Recently saw on here that someone posted that AA will be announcing an end to their seasonal DUS service from ORD. From this it is expected that AB picks up this service. As a result of this, AA will then use that aircraft to begin seasonal service to AMS from ORD. Again, this is just a rumor. I was wondering what the likelihood of this happening is and if starting AMS service makes sense for AA. They currently only have service to AMS from PHL and it got downgraded from a A332 to a 757?

If I'm not mistaken, PHL-AMS, at least in the Parker era, has traditionally been a 757 route with the occasional seasonal 762 (before they were retired obviously).

As for ORD-AMS, I suppose it makes sense as I've seen a posting recently for Dutch-speaking F/As.

Surprising if true. PHL-AMS has historically been L-US' worst performing year-round European station. They actually had made it seasonal for a while. I would think AA would upgrade PHL-AMS before launching ORD-AMS which has two other (much stronger) carriers flying it...

DFWandOMA wrote:

Recently saw on here that someone posted that AA will be announcing an end to their seasonal DUS service from ORD. From this it is expected that AB picks up this service. As a result of this, AA will then use that aircraft to begin seasonal service to AMS from ORD. Again, this is just a rumor. I was wondering what the likelihood of this happening is and if starting AMS service makes sense for AA. They currently only have service to AMS from PHL and it got downgraded from a A332 to a 757?

The rumor mill I've heard has been DFW-AMS, with PHL staying the same... hence the extra Dutch speaking FAs. Apparently they believe the DFW-AMS market is there after being voided by KL plus connections will keep it going. Remember this is all rumors and speculation so it could be nothing, but then HKG, SYD and AKL were all rumors too.

usflyer msp wrote:

Surprising if true. PHL-AMS has historically been L-US' worst performing year-round European station. They actually had made it seasonal for a while. I would think AA would upgrade PHL-AMS before launching ORD-AMS which has two other (much stronger) carriers flying it...

Surprising, indeed. I, too, would expect an upgauge of PHL-AMS to a 763 before introducing a second AMS route to the network.

717atOGG wrote:

IIRC, AA was going to start ORD-AMS in 2002 with 763 equipment, but that never happened.

1999, with a 762, indeed never started. It was announced in the same press release with JFK-FRA which did start but didn't last long.

Corpsnerd09 wrote:

The rumor mill I've heard has been DFW-AMS, with PHL staying the same... hence the extra Dutch speaking FAs. Apparently they believe the DFW-AMS market is there after being voided by KL plus connections will keep it going. Remember this is all rumors and speculation so it could be nothing, but then HKG, SYD and AKL were all rumors too.

While I'd love to see DFW-AMS, I do find it hard to believe. As I remember commenting several years back in a different thread, there is no question that, while likely not as large as ORD-AMS, there is a DFW-AMS market. There are, among other things, commercial connections including energy and aerospace/defense. And DFW-AMS also, obviously, has less competition. That said, I'm skeptical that it would work.

Interesting change, but one that would be nice to see. Always nice seeing Air Berlin tails in Chicago. Wonder what the times would be given the cramming of 3K departures and T5 arrivals.

Dropping ORD-DUS is hardly surprising. AA has always, it seems anyway, had a tough time in Germany. They had ORD-FRA, I think ORD-MUC, and for a brief time, flew ORD-TXL (1992 I believe) and could not make them work despite a good feed at ORD. Makes a lot of sense for AB to take over ORD-DUS. They have the base at DUS, and perhaps lower costs. Seems AA remains somewhat in flux over what it wants ORD to be, particularly post-merger. Believe it's the #3 hub in terms of departures after DFW and CLT, but a relatively meager long haul network compared to what it used to be, though that was a different AA and a different time.

If AA were to launch ORD-AMS, they would be going up against KLM and UA, and I would think adding more capacity than needed with no feed at the AMS end...

I would be STUNNED if we launched ORD-AMS. Our focus is Asia/Pacific and there IS going to be more expansion. Expect BNE. I mean, we only have been training people there (not just for diversionary reasons). DEL or BOM is also on the map and is way more likely than AMS.

Just because we are training or wanting Dutch Speakers does not mean we are expanding there. Could be to fill a gap thru retirements etc...

Im going to call BS on the AMS rumor. AA has really no use for AMS expansion. ORD-AMS is crowded and doesn't really have room for a third carrier and 75% of Texas-Amsterdam is Houston. DFW-AMS is actually a pretty small market.

