Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Green Light For BA Transatlantic Flights From Euro  
User currently offlineRevo From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12151 times:

British Airways directors are understood to have given the green light for the launch of the airline’s first transatlantic flights from Europe next summer in a move that is expected to start a tit-for-tat battle with its Continental rivals.
BA are expected to offer flights from Brussels, Madrid and Paris to New York JFK, although the final network is yet to be decided. It is thought the services will start in May.
The proposed flights were rumoured to be business-class only, but it has now emerged that they will have at least two classes, business and either an economy or premium-economy cabin.
In the past BA has been prevented from operating from other European countries by restrictive treaties governing air services, but last year Europe and America signed an “open skies” deal, removing most of the restrictions on where airlines from the two trading blocs could fly. The new agreement comes into force next April. Although US airlines will be able to operate with total freedom in Europe, the one-sided treaty does not allow European airlines to take on the US domestic market.
European airlines could choose to follow BA’s lead and start flights direct from Heathrow to the US, or, as some industry insiders believe more likely, donate sought after landing slots at the London airport to their American partner airlines to allow them to compete head-on with BA. Air France and KLM have a marketing alliance with US airlines Northwest and Delta, neither of which currently operate flights from Heathrow.
BA also faces stiff competition from a new breed of low-cost all-business-class airlines. American carriers Eos and MaxJet fly from Stansted to New York and other US destinations, while award winning British airline Silverjet flies from Luton to New York.

From http://news.flightmapping.com/07/08/...ntic-flights-from-europe_1435.html

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11386 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12117 times:

Personally, I'm actually a bit surprised they are going after three initial markets, all of which are already served by oneworld airlines. AA already flies JFK-BRU 1x daily with 767s, and JFK-CDG 2x daily with 767s, and IB already flights JFK-MAD 2x daily with A340s. I would think that perhaps BA would go for some secondary Euro-U.S. (or -JFK markets, if they insist) that are perhaps a bit smaller, but face less competition and wouldn't step on the toes of partner airlines. I'm thinking markets like FRA-JFK, AMS-JFK, MXP-JFK. All of these markets would probably do just as well, but would also probably get a lot more connections off of AA flights at JFK: I doubt AA is going to send any of its passengers onto BA's flights to BRU and CDG except the lower-yielding cheap fares.

User currently offlineBA787 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11851 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 1):

If BA are aiming their flights at business and premium economy passengers, I think it does make sense. I'm guessing that maybe the AA flights don't cover the full market and BA could probably provide a higher quality of service on the routes. The demand must be quite high at both BRU and CDG. As for MAD, it is a oneworld base so BA can offer plenty of connections from the airport and serve the market where IB undercuts service wise. BA can be the luxury option if you like, while IB can concentrate on economy passengers. I'd imagine the way BA has decided this is by looking at the most passengers which transit through LHR on BA into JFK from any one airport and has decided to start a direct flight

My $0.02

Good news that they are going to do it, gets them out of the sh** hole that is LHR

BA787


User currently offline7LBAC111 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11759 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 1):
I would think that perhaps BA would go for some secondary Euro-U.S. (or -JFK markets, if they insist) that are perhaps a bit smaller, but face less competition and wouldn't step on the toes of partner airlines

Surely it could be argued that AA's presence in LHR is stepping on the toes of BA there?

7L



Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 11531 times:

Quoting Revo (Thread starter):
Although US airlines will be able to operate with total freedom in Europe

As in total cabotage rights? So Delta could start flying CDG-AMS or MAD-FCO?

Quoting Revo (Thread starter):
European airlines could choose to follow BA’s lead and start flights direct from Heathrow to the US, or, as some industry insiders believe more likely, donate sought after landing slots at the London airport to their American partner airlines to allow them to compete head-on with BA. Air France and KLM have a marketing alliance with US airlines Northwest and Delta, neither of which currently operate flights from Heathrow.

Would they have revenue-sharing immunity like NW/KL?

Quoting BA787 (Reply 2):
BA can be the luxury option if you like, while IB can concentrate on economy passengers.

Tell that to Iberia or any airline that makes most of its money off premium passengers...


