Expex From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3638 times:
I've always thought that Newark and JFK we're a bit crowded. Washington-Dulles is a great airport and I feel it's underutilized. I personally like Boston's Logan International Airport (BOS) the best. It has numerous international airlines (Aer Lingus, Air Canada, Air France, Air Nova, Alitalia, British Airways, Koreanair, Lufthansa, Olympic, Sabena, Swissair, TAP Air Portugal, and Virgin Atlantic). American Airlines and Northwest use the airport's location to suppliment hub service to European destinations as well.
buy, sell, trade airline postcards: see user profile
Boeing727 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 949 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3591 times:
I have to agree with NICKOFATLANTA, CVG is a great hub for people not originating from the Northeast. It is a fairly new facility, not too crowded and if you access it by car there is no easier way to get to an airport than CVG; no traffic at all!!!
BizJet From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3580 times:
Don't forget that a hub can't be just transatlantic, it also needs domestic connecting traffic.
This is the problem with Boston. It's the best for flights to Europe since it's "right on the way" but you can't have domestic connections there.
I'd say Dulles since it can have a good feed to Europe, plus can handle North/South domestic connecting traffic. Same with Atlanta, but it's location is a bit too far south IMO. Unless you have good feed from the region (like Delta), I don't think ATL is the best connecting port.
What I said about Boston I said about Miami, yet AA has made Miami very successful, so.....
Travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3574 times:
What about utilizing a European hub (rather than US hub)? I live in L.A., so I have quite a bit of choice to Europe (although not as much as if I lived in NY or DC. I can go non-stop to:
If I was given a choice, I would go through a European hub such as AMS or CDG rather than any US hub.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week ago) and read 3482 times:
For me ORD because:
a. Lots of int. European airlines plus it is an AA & UA hub.
b. I know my way around pretty well so I can make the most of a delay.
c. Since I live in SAN and fly AA I get to take a new 738 to ORD when connecting
d. Almost all flights from ORD to Europe have PTVs now.
Jfuoco From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3454 times:
I agree with JFK... EWR is way too congested. JFK you might have a half hour or so taxi to take off, but ATC arrival delays are not bad. EWR, well, its EWR. 4 out of 5 times connecting in EWR I missed or came within 2 seconds of missing my connecting flights, and made it only because good CO agents made sure I got on the first of several delayed or cancelled flights into EWR. BOS...well, BOS is the ideal location, but the airport is not big enough to support much more traffic and ATC arrival delays are growing significantly, especially with the strong expansion of American Eagle.