ORD based LAA crews will be taking over the PHL-AMS route on Sep 6 , 2016 using a LAA 757-200. A route that has been flown by LUS crews using a LUS 757/767-200. This is probrably where this rumor has started . There still will be a PHL-AMS route . However , it will be operated by Chicago based crews up until Flight Attendant operational integration or (FOI) spring of 2017 in which case it will most likely revert back to a Philly based crew operating it ..

If AA were to expand at AMS I don't understand why they would choose ORD. There are two competing airlines on the route already. Their only AMS route so far, PHL, is only a 757. CLT and DFW are two huge fortress hubs lacking nonstop AMS service. I think even a MIA flight would make more sense, as it offers a ton of convenient connections to the Caribbean and Latin America (unlike KL).

etops1 wrote:

ORD based LAA crews will be taking over the PHL-AMS route on Sep 6 , 2016 using a LAA 757-200. A route that has been flown by LUS crews using a LUS 757/767-200. This is probrably where this rumor has started . There still will be a PHL-AMS route . However , it will be operated by Chicago based crews up until Flight Attendant operational integration or (FOI) spring of 2017 in which case it will most likely revert back to a Philly based crew operating it ..

That makes sense, especially considering that the LUS international 757s are being reconfigured for the Hawaii market.

The rumor of AA starting ORD-AMS sounds questionable reason is AA has the PHL-AMS market all to themselves and yet that service is being downgraded to a 757 so demand for service to AMS on AA is probably not there, before an airline offers an additional nonstop I think they would want the original flight to at least meet expectations. Downgrading the flight to a 757 could suggest that that AA is trying save a struggling route.

As far as AA looking to hire more Dutch FA's that does not necessarily equate to AA launching additional service to AMS, as we all know on most if not all Transatlantic and Transpacific flights airlines have FA's fluent in multiple languages. Case and point is on a recent UA flight I took to LHR there were FA"s fluent in French, German, Dutch, and strangely enough Spanish. UA's flights to Germany have even more language qualified FA's to European countries UA does not serve but LH does. As a result of UA's partnership with LH UA has to make sure that they have qualified FA's who can converse with customers from neighboring countries. The same must be true for AA, hiring additional language qualified FA's does not mean AA is increasing service to AMS if could just mean AA needs more Dutch speaking FA's to support current European flight schedule.

Then again I could be wrong only time will tell if AA finally launches ORD-AMS.

I understand there are legalities behind it, but having Dutch speaking FA's seems pointless to me. Much like Germany, English is widely understood. Sure there are some who don't speak English, but unlike people in the US many Europeans (France not included) speak multiple languages.

N809FR wrote:

I understand there are legalities behind it, but having Dutch speaking FA's seems pointless to me. Much like Germany, English is widely understood. Sure there are some who don't speak English, but unlike people in the US many Europeans (France not included) speak multiple languages.

That's nice but it doesn't change the fact that if you're flying to a country that speaks Dutch, you need Dutch speaking flight attendants.

Like, duh.

N809FR wrote:

I understand there are legalities behind it, but having Dutch speaking FA's seems pointless to me. Much like Germany, English is widely understood. Sure there are some who don't speak English, but unlike people in the US many Europeans (France not included) speak multiple languages.

It's a courtesy. But, I would say you really need it less on AMS flights, than you do on flights to Germany. I find there's many more English speakers in the Netherlands, than there are in Germany.

The UA flights on the sub CO side to AMS aren't staffed with Dutch speakers as CO never really felt a need for them. Same holds true for the ARN & OSL flights those aren't staffed with Norwegian and Swedish speakers respectively.

stlgph wrote:

N809FR wrote:

I understand there are legalities behind it, but having Dutch speaking FA's seems pointless to me. Much like Germany, English is widely understood. Sure there are some who don't speak English, but unlike people in the US many Europeans (France not included) speak multiple languages.

That's nice but it doesn't change the fact that if you're flying to a country that speaks Dutch, you need Dutch speaking flight attendants.

Like, duh.

Hence me saying "I understand there are legalities behind it", thank you though for being oh so pleasant in your response.

Could the opening for Dutch speaking FAs also be for existing routes to AUA, CUR, and SXM?

jayunited wrote:

The rumor of AA starting ORD-AMS sounds questionable reason is AA has the PHL-AMS market all to themselves and yet that service is being downgraded to a 757 so demand for service to AMS on AA is probably not there, before an airline offers an additional nonstop I think they would want the original flight to at least meet expectations. Downgrading the flight to a 757 could suggest that that AA is trying save a struggling route.

