHR slot on FLL? Never, ever, ever, ever going to happen.

Regards.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: THEFLLFLYER
Posted 2013-08-11 11:17:23 and read 8874 times.

Quoting flymia (Reply 21):
Not until you have a full 777 arriving into the small, outdate international terminal.

Soon to be larger and more modern.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: bobnwa
Posted 2013-08-11 12:20:15 and read 8258 times.

Quoting usflyguy (Thread starter):
Heard a rumor that AA will be launching FLL-LHR next summer. How likely?

Did you hear that rumor fron anyone who remotely could be called a valid source? Ill bet not.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: Mah4546
Posted 2013-08-11 12:36:18 and read 8342 times.

I bet somebody will be flying FLL-LON in the not-to-distant future, but that somebody will be Norwegian.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 4):
DL is #2 at EWR. AMS and CDG are the strong cards for them -- sky feed at both ends, it makes sense.

The only reason DL flies those routes is because AF and KL can't make money on them, so DL takes them over with it's smaller planes and cheaper labor.

Quoting BOACCunard (Reply 9):
Edit: And US just moved PHX-FLL to MIA. So AA's post-merger size at FLL just shrunk from the US side, too.

US is not discontinuing FLLPHX.

Quoting AS737MAX (Reply 7):
MIA-LHR is served by 3 airlines: AA, BA, and VS. AA has 2 777s daily, BA has 2 747s daily, and VS 1 747 daily.

Plus a third BA flight on a 772.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: tommy767
Posted 2013-08-11 13:22:01 and read 7845 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 18):
DL in 2013 is the #2 carrier at EWR, DL in 2000 was also the #2 carrier at EWR.

I corrected you on this before -- in 2000 DL was NOT the 2nd largest carrier at EWR. It was United.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: jcwr56
Posted 2013-08-11 13:38:24 and read 7754 times.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 14):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):Where did you hear this rumor?
AA flight attendants were talking it and that it's going to be a 5 day trip for them.

ORD-LHR-FLL-LHR-ORD

This is even one I haven't heard of and I hear a lot of things.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: ASFlyer
Posted 2013-08-11 13:45:00 and read 7708 times.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 14):
AA flight attendants were talking it and that it's going to be a 5 day trip for them.

ORD-LHR-FLL-LHR-ORD

I'm just curious - why would they staff a flight from FLL to LHR from ORD? Couldn't they staff it from MIA as a co-terminal? Also how would anyone know how a trip is going to be built for something that isn't even supposed to start until next summer? They wouldn't. I'm a Flight Attendant so I feel like I can speak with a little authority - airline pilots and flight attendants love to spread rumors. Most of them are just that - rumor.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: AA94
Posted 2013-08-11 14:28:18 and read 7317 times.

Quoting BOACCunard (Reply 9):
I'm not saying FLL-LHR would necessarily be a colossal failure, but I don't see why AA/BA would cannibalize their own MIA-LHR service and use valuable LHR slots for that. If someone absolutely must fly from FLL rather than MIA, they can connect (even if it is DL/VS or UA, I can't see AA/BA losing sleep over that lost business). Most people, certainly high-yield passengers, will just drive to MIA and take an existing nonstop.

  

It seems like LHR slots are too valuable to use them for what would almost certainly be a low-yielding flight.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 17):
The airport is a stones throw from the port. And FLL isn't the awful immigration mess like MIA..

I think it's an immigration mess of a different kind ...

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-08-11 14:55:21 and read 7108 times.

If B6 ever follows through on the rumors and buys a widebody, FLL - LGW seems like a possibility. Not to hijack the thread, now that I think about it, the fact that they've introduced the lf seats on the transcon routes would seem to make that more likely, as they now have a similar product to what they would need to offer on a trip arcross the pond.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: FlyCaledonian
Posted 2013-08-11 15:34:17 and read 6784 times.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 13):
Adding flights to FLL with any plane, specially with high density plane is reducing yields on the MIA flighs so it will never happen, I´d rather see a MIA-LGW than a FLL-LGW, as everybody has said before the distance between MIA and FLL is very short and why are they going to divide between MIA and FLL?? it makes no sense.

