YYC To LHR

JohnYYC · Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:02 am

This is my first time posting so here goes.

I am planning my vacation for next fall to europe with Contiki Tours. I was wondering what airlines fly from canada to europe ? (other then AC) Also wondering would it be cheaper to depart from some where in the United States?

scrubbsywg · Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:43 am

have fun on contiki, hope you like to party, those tours can be quite insane.

for airlines

AC
BA

Zoom

just to name a few.

[Edited 2007-11-26 20:58:30]

auroralives · Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:47 am

Quoting JohnYYC (Thread starter):
This is my first time posting so here goes.

I am planning my vacation for next fall to Europe with Contiki Tours. I was wondering what airlines fly from canada to europe ? (other then AC) Also wondering would it be cheaper to depart from some where in the United States?

Since I made my first post to A.net a couple of hours ago, I'll tackle this one.

JohnYYC.... the breadth and depth of your question is impossible for anyone on this fourm to answer. Assuming the title of your post is accurate, your choices from YYC would be AC an BA (and charters non-stop... LH with transfer).

That said who knows what the situation will be next fall..... If you want to fly from the US, your variables would be:
a) cost of getting to the US (i.e. driving, flying, bussing, etc)
b) where you departed from in the US...
c) etc...

Best advice at this stage would be to:
a) nail down your dates of travel
b) Figure out arrival / departure cities (in Europe)
c) be FLEXIBLE with a) and b)
d) start a web search NOW.... watch prices fluctuate... book next Springish.
e) anticipate a GREAT time in Europe next fall Wink

Hope this helps...

scrubbsywg · Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:52 am

if its a contiki tour, i think we can assume he wants to get to london, as that's where the tours start.

air transat flies as well.

Can it really be much cheaper for him to fly through anywhere since there are a couple choices of direct flights?

JohnYYC · Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:56 am

I think AC, AF, and ZOOM are my cheapest bet departing from YYZ. But that means I would have to catch a Westjet or Jazz flight from YYC to YYZ.

[Edited 2007-11-26 20:57:37]

scrubbsywg · Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:02 am

well, you can always keep an eye on the sites like expedia and travelocity to see what most of the cheaper options are.

One benefit of flying jazz to YYC would be the benefits of a missed connection while connecting on the same airline. Although i direct flight would not have this problem. Expedia right now is showing the cheapest as flying northwest to MSP and going from there.

again, i hope you like partying and copious alcohol consumption. Smile

JohnYYC · Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:10 am

I do love to party and drink. hyper

evolv · Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:32 am

in my opinion paying the extra cash for a direct flight is worth it. Especially if you fly Westjet to YYZ and then onto LHR. If you fly AC the entire journey the cost of YYC-LHR direct won't be that much different than YYC-YYZ-LHR. I am also of the opinion to avoid YYZ if at all possible. You won't have to worry about missing the connection and losing baggage should not be an issue. Although I have flown YYC-FRA direct and somehow the people at FRA lost a bin. They told me it was somewhere at the airport but it would be a couple hours to track it down.

JohnYYC · Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:44 am

Well I think I take what you said to mind and try and go direct. Which means I will most likely be going on AC and it only cost $1150. I assume that is a good deal.

CYQL · Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:57 am

YYC-LHR

Air Canada 1 or 2 flights daily depending on season
British Airways 1 daily flight

YYC-LGW

Zoom www.flyzoom.com
Air Transat www.airtransat.com
Thomas Cook www.canadian-affair.ca

The charter flights to Gatwick, are not as frequent as the flights to Heathrow, but are usually much cheaper, sometimes off season can be had for under $500 including taxes. Access to London is also quite easy with trains about every ten minutes.

If you are planning a few extra days in London, you can get a room at a Travelodge for 29 pounds if you book in advance. www.travelodge.co.uk

Tim

jamincan · Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:57 am

I'm guessing you can find much better than that. Wait till you find a decent seat sale.

evolv · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:26 am

Quoting JohnYYC (Reply 8):
Which means I will most likely be going on AC and it only cost $1150. I assume that is a good deal.

no, i've flown to Europe for $800. Don't limit yourself to AC make sure you check BA as well. They will most likely be in the same ballpark but you never know.

scrubbsywg · Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:08 pm

i've flown to LHR thru YYC for less than 900 at some points, wait until you find something better.

VonRichtofen · Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:23 pm

As others have said, AC and BA offer directs. I'd be wary of the charters if you need to be in London on a certain date. Flying via the US can be cheap as hell despite the extra segment thanks to more competition. I've flown YYC-LHR several and usually AC is the cheapest and most convenient. Also, connecting in YYZ gives you a choice of 4 or 5 arrival times in LHR vs just 2, and if it's on one AC itinerary it's usually no more expensive.