PHL-AMS is not being downgraded. It has operated with a US 752 for several years. It is simply shifting to a AA 752 that has a better premium product.

OB1504 wrote:

Could the opening for Dutch speaking FAs also be for existing routes to AUA, CUR, and SXM?

No. AA has never staffed those destinations with Dutch speakers. Especially SXM, where the locals don't speak Dutch, but English, with the rest being French. AUA has a small Dutch speaking population, with more on CUR. This however doesn't warrant Dutch speakers as AUA is Spring Break heaven.

Brexit may result in more flights to AMS if London diminishes in importance. Two cities that may benefit most from Brexit are Amsterdam and Dublin, but I'd put my money on Dublin. So we may see more flights to to either city in the future. Otherwise, I have not heard anything on a potential ORD-AMS route for AA. The European economies are struggling and demand is weak. AA's inability to compete against Star Alliance at ORD in the past has been discussed several times. However, I could see some positive developments once AA is able to consistently get a better product on ORD routes. From a pure network perspective, ORD had advantages over PHL.

AAplat4life wrote:

Two cities that may benefit most from Brexit are Amsterdam and Dublin, but I'd put my money on Dublin.

Especially if EI joins oneworld and/or the transatlantic ATI/JV.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Im going to call BS on the AMS rumor. AA has really no use for AMS expansion. ORD-AMS is crowded and doesn't really have room for a third carrier and 75% of Texas-Amsterdam is Houston. DFW-AMS is actually a pretty small market.

Let's look at some facts:

- The ORD-AMS market has seen a daily UA B763 and KL B744 Combi operating for the last 10 years.
- Previously SQ, KU, LY, RJ have all operated ORD-AMS in addition to the established carriers.
- BA operates a B763 LHR-AMS-LHR every morning to feed the AA/BA TATL network. These B763 are being withdrawn soon and BA is planning to operate A320 series instead.
- AA/BA may loose out on the NL-USA market if no substitute is found for the seats lost.
- EI operates DUB-AMS-DUB and could potentially offer seats to AA/BA over Dublin. More EI seats will become available once KLM commences AMS-DUB to carry its own transfer pax to/from Ireland.
- US/AA have been operating B752 aircraft PHL-AMS for many years, so capacity is static, while the AMS market has grown from 45 Million pax (2010) to 63 Million pax in 2016 = +39% growth.
- With static seat capacity AA is loosing market share, while less peak time LHR-AMS-LHR capacity will threaten market share further.
- In 2016 AMS will become the 3rd largest Hub in Europe after LHR (75 Mil.) and CDG (65 Mil.) in pax. AMS is already Europe's busiest hub in a/c movements - 47.000 in July 2016.
- The Netherlands is the fifth-largest economy in the Euro Zone. The Dutch economy depends heavily on foreign trade, with exports accounting for 83 percent of GDP and imports for 72 percent.
- Year-on-year, the Dutch economy advanced 2.3 percent, following 1.5 percent growth in the previous period and well above market expectations of 1.2 percent.
- GDP per capita in NL is USD 50.925, the USA is USD 51.486, so very similar.

It may indeed be just a rumor that AA plans ORD-AMS, but the data indicate that such a decision may not be so surprising after all.

wn676 wrote:

As for ORD-AMS, I suppose it makes sense as I've seen a posting recently for Dutch-speaking F/As.

The PHL-AMS route is moving to 75L equipment (LAA), which must be crewed by LAA crew. It was determined by Crew Planning that this flying would be covered by the ORD base, hence the need for speakers. This could be the where the ORD-AMS rumor is coming from.

"That person" was me, in the "what next for AA?" thread. My source, who works for AA corporate, was mistaken. As qqflyboy said, PHL-AMS is indeed swapping to AA 757 metal for the better TATL product, and the flight will be crewed out of ORD base.

The cancellation of ORD-DUS, unfortunately, does hold true.

Corpsnerd09 wrote:

The rumor mill I've heard has been DFW-AMS, with PHL staying the same... hence the extra Dutch speaking FAs. Apparently they believe the DFW-AMS market is there after being voided by KL plus connections will keep it going. Remember this is all rumors and speculation so it could be nothing, but then HKG, SYD and AKL were all rumors too.

While I'd love to see DFW-AMS, I do find it hard to believe. As I remember commenting several years back in a different thread, there is no question that, while likely not as large as ORD-AMS, there is a DFW-AMS market. There are, among other things, commercial connections including energy and aerospace/defense. And DFW-AMS also, obviously, has less competition. That said, I'm skeptical that it would work.[/quote]

I was a bit skeptical when I heard it, but I believe they are preparing for it after they begin cross-fleeting, perhaps 332 service or summer seasonal? It's just a rumor, but I found it interesting to discuss.