Actually, it coul.d work the other way - divert the O&D leisure travel (and maybe capture some cruise travel) to a LGW-FLL flight and allow the 4x daily LHR-MIA flights to be priced to cpature better yielding traffic.

MIA isn't a heavy business route like LHR-JFK so it isn't a route that needs 5x daily or 6x daily. Nor is it necessarily a route that makes sense for BA to deploy an A380 on. So LGW-FLL could be a route that works for BA/AA. Saying that, LGW-MIA could serve the same purpose - and BA now serves LAS from both LGW and LHR. I suspect the LGW flight for LAS was added to divert some BA Holidays traffic away from LHR to free up capacity for connections and higher yielding traffic on the LHR flight.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: Mah4546
Posted 2013-08-11 15:41:18 and read 6766 times.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 31):
MIA isn't a heavy business route like LHR-JFK so it isn't a route that needs 5x daily or 6x daily.

It certainly does not need the frequency of LHRJFK whatsoever, but it absolutely is a heavy business route, and it does indeed have six daily flights (or 39 weekly to be more precise).

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 31):
Nor is it necessarily a route that makes sense for BA to deploy an A380 on.

BA is launching A380 service to MIA next year. While BA has not announced it, work has begun at MIA to convert gates D1 and D2 into A380-ready gates at BA's request.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: cornishsimon
Posted 2013-08-11 17:26:57 and read 6042 times.

BA operating LGW-FLL has been suggested for some time now.

Any launch will mainly depend upon BA holidays and contracts with cruise companies etc for seats, but like I say this rumor has been around for the last couple of years.

Longhaul leisure at LGW will expand slowly as the BA fleet is replaced and expanded allowing an extra frame or two to move down to LGW.

cs

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: cschleic
Posted 2013-08-11 17:37:26 and read 5951 times.

Seems more likely that if anyone ever did it, and it would have to be LGW, it would be one of the European IT airlines, similar to flights to Orlando.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-08-11 18:22:59 and read 5640 times.

Lets face it, FLL will never get a flight to LHR but maybe FR who is always being rumoured to begin tatl service may consider flying to FLL. Other than that I would not even bother worrying about the customs facilities at FLL.

Topic: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: cschleic
Posted 2013-08-11 19:04:04 and read 5345 times.

Didn't South African once fly to FLL?

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: bobnwa
Posted 2013-08-12 13:57:06 and read 3778 times.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 30):
If B6 ever follows through on the rumors and buys a widebody

Are you saying that B6 is spreading the rumor of FLL-LGW flying

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: Flopped
Posted 2013-08-12 17:52:47 and read 3537 times.

Quoting cschleic (Reply 36):
Didn't South African once fly to FLL?

Yes

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 30):
If B6 ever follows through on the rumors and buys a widebody

The MX hangar they want to build at FLL is rumored to be big enough to house an A330

As for the tread topic, I will snoop around and see what I can find out but I haven't heard this rumor. It seems doubtful, especially right now. With the terminal 4 reconstruction, there is already limited space for customs flights and tossing in another widebody may not be desirable. Condor has even been doing hardstand operations unloading on the ramp with pax being bused over to customs. This will happen with more and more flights in the future as construction progresses.

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: Citrus737ROC
Posted 2013-08-12 19:11:00 and read 3403 times.

Good evening everyone!

If there is one thing that I have learned while working in this industry, it is to never say never. Back in the day there were people out there who said that the major airlines would never be allowed to merge or buyout other major airlines. Back in the day there were people who said that airlines would never charge for checking your bags. Back in the day there were people who said that the inflight meals would never go away. There were also people who said that a specific airline would never leave a certain city regardless of how long they served there. Here we are in 2013 and look what has happened in the present day.......