Just a correction, it's AC mainline that flies YYC-YYZ not Jazz. AC is your better choice for this segment as AC offers more flights than Westjet so it'll be easier connecting. But I'd recommend finding the cheapest itinerary you can find on AC or another major airline, and if requires connections you'll only have to check your bags once even if you're switching airlines unlike Westjet that has no such agreements with anybody.

Kris

CHRISBA777ER · Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:28 pm

BA - you know it makes sense!

Get one one of those lovely old ladies, the beautiful Speedbird 744s before they are all gone - AVOD in every seat (on the 744 ex-YYZ) and better food, service, pitch and all round experience than AC on The World's Favourite Airline and the opportunity to fly the venerable old 744 which is increasingly rare these days as the skies become filled with boring twins.

Fly BA - get a little taste of UK before you arrive. Drink non-stop all the way to prepare yourself for what London is going to be like (apart from the crippling expense of course lol).

threepoint · Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:54 pm

OK, CHRISBA777ER,

If that wasn't the most shameless plug in this forum's history...

I agree, BA is a fine airline. I reckon they should give you some sort of commission in return for that advocacy though.

bmacleod · Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:54 pm

When did BA start YYC operations? Using 763s or 777s?

744 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:57 pm

CHRISBA777ER,
AC offers better pricing than BA. Also, in most cases, AC offers more legroom than BA's crapmed 744's. AC 330 look newer and fresher than old Speedbird's 744. AC also offers free drinks throughout the flight and the food is much better than BA (hot meal compaired to cold sandwiches). Overall, I would rather fly AC than BA. I have had very bad experinces with BA in the past. AC has been so much nicer. Plus I love their uniforms (they're just too good!) Although 744's are my favorite plane, unfortunately AC doesn't have them anymore. If they did, I wouldn't fly anything else but AC.
Rgds,
744

bakersdozen · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:08 pm

For example on fares. AC had a sale on a couple of weeks ago where you could fly to LHR for $99 each way + taxes. I assume their fall pre-christmas loads are a little lower and they are pushing more to fill the planes. Competition is great!

ac888yow · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:11 pm

I would suggest against flying via the United States. The inconvenience of having to clear US customs and collect/re-check your baggage on the return trip is not worth it. Support your airport's nonstops, even if you have to pay a slight or modest premium.

ACDC8 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Quoting Bakersdozen (Reply 18):
For example on fares. AC had a sale on a couple of weeks ago where you could fly to LHR for $99 each way + taxes.

I believe that those fares were only from YYZ. YYC fares started at $209 plus taxes, fees, surcharges for a one way ticket.

N1120A · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:17 pm

Quoting JohnYYC (Thread starter):
Also wondering would it be cheaper to depart from some where in the United States?

Not if you are flying from Calgary. The costs of getting to a major US airport would be prohibitive. It may, however, be cheaper to fly a US carrier through one of their hubs.

Quoting JohnYYC (Reply 8):
I assume that is a good deal.

It isn't, but you may have to pay it if you need specific times.

JohnYYC · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:20 pm

I am pretty sure I will be flying AC as I found a direct flight (YYC - LHR) for about $985.

auroralives · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:26 pm

Quoting Bakersdozen (Reply 18):
For example on fares. AC had a sale on a couple of weeks ago where you could fly to LHR for $99 each way + taxes.

Of course + $248 (fuel Surcharge) + $45 (Canada fees) + $110 (UK fees) + various taxes =
AT LEAST $600 for your $198 ticket banghead

evolv · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:32 pm

Quoting 744 (Reply 17):
AC offers more legroom than BA's crapmed 744's. AC 330 look newer and fresher than old Speedbird's 744.

BA flies 777's to/from YYC

ACDC8 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:35 pm

Quoting AuroraLives (Reply 23):
Of course + $248 (fuel Surcharge) + $45 (Canada fees) + $110 (UK fees) + various taxes =
AT LEAST $600 for your $198 ticket

Here's the breakdown on the $198 (2 x $99 one way tickets) from YYZ ...