Word I hear in Dallas is that ORD - DUS is shifting to AB, who will drop ORD-TXL. Then EY will start ORD-TXL-AUH with an evening departure from ORD.

globalcabotage wrote:

Word I hear in Dallas is that ORD - DUS is shifting to AB, who will drop ORD-TXL. Then EY will start ORD-TXL-AUH with an evening departure from ORD.

I am highly skeptical of this one. I very much doubt that EY is going to add a stop and give up the AUH preclearance advantage by having their ORD flight stop at TXL. That would make no sense...

It will be a 2nd EY flight at ORD. The earlier nonstop will continue. Supposedly, EY is doing quite well at ORD (they were the first in). This is just an additional flight.

globalcabotage wrote:

It will be a 2nd EY flight at ORD. The earlier nonstop will continue. Supposedly, EY is doing quite well at ORD (they were the first in). This is just an additional flight.

1 - EY does well at ORD but not well enough to warrant a 2nd flight, especially since the arrival of QR and EK IMHO.
2 - TXL does not have sterile international transit, so the AUH pax would have to stay on the plane or enter the EU during the transit. Not good or realistic IMHO.
3. - I still highly doubt that EY will add US flights that do not pre-clear. That is the big advantage of EY/AUH over QR/DOH and EK/DXB. Wht would EY dilute their passenger experience for basically no reason?

stlgph wrote:

N809FR wrote:

I understand there are legalities behind it, but having Dutch speaking FA's seems pointless to me. Much like Germany, English is widely understood. Sure there are some who don't speak English, but unlike people in the US many Europeans (France not included) speak multiple languages.

That's nice but it doesn't change the fact that if you're flying to a country that speaks Dutch, you need Dutch speaking flight attendants.

I don't know how often you fly KLM within Europe but it's very common on KLM City Hopper flights (their E170s/190s and Fokker 70s) to have no Dutch speaking crewmembers.They're often all British, often including the pilots. I assume they're ex-KLM uk before it was merged into KLM. It doesn't seem to be any issue at all. It certainly wouldn't work in Germany or France.

777ord wrote:

I would be STUNNED if we launched ORD-AMS. Our focus is Asia/Pacific and there IS going to be more expansion. Expect BNE. I mean, we only have been training people there (not just for diversionary reasons). DEL or BOM is also on the map and is way more likely than AMS.

Just because we are training or wanting Dutch Speakers does not mean we are expanding there. Could be to fill a gap thru retirements etc...

I've heard another Australia route will be launched sometime next year, most likely LAX-MEL. I thought LAX-BNE was a few years off but regardless I'm pretty sure LAX-BNE/MEL operated by the 787-9 will happen by the end of the decade. I struggle to believe DEL/BOM will happen due to poor yields/ME3 despite having aircraft on order, 787-9/A350-900, that could make such routes significantly more plausible. The only expansion I could think AA of doing with AMS is upgauging the route to an A330-200, while the 289 seat 777-200ERs replace the A333-300s and possibly a few A330-200 routes.

Do AA and AB have a joint venture / ATI? Otherwise isn't it moot to say AA will do X, AB will do Y, and EY will do Z.

usflyer msp wrote:

globalcabotage wrote:

It will be a 2nd EY flight at ORD. The earlier nonstop will continue. Supposedly, EY is doing quite well at ORD (they were the first in). This is just an additional flight.

1 - EY does well at ORD but not well enough to warrant a 2nd flight, especially since the arrival of QR and EK IMHO.
2 - TXL does not have sterile international transit, so the AUH pax would have to stay on the plane or enter the EU during the transit. Not good or realistic IMHO.
3. - I still highly doubt that EY will add US flights that do not pre-clear. That is the big advantage of EY/AUH over QR/DOH and EK/DXB. Wht would EY dilute their passenger experience for basically no reason?

Can't comment on 1 and I don't think it is likely because of 3, but...

... you are wrong on number 2. While there is no sterile international transit in the old terminals at TXL (A, B, D/E), there is an transit zone at C, the LCC-like terminal owned by AB. It is 90% bus boarding and deplaning or walking up to the plane in front of the terminal. The busses take you to two entrances, either Schengen or Non-Schengen. At both entrances you can go to baggage reclaim (at Non-Schengen first comes a very swift passport control with many e-gates) or to the transit area. If I didn't got this wrong, Non-Schengen transit should be possible at TXL.