User currently offlineBAStew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11470 times:

I think the whole point of BA's plans is to try and take advantage of all the opportunities it has gained from open skies - which compared to other airlines (ie gaining transatlantic rights from LHR) BA has gained little.

I think this is one opporunity BA will seize. Lufthansa and AF will no doubt be donating or selling slots to their star/sky partners to fly LHR-US so why shouldn't BA try and move in on their markets also?

I am a little suprised at the article on the opening thread (something similar also appeared in the UK Times) as the official word within BA is that no final decision has been made. It is not known whether the airline will be operated as 'BA' or 'an airline within an airline'. Routes to be flown are still being evaluated. Whether the crews will be UK or US based is also undecided.


User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11404 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):
So Delta could start flying CDG-AMS or MAD-FCO?

If they can, it would be really cool.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineA3xx900 From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11320 times:

As Commavia said, why should BA use routes that are already served by oneworld partners? Especially in MUC there is high demand for USA flights (LH has recently axed the B73W service to EWR and upgraded it to i think an A340). And LH and their partners are the only airlines flying to the US. LH serves JFK, EWR, BOS, IAD, CLT, LAX, SFO, ORD and now DEN with UA's second daily flights to ORD and IAD and US's PHL run.
DL is the only non-StarAlliance airline that keeps their daily service to ATL. BA could cooperate with airlines like NW, AA and CO by offering routes to EWR, DFW, IAH, MSP, MIA or PHX.

I always wandered why there is so little American interest in MUC, while LH keeps increasing their routes to the US. My personal guess is that AB will start regular US service from MUC and later BBI.



Why is 10 afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11386 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11296 times:

Quoting A3xx900 (Reply 7):
I always wandered why there is so little American interest in MUC, while LH keeps increasing their routes to the US.

You just answered your own question: with Lufthansa being so heavily dominant at the airport, and operating by far the most capacity to most major U.S. markets, it is a very difficult environment for other airlines to compete in. Star partners -- United and USAirways -- no doubt do well, plus Munich also sees Delta's daily 767 to Atlanta. But for airlines with smaller presences in Central Europe, and Germany, like AA and Continental, Munich would be hard market to make profitable (perhaps outside of the May-October period).


User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6666 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11286 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 6):
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):So Delta could start flying CDG-AMS or MAD-FCO?
If they can, it would be really cool.

But probably not a great revenue earner given how competitive the European market is. We could hark back to the days when Pan Am, United, Delta and TWA had european feeder networks through Germany.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Rees



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fergal Goodman



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer




wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11006 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 6):
If they can, it would be really cool.

They can't. It's total freedom to Europe, not in Europe, freedom they already had anyway...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10982 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
They can't. It's total freedom to Europe, not in Europe, freedom they already had anyway...

Which begs the question: How was it a one-side agreement?

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineDL787932ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10888 times:

Quoting Revo (Thread starter):
Although US airlines will be able to operate with total freedom in Europe, the one-sided treaty does not allow European airlines to take on the US domestic market.

Well, this article certainly is unbiased and objective  sarcastic 

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):

As in total cabotage rights?

No.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):
So Delta could start flying CDG-AMS or MAD-FCO?

Yes. Neither of those routes has anything to do with cabotage. There is no country called "Europe".

Quoting B747forever (Reply 6):

If they can, it would be really cool.

U.S. airlines have pretty much given up their European hubs. With alliances now in place, and airlines preferring nonstop flights over tag-on or multi-stop flights, I doubt there will be much of a renaissance of US carriers flying intra-European traffic.



F L Y D E L T A J E T S
User currently offlineA380flyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10818 times:

I understood that all US airlines would be able to fly from the USA to (LHR for instance) then onto CDG as an example.

This is what all the European carriers are not happy about as they will not be able to fly into one destination in the USA then onto another. i.e. LHR-JFK-SFO......


User currently offlineFLYGUY767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10780 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4):
So Delta could start flying CDG-AMS or MAD-FCO?

