"Air France, in a move that could intensify competition and lower fares for transatlantic travel, said Wednesday that it would begin nonstop service between Los Angeles International Airport and London's Heathrow Airport next August.
For its part, Air France plans to start a nonstop service from LAX to Tahiti in 2010 as the venture grows to include other destinations in Europe, the Mediterranean and North America."
Did I read Air France's press release wrong, or are their flights to/from LHR beginning in April 2008? Additionally, did the LAT writer forgot to check that AF currently operates a non-stop flight to Tahiti 4 times a week? They operate it with an A343, which they receive on Thursday evenings and return on Mondays.
Maybe I need some sleep, but I'm almost certain that the LAX-LHR flights will start in April. If anyone has information to the contrary, please do share.
Thanks!
P.S. In the print edition, they show a picture of an AF 744 at LAX. When was the last time they regularly served LAX with a 744, 10 months ago at least? Time to update their database with a pic of a 77W...
TYCOON From United States, joined Feb 2007, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
Article is pretty flawed. Obviously AF has been flying LAX- Tahiti nonstops since the 1980s after UTA lost the French monopoly on this route and then AF took over UTA. It has served this route continuously ever since.
Maybe the writer was referring to either DL starting up service (but that would only be via a codeshare on AF metal, which they don't have currently) or, better yet, the operation of new nonstops to Tahiti from another DL hub - either JFK or ATL.
The other error in the article is saying that BA offers six daily flights between LAX and London. They "only" offer three daily flights. The writer needs to check his information.
AF Cabin Crew From French Polynesia, joined Sep 1999, 886 posts, RR: 34 Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1909 times:
Ia Orana Charles79, TYCOON...
I have the answer concerning the LAX-PPT 2010 mix-up !!! Answer was from an article in l'Echo Touristique.
The article states that DL and AF's joint venture will start with all routes between CDG and ATL, JFK, CVG and soon SLC also included are the routes from JFK to ORY and to LYS. This effective April 1st 2008 (july 2008 for the LYS and ORY routes)
Then the joint venture will include the flights between LHR-LAX and LHR/LGW-ATL, JFK and CVG.
It then says that as of April 1st 2010 ALL transatlantic routes operated by the 2 carriers will be included, as well as AF's European and mediterranean network, Delta's domestic, canada and mexico network in connection with the transatlantic routes and also included in that phase will be the LAX-PPT route on which the 2 carriers will share costs, losses and profits on the route.
It is a little bit more clear I believe...
McMax From United States, joined Dec 2005, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1314 times:
Quoting TYCOON (Reply 2): The other error in the article is saying that BA offers six daily flights between LAX and London. They "only" offer three daily flights. The writer needs to check his information.
When I first read that BA had six daily flights to LHR, I thought, WOW, I have so not been paying attention to BA's LAX operations lately! Perhaps the writer was also including AA's two daily LAX-LHR flights as well? (I know it still doesn't add up to six dailies, but as we all know, non-aviation enthusiast newspaper reporters still can't tell the difference between a 747 and a 767 )
Aaway From United States, joined Oct 2003, 1068 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1260 times:
Quoting TYCOON (Reply 2): The other error in the article is saying that BA offers six daily flights between LAX and London. They "only" offer three daily flights.
A matter of semantics. Better to have written, " BA offers three daily round trip flights between LAX and London."
"The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping the old ones, which ramify...into every corner of our minds"
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 15605 posts, RR: 49 Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1256 times:
This is the LA Times. It has no credibility left to us in LA, why do people trust it elsewhere? Their circulation is dropping, they do horrible fact checking, and even when presented by the facts by other journalists or people they are writing about, they seldom correct the information.
In other words, use the LA Times as a jumping off point. Read an article, then look for other sources that might verify what you've read (or clarify their errors).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Charles79 From United States, joined Mar 2007, 630 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 986 times:
Quoting AF Cabin Crew (Reply 3): I have the answer concerning the LAX-PPT 2010 mix-up !!! Answer was from an article in l'Echo Touristique.
Ahhh...thanks Cabin Crew, that sure clears it up! It was great to meet up at In-n-Out the other night, let us know when you're in town again!
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7): This is the LA Times. It has no credibility left to us in LA
Sure it does...if you are willing to believe in unicorns, wizards, and mermaids! The LAT has certainly gone down in quality, and my post was in a way to try and show that. When it comes to press releases on anything technical (planes, cars, iphones, whatever) they are highly likely to mess up the specs, give you the wrong facts, or both. I still subscribe to the paper, though, as the journalist articles generated by them are usually very interesting. But overall, it suffers from the same disease of the rest of the media in this country (remember Bush's National Guard records and Dan Rather?). Fact checking is time consuming, ergo most media outlets just skip the step!
McMax From United States, joined Dec 2005, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 890 times:
Since Tribune took over the LA Times, it's gone downhill steadily. I've even cancelled my daily scrip and re-upped with our local Orange County Register instead (which is a raggy little paper if there ever was one!).
Now, back to the topic though...does anyone believe AF's new LAX-LHR flight will succeed in the long-term? With the somewhat decent DL feed, Skyteam seems to finally have an option to oneworld (AA and BA) and Star (UA and NZ) on this lucrative route. I'm a bit surprised this is not being operated as a Delta flight instead.
It is not always the newspapers that get aviation facts wrong. They often get them right and then aviation enthusiasts (who are more familiar with the subject) expect the correspondents to write in the same terms that they think. And, as on this occasion when they expected to read 'flights from LAX to Heathrow' that is what they erroneously read.
UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 2249 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 708 times:
Quoting McMax (Reply 9): Now, back to the topic though...does anyone believe AF's new LAX-LHR flight will succeed in the long-term? With the somewhat decent DL feed, Skyteam seems to finally have an option to oneworld (AA and BA) and Star (UA and NZ) on this lucrative route. I'm a bit surprised this is not being operated as a Delta flight instead.
As I have stated on another thread, I feel AF will struggle and that they would have had a better chance on DL metal. I give it a year and then AF will bail out!
McMax From United States, joined Dec 2005, 160 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 598 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): The LA Times accurately stated that BA has 'six daily flights between LAX and Heathrow'.
In American venacular, "six daily flights" is interpreted as six daily originating flights, as the only point of relevance to the ex-LAX passenger is the number of actual departures he/she can choose to Heathrow. A less sensationalistic, yet less ambiguous, phrase would be "three flights a day from LAX to Heathrow."
Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 11): As I have stated on another thread, I feel AF will struggle and that they would have had a better chance on DL metal. I give it a year and then AF will bail out!
At least Londoners can now do a 1-stop to Tahiti via LAX.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3031 posts, RR: 13 Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 535 times:
Quoting McMax (Reply 12): In American venacular, "six daily flights" is interpreted as six daily originating flights, as the only point of relevance to the ex-LAX passenger is the number of actual departures he/she can choose to Heathrow.
Unless, of course, he or she wants to fly home?
But nevertheless if an article says "six daily flights between LAX and Heathrow" in any vernacular (not "venacular" in either English or American English) it means "six daily flights between LAX and Heathrow" and not "six daily flights from LAX to Heathrow". For those of us - like you and I - who read a lot about commercial aviation, this shows the importance of reading non-specialist publications carefully because non-specialist authors cannot always be expected to have your (and hopefully my) understanding of how aviation matters are usually expressed.
Of course we would all wish that The LA Times and all other newspapers of import had a specialist aviation correspondent. But few if any do. So care in reading their output should be our watchword.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2007, 630 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From French Polynesia, joined Sep 1999, 886 posts, 
)
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3031 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