In the end it still doesn't make sense. EY has the aircraft to reach ORD non-stop and it losses PC, why do this?

I think it makes sense that AB is taking DUS-ORD from AA. Germans I think(and the average Europeans too) aren't the biggest fan of American carriers.

usairways85 wrote:

Do AA and AB have a joint venture / ATI? Otherwise isn't it moot to say AA will do X, AB will do Y, and EY will do Z.

No, AB is not part of the TATL JV, only AA/BA/IB/AY/RJ. You are correct, AB starting ORD-DUS will not mean mean much for AA.

factsonly wrote:

Let's look at some facts:

It may indeed be just a rumor that AA plans ORD-AMS, but the data indicate that such a decision may not be so surprising after all.

While I don't dispute your facts, but there are other elements that make AMS a less appealing destination for AA (vs. probably another more profitable TPAC destination).

Almost 40% of AMS passengers are connecting, OW in general has minimal connecting opportunities, which means AA will solely rely on US-AMS O&D traffic. Having said that, DL/KL already covers 13 US destinations, and UA covers 4 destinations. Without a partner and established presence at AMS, this might be one of those markets where AA is not worth fighting for and keep its PHL-AMS route or let its partners do the rest of the flying. In addition, it might be easier to upgauge PHL-AMS aircraft if they wanted to add more seats.

usairways85 wrote:

Do AA and AB have a joint venture / ATI? Otherwise isn't it moot to say AA will do X, AB will do Y, and EY will do Z.

No they don't have a JV/ATI.

lesfalls wrote:

I think it makes sense that AB is taking DUS-ORD from AA. Germans I think(and the average Europeans too) aren't the biggest fan of American carriers.

Which is amusing considering LH isn't any better than any of the Big 3 US airlines.

777PHX wrote:

lesfalls wrote:

I think it makes sense that AB is taking DUS-ORD from AA. Germans I think(and the average Europeans too) aren't the biggest fan of American carriers.

Which is amusing considering LH isn't any better than any of the Big 3 US airlines.

I bet this is even more amusing then what you just said! I would say LH is totally better then any of the Big U.S 3. As usal the majority of americans like to be passionate about their nations carriers when comparing them to foreign airlines.

CARST wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

globalcabotage wrote:

It will be a 2nd EY flight at ORD. The earlier nonstop will continue. Supposedly, EY is doing quite well at ORD (they were the first in). This is just an additional flight.

1 - EY does well at ORD but not well enough to warrant a 2nd flight, especially since the arrival of QR and EK IMHO.
2 - TXL does not have sterile international transit, so the AUH pax would have to stay on the plane or enter the EU during the transit. Not good or realistic IMHO.
3. - I still highly doubt that EY will add US flights that do not pre-clear. That is the big advantage of EY/AUH over QR/DOH and EK/DXB. Wht would EY dilute their passenger experience for basically no reason?

Can't comment on 1 and I don't think it is likely because of 3, but...

... you are wrong on number 2. While there is no sterile international transit in the old terminals at TXL (A, B, D/E), there is an transit zone at C, the LCC-like terminal owned by AB. It is 90% bus boarding and deplaning or walking up to the plane in front of the terminal. The busses take you to two entrances, either Schengen or Non-Schengen. At both entrances you can go to baggage reclaim (at Non-Schengen first comes a very swift passport control with many e-gates) or to the transit area. If I didn't got this wrong, Non-Schengen transit should be possible at TXL.

I am not so sure about that - from the German Consulate @ http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/ ... _Visa.html

Berlin (06:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. only) at Berlin-Tegel, for Air Berlin passengers only. The airline has to arrange the transit beforehand with the authorities responsible for cross-border security (the Federal Police). The connection time must be at least 75 minutes.

Sounds as though the Airline has to make special arrangements for airside transit at TXL. I am going to guess an immigration officer has to escort the passengers between the two flights...

AA767400 wrote:

N809FR wrote:

I understand there are legalities behind it, but having Dutch speaking FA's seems pointless to me. Much like Germany, English is widely understood. Sure there are some who don't speak English, but unlike people in the US many Europeans (France not included) speak multiple languages.

It's a courtesy. But, I would say you really need it less on AMS flights, than you do on flights to Germany. I find there's many more English speakers in the Netherlands, than there are in Germany.