In reality I dont think that Delta Air Lines level of service is on par with the European airlines at least Delta Air Lines partners Air France-KLM, adding to that problem Delta would have to open a European Flight Attendant base which could be a nightmare for cost of operation. Local Flight Attendants would have to be recruited due to language issues, as can be seen it is hard enough to get a native speaking foreign language speaker in the United States due to the poor wages the airlines offer. The above routes and all others within Europe are best left to Delta Air Lines SkyTeam partners.

-JD


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10697 times:

So to be clear, what would the agreement allow:

A) US carriers to fly between different European nations carrying passengers.

B) US carriers to stop in one Euro nation, then continue to another, but without local traffic rights.

C) US carriers can fly from any US point to any Euro point, but not between nations.

If A, then I could understand why some might not like the agreement. Afterall, it IS effectively cabotage, in the sense that the agreement is attempting to treat the EU nations as one entity.

If B or C, then I fail to see the problem.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10698 times:

So next April, what changes will we perhaps see at LHR,in the way of aircraft types and carriers from Euope and the USA?

dave


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10567 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 15):
If A, then I could understand why some might not like the agreement. Afterall, it IS effectively cabotage, in the sense that the agreement is attempting to treat the EU nations as one entity.

The EU is not a country. The EU leadership has been attempting to redefine themselves and the USA both, and equate the relationship between France and Germany to the relationship between Texas and California, despite this just not being anywhere close to the case.

They don't argue the same case with Mexico or China and their states/provinces.

The only thing the USA really gained in this whole thing was the unrestricted right to fly to LHR. Those restrictions were already illegal under the EU laws, so the fact they were being held onto as a bargaining chip was lame. But frankly, USA carriers are not inherently "afraid" of EU carriers flying TATL flights from multiple cities. The cabotage argument was all a bunch of hot air, and unfortunately, it won't go away as BA, SRB and the UK government are still set on dismantling the USA domestic airline sovereignty.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10096 times:

I cannot see how BA will make any money starting direct flights to and from the points this topic mentions, merely it would be to bully those airlines into losing ground. I don't think that BA's management is to bully any airline at the present moments in current market conditions, they want to make money in the long run. There must be some sort of strategem no doubt, however I can't see how they will choose to fly into those all ready well exploited routes by the major airlines.


"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineUPPERDECKFAN From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9850 times:

Quoting BA787 (Reply 2):
As for MAD, it is a oneworld base so BA can offer plenty of connections from the airport and serve the market where IB undercuts service wise. BA can be the luxury option if you like, while IB can concentrate on economy passengers

Why IB would throw away their profit base on a market like JFK (premium pax) in favour of BA,it's not like AF/KL,they still have different ownership (unfortunately)



744,742,741,772,773,762,732,735,738,752,727,717,DC10,DC9,M82,M87,319,320,321,343,346,L1011,CRJ2,CRJ9,E190,ATR42,DSH8,
User currently offlineBAStew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9804 times:

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 18):
I cannot see how BA will make any money starting direct flights to and from the points this topic mentions, merely it would be to bully those airlines into losing ground. I don't think that BA's management is to bully any airline at the present moments in current market conditions, they want to make money in the long run. There must be some sort of strategem no doubt, however I can't see how they will choose to fly into those all ready well exploited routes by the major airlines.

North america is BA's biggest market outside the UK and it used to have the most flights across the pond though im not sure this has changed with the KL/AF merger.

After the initial disappointment of the open skies deal (ie BA wanting access to the US domestic market in exchange for access to LHR) they had to get on with finding some way of using it to BA's advantage.

BA's advantage is that it has a very well known brand in the US, particularly in NYC. Perhaps more well known than most other foreign airlines. It has its own terminal at JFK also, the only foreign airline to do so. Now if normally loyal american passenger to BA when flying to LHR are using competitors when flying to other points in europe, why not try and snare them away?

The only problem I can see with the situation is that BA may in-directly poach its own passengers. We currently have 71 flights per week from LHR to JFK/EWR and 77 flights per week in the summer - as well as the daily 767 service from MAN. JFK all on 747 (except 1 daily 777), EWR all on 777. A large proportion of passengers on these flights are already in transit to other european cities (such as the ones being touted as possible 757 routes) so surely the passenger numbers on flights to LHR would decrease? I guess this may offer BA the opportunity of reducing rotations on LHR-NYC and deploying a jumbo or 777 on new routes.