I personally believe that because MIA is right down the road and given of how precious those LHR slots are, I don't think that AA would launch LHR. LGW to me would make more sense if they were really going to make the idea a reality.

Not a lot of people thought that FLL would be able to pass the expansion plans back in 2007 and yet here they are finding a way to expand for the future (After seeing it in person up to this point, it looks like it's coming along rather nicely!).

You could make the same argument for TPA. When the airport's new CEO began his reign back in 2011, not many people out there gave him a chance to change the culture that Louie Miller left behind. Now he has a more stable committment from Edelweiss and just last month he was able to convince Copa to start service to PTY in December.

Obviously time will tell whether or not certain decisions will work or payoff in the long run, but I would never say never to any idea that might be dangling out there. Just my two cents on the topic.

Cheers!
Brian

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: njdevilsin03
Posted 2013-08-12 21:10:29 and read 3242 times.

What is the deal with the b6 mx hanger?

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: tjh8402
Posted 2013-08-13 03:32:44 and read 3044 times.

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 37):
Are you saying that B6 is spreading the rumor of FLL-LGW flying

negative. just that if they ever got a widebody, as was rumored at one point, FLL - LGW would seem like a likely route for them.

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: APYu
Posted 2013-08-13 04:22:30 and read 2964 times.

Posted already and i missed it

[Edited 2013-08-13 04:23:28]

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: AA777
Posted 2013-08-13 06:06:03 and read 2794 times.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 8):
but LGW-FLL could happen

Yes, it could happen, but no way AA is going to open that up when they have an enormous operation at MIA, and a relatively large operation at LHR of about 14 flights a day, all 77E/77Ws except 763 to ORD.

FLL-LGW would be more likely run by a charter/LCC airline.

AA777

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-08-13 06:38:40 and read 2709 times.

hasn't this thread run its course ? close it please.

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: richierich
Posted 2013-08-13 06:42:10 and read 2709 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
I've fed this question into the Westy-Predict-O-Meter™ which has returned with the answer of a 0.314159265359% chance for FLL-LHR to occur in the given time frame.

Oddly, it also asked if I would like a piece of pie with my answer!

I hope you said 'yes' to the pie!

Quoting DL747400 (Reply 16):
Have you ever taken the Tri Rail and made the transfer to/from the FLL airport? It is a logistical NIGHTMARE. Not a practical option in the slightest.

I've taken it from PBI to FLL (even less practical). I had to take a taxi to the train and then there is a shuttle to FLL airport. Not the best option but I had plenty of time. The train itself was comfortable and on-time!

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 14):
AA flight attendants were talking it

Enuff said.

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: g2scandinavia
Posted 2013-08-13 07:11:41 and read 2615 times.

Could it be Norwegian? They are planning FLL - LGW next summer!

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: cschleic
Posted 2013-08-13 08:13:07 and read 2521 times.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 46):
Could it be Norwegian? They are planning FLL - LGW next summer!

On top of the Copenhagen and Stockholm flights starting later this year?

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: g2scandinavia
Posted 2013-08-13 08:18:39 and read 2517 times.

Both OSL/CPH/ARN with twice weekly each.
LGW will be their next airport, the airline says.

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: THEFLLFLYER
Posted 2013-08-13 15:15:57 and read 2233 times.

Quoting njdevilsin03 (Reply 40):
What is the deal with the b6 mx hanger?

Here is the deal with just about everything regarding B6 and FLL.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...1_ceo-dave-barger-jetblue-maruster

Topic: RE: Rumor: AA Starting FLL-LHR?
Username: finnishway
Posted 2013-08-17 05:05:28 and read 1667 times.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 48):
Both OSL/CPH/ARN with twice weekly each.
LGW will be their next airport, the airline says.

I hope DY will also add HEL at some point in the future.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/