Indeed the Netherlands has one of the highest percentages of English speakers in the EU, and having lived and worked there for six months, I don't believe I ever encountered someone who didn't speak English. That said, and as you mention, you can't count on 100% of passengers to speak a non-native tongue.

777ord wrote:

I would be STUNNED if we launched ORD-AMS. Our focus is Asia/Pacific and there IS going to be more expansion. Expect BNE. I mean, we only have been training people there (not just for diversionary reasons). DEL or BOM is also on the map and is way more likely than AMS.

Just because we are training or wanting Dutch Speakers does not mean we are expanding there. Could be to fill a gap thru retirements etc...

What's the good word on CHC?

777ord wrote:

I would be STUNNED if we launched ORD-AMS. Our focus is Asia/Pacific and there IS going to be more expansion. Expect BNE. I mean, we only have been training people there (not just for diversionary reasons). DEL or BOM is also on the map and is way more likely than AMS.

Just because we are training or wanting Dutch Speakers does not mean we are expanding there. Could be to fill a gap thru retirements etc...

I'm just laughing at this post about the ORD-AMS plans. If AA wanted to restart India again, then the 777-300ER would be the only choice. The cargo & passenger loading would have to be big if AA did it again. I remember when AA did it years ago as an alternative to the LHR stopover. It did not last long. AMS on the other hand would be a challenge with KL & UA flying. the DFW route is doing ok and I don't know about the PHL one.

CcrlR wrote:

777ord wrote:

I'm just laughing at this post about the ORD-AMS plans. If AA wanted to restart India again, then the 777-300ER would be the only choice. The cargo & passenger loading would have to be big if AA did it again. I remember when AA did it years ago as an alternative to the LHR stopover. It did not last long. AMS on the other hand would be a challenge with KL & UA flying. the DFW route is doing ok and I don't know about the PHL one.

I'd have to laugh if AA restarts India with a 777-300ER. The plane is way too premium and nowhere near dense enough to make the flight work. Now the 787-9 or A350-900, could be a different story, especially if India's economic growth only gets stronger with the recent reforms that make foreign direct investment into the country much larger and easier than ever. But still I'd be be surprised if AA returns to India within the next five years. They're focused on LAX-Pacific right now. Fortunately they have both the 787-9 and A350-900 on order, giving them great flexibility in their future Pacific flying.

lesfalls wrote:

777PHX wrote:

lesfalls wrote:

I think it makes sense that AB is taking DUS-ORD from AA. Germans I think(and the average Europeans too) aren't the biggest fan of American carriers.

Which is amusing considering LH isn't any better than any of the Big 3 US airlines.

I bet this is even more amusing then what you just said! I would say LH is totally better then any of the Big U.S 3. As usal the majority of americans like to be passionate about their nations carriers when comparing them to foreign airlines.

It's has nothing to do with any sort of passion for the Big 3. The notion that European airlines are better than US airlines these days is uninformed. One of the worst experiences I've ever had flying was in Y in a LH 744, ORD-FRA. Yeah, no, thanks.

777PHX wrote:

lesfalls wrote:

777PHX wrote:

Which is amusing considering LH isn't any better than any of the Big 3 US airlines.

I bet this is even more amusing then what you just said! I would say LH is totally better then any of the Big U.S 3. As usal the majority of americans like to be passionate about their nations carriers when comparing them to foreign airlines.

It's has nothing to do with any sort of passion for the Big 3. The notion that European airlines are better than US airlines these days is uninformed. One of the worst experiences I've ever had flying was in Y in a LH 744, ORD-FRA. Yeah, no, thanks.

So if I told you that I had a terrible experience flying with AA on JFK-MXP in February would you say that I was unlucky or that I am lying? Also explain yourself how it is uninformed? I know many friends who would rather take a European carrier over an American carrier.

777PHX wrote:

It's has nothing to do with any sort of passion for the Big 3. The notion that European airlines are better than US airlines these days is uninformed. One of the worst experiences I've ever had flying was in Y in a LH 744, ORD-FRA. Yeah, no, thanks.

Agreed. These days, I have a hard time differentiating any dramatic difference in product/service offering between the U.S. and European majors.

As usual, to each their own I guess. Personally, I've never found any of the European majors particularly bad in terms of product/service, but I've never found them particularly stellar, either - especially in Y. And among the U.S. carriers, there are certainly standouts both good (AA 77W J, for example) and bad (AA 757/767 Y or United 744 Y, for example), but if anything, I'd say that on balance the U.S. carriers are starting to edge the European carriers out in several ways.