A round the back way (and a quick one) of longhaul aircraft expansion?


User currently offlineHotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 460 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9671 times:

Quoting BAStew (Reply 20):
I guess this may offer BA the opportunity of reducing rotations on LHR-NYC and deploying a jumbo or 777 on new routes.

Exactly! BA can maintain the frequencies required by the premium pax to JFK by using say 5 daily 747's and 3 smaller aircraft with high J configs (maybe the same ones that then fly to the European hubs) Freeing up 3 747s for other work whilst not diluting the yield.


User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9591 times:

Quoting BAStew (Reply 20):
BA's advantage is that it has a very well known brand in the US, particularly in NYC. Perhaps more well known than most other foreign airlines. It has its own terminal at JFK also, the only foreign airline to do so. Now if normally loyal american passenger to BA when flying to LHR are using competitors when flying to other points in europe, why not try and snare them away?

Indeed, but I was under the impression that the major airlines that operate NYC area to Western Europe weren't making any true money, merely they were there since they are legacy airlines trying to provide a service they have been doing for decades. They were making the profit on selling the different connections at their respective hubs. Not on a JFK-LHR-JFK for example.

If BA goes into nonstop JFK-CDG for example what chances do they have to be on the same level with DL or AF? AF would then sell the segment JFK-CDG-JFK for a third of what BA would and AF will make more money since they will provide with connections in CDG and of course more frequencies. Therefore the pax won't be exclusively for CDG and thus, AF makes the money on selling to the different points in Europe or Asia for that matter.

So if BA is trying to establish is some sort of hub in JFK to have direct flights to those points would seem somewhat of a wise idea in a way based on what you have said, however it still its very risky .



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9438 times:

I'm wondering if this means Iberia might drop one of their 2xdaily A340 flights in favor for 1 A340-600 flight and a British Airways flight. Of course that is depending on what aircraft will operate the British flight, if it was say a 757-200 I could see Iberia keeping both flights but if a 777-200 or 747-400 is thrown in then I could see them pulling 1 of the flights.

Although it is important to remember that JFK is among Iberia's top destinations following (in no particular order) EZE, MIA , MEX, and GRU.



No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5348 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9438 times:

Quoting Revo (Thread starter):
donate sought after landing slots at the London airport to their American partner

Donate? I doubt it; I sure wouldn't, although some flexible transfer arrangement with low up-front costs might work for both sides. If, say, AF offered a useful pair of LHR slots to DL, I could see them charging DL a percentage of revenues up to some cap.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
25 TWFirst : No, but the EU is a common market, meaning from the viewpoint of commerce, anywhere within its boundaries is considered the same economic jurisdictio
26 B752OS : BA could surely do well in certain markets on non-stop flights between Europe and The United States. Everyone is saying how JFK would be an iffy mark
27 Bobnwa : Are you saying that JFK-LHR-CDG for an American carrier is the same as BA flying CDG-JFK-SFO? The first example is three different countries whereas
28 Ssides : So, under the new rules, can AA codeshare with BA on these flights (other than LGW and LHR?) It was my understanding that the AA/BA codeshare prohibit
29 Panamair : Keep in mind that BA is thinking of 757s here so MIA and DFW are probably not too feasible.... LHR-U.S. flights are supposed to be part of the first
30 B747forever : And for example BA could expand in south America and offer more flights to the far east.
31 R2rho : MAD-JFK seems to be pretty much certain according to Spanish press. But wait a minute... aren't IB and BA both in Oneworld? Don't they supposedly get
32 B752OS : Well if BA is planning on using 752s, BOS would be a great market for them. Flights to BRU, LIS, BCN, GLA could work.
33 Panamair : If the news reports that they are planning to configure these 752s with mostly 'premium' seats are to be believed, then some of these markets won't w
34 G-CIVP : I reckon BA will do JFK-CDG, JFK-FRA and JFK-MAD at a minimum. I think it will be a very interesting to see what does materalise.
35 Post contains images UPPERDECKFAN : Once again, why would IB give away to BA one of their top three money makers?
36 Letit : I thought that OS had reintroduced free food on all flights? Even when they were selling food they did free water, tea and coffee in my experience. O
37 PlanesNTrains : I understand. But that doesn't change the fact that they are attempting to act as one body, at least when it comes to aviation. In the end, if that's
38 BlueFlyer : BRU and CDG actually make a lot of sense in as much as both airports (CDG more than BRU, and BRU when Sabena was around more than BRU with Brussels A
39 UPPERDECKFAN : Freeing a single A340 doesn't give IB many options to open a new long haul. Also doesn't make much sense for BA to codeshare on their own metal from
40 BAStew : Yup, BA owns T7 at JFK. It rents out gates to UA, IB, QF and a few other airlines (AS??).
41 BlueFlyer : Cool, thanks. AFAIK, the other carriers are AC, UA, IB, QF, NH, CX, and US. AS serves EWR, not JFK. Just speculating about a rational explanation for
42 Viscount724 : Cabotage would be CDG-NCE or MAD-BCN and US carriers certainly don't have those rights, just like EU carriers don't have cabotage rights within the U
43 Aircellist : A bit OT, but thanks, nice pictures, and nice reminiscence of the time when 727s ruled the skies... I suppose sometimes Frankfurt may have looked lik
44 TymnBalewne : Actually, no..BA does not own T7. There is a lease on the terminal which expires in about 7-8 years. BA subleases space to UA and US only. All other
45 Post contains images AirFrnt : Give us 50 more votes in the UN GA, one more veto in the UN Security council, and double the farm aide, staff fifty more embassies and then it would
46 Goldorak : For me it's not different. CDG-JFK is not only operated by AF and other skyteam partners (DL, and CO to EWR) but also twice daily by AA who is in One
47 BA787 : Just had a thought, how does IB actually do on the JFK routes? If BA brought in a big enough aircraft to do the route, couldn't it mean that IB could
48 UPPERDECKFAN : JFK is their highest yield route together with GRU, MEX and EZE. Not sure what do you mean by "big", IB's A346 are big a/c and I guess they have more
49 ANother : Not 'total' freedom. 3rd/4ths to any international airport in the 27 Member States and unlimited intermediate and beyond 5ths to points in another co
50 VV701 : I think so. Certainly the AA 767 MAN-ORD flight carries the BA5107 code share flight number. As an interesting aside Great Britain has never particip
51 R2rho : True, but still not quite the same. What I was referring to is competition on another airline's main hub. JFK-CDG is "just another flight" for AA, CD
52 OzGlobal : Correct. I am based in Paris. I often take a OneWorld RTW J ticket to circle Asia and Oz (sometimes including NY) [AF/SkyTeam don't cover Oz adequate
53 Bobnwa : Could you give us the figures please? They would be interesting to see.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Green Light For A New Airport At Mexico City posted Wed May 23 2007 18:08:21 by Anthsaun
Morning Transatlantic Flights From BOS posted Thu Aug 3 2006 20:28:19 by ChrisNH
Green Light For Mobils In Cabin. posted Wed Jun 14 2006 22:13:37 by Solnabo
BA BAe146 Flights From MAN posted Tue Jun 14 2005 01:37:33 by Planespotterx
BA Miami Flights From T3 posted Sun Apr 10 2005 13:31:56 by Sergy2k
DOT Gives Santa Green Light For Flight posted Wed Dec 22 2004 21:18:49 by AmtrakGuy
BA Cut Flights From Sep - Dec posted Wed Sep 8 2004 21:37:19 by ANstar
Potential For UK/Ireland Flights From Manston? posted Thu May 13 2004 09:59:09 by Pe@rson
What Are AC's Transatlantic Flights From YUL posted Tue Feb 17 2004 00:10:54 by ContinentalEWR
Logan Finally Gets Green Light For New Runway posted Wed Nov 19 2003 00:19:32 by Kearnet