Passenger Type Adult
Base Fare 198.00
Fuel Surcharge YQ 204.00
Taxes, Fees and Charges
Canada Airport Improvement Fee SQ 20.00
Canada Security Charge CA 17.00
U.K. Passenger Service Charge UB 29.06
Canada Goods and Services Tax (GST/HST #10009-2287) XG 1.20
U.K. Air Passenger Duty GB 81.30
Total airfare and taxes before options (per passenger) 550.56

Number Of Passengers 1
Grand Total - Canadian Dollars $550.56

Depressing, but a fact of life in Canada.

auroralives · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:45 pm

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 25):
Here's the breakdown on the $198 (2 x $99 one way tickets) from YYZ ...

Passenger Type Adult
Base Fare 198.00
Fuel Surcharge YQ 204.00
Taxes, Fees and Charges
Canada Airport Improvement Fee SQ 20.00
Canada Security Charge CA 17.00
U.K. Passenger Service Charge UB 29.06
Canada Goods and Services Tax (GST/HST #10009-2287) XG 1.20
U.K. Air Passenger Duty GB 81.30
Total airfare and taxes before options (per passenger) 550.56

Number Of Passengers 1
Grand Total - Canadian Dollars $550.56

Interesting..... I couldn't find the $99 fare so I just did some random flights through YYZ & YUL....
That explains the different AIF charges, but what's interesting is the fuel surcharge seems to vary
based on the price of the ticket ?? I would have thought a fuel-surcharge is a fuel-surcharge is a
fuel-surcharge?? If it "really" is for fuel, should the cost of the ticket not be irrellevant?

Base Fare 618.00
Fuel Surcharge YQ 248.00
Taxes, Fees and Charges
Canada Airport Improvement Fee SQ 28.00
Canada Security Charge CA 17.00
U.K. Passenger Service Charge UB 29.06
Canada Goods and Services Tax (GST/HST #10009-2287) XG 1.68
U.K. Air Passenger Duty GB 81.30

N1120A · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:53 pm

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 25):
Fuel Surcharge YQ 204.00

Remember, that is not a tax or government fee. You have only the airline and fuel speculators to blame for that.

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 25):

Depressing, but a fact of life in Canada.

It isn't just a Canadian thing. The US carriers pull the same thing

c172akula · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:53 pm

I flew with BA on the YYC - LHR run back in March on our way to India and found it to be a good experience.

The advantages over AC on the run to LHR:

- PTV's for every seat in economy
- 777 vs the A330 if that's your cup of tea
- later departure if you need more time to get ready

Disadvantages of BA(that I found):

- it seemed much more cramped in economy than my flights on AC's 333's
- 333 cabin noticeably quieter

I'd say if the prices are pretty close than the choice is purely personal opinion. Good luck!

744 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:55 pm

East or West AC is the BEST!!!!!!!

ACDC8 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:09 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
It isn't just a Canadian thing. The US carriers pull the same thing

I never said that it was just a Canadian thing ....

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
Remember, that is not a tax or government fee. You have only the airline and fuel speculators to blame for that.

I don't care who gets it. If I have to pay for it, put it in the damn price that's advertised. Pretty sad that I still have to pay an extra 64% above the price advertised.

Quoting AuroraLives (Reply 26):
Interesting..... I couldn't find the $99 fare so I just did some random flights through YYZ & YUL....

I looked at departing Feb.4 and returning Feb.16. I figured that February would be the best month to find those prices.

[Edited 2007-11-27 12:14:00]

VonRichtofen · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:11 pm

Quoting 744 (Reply 29):
- PTV's for every seat in economy

By next fall chances are every AC widebody will have the AVOD system Wink

auroralives · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:14 pm

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 30):
If I have to pay for it put it in the damn price that's advertised. Pretty sad that I still have to pay an extra 64% above the price advertised.

64% ??? The fuel surcharge alone on your ticket is 103% of the base fare.

The total fare is 277% of the advertised fare. I'm simply speechless that this sort of nonsense is tolerated.

ACDC8 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:19 pm

Quoting AuroraLives (Reply 32):
64% ??? The fuel surcharge alone on your ticket is 103% of the base fare.

The total fare is 277% of the advertised fare. I'm simply speechless that this sort of nonsense is tolerated.

I'll admit my math sucks, but the base ticket is $198 return, the total came to $550 which leaves $352 (or 64%) of the total fare in taxes, surcharges and fees.

Quoting AuroraLives (Reply 32):
I'm simply speechless that this sort of nonsense is tolerated.

Don't forget that there is an extra charge that hasn't been included yet, and that's if you book it over the phone.

VonRichtofen · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:20 pm

Quoting AuroraLives (Reply 32):
The total fare is 277% of the advertised fare. I'm simply speechless that this sort of nonsense is tolerated.

Canadians are the most spineless consumers on the planet. We get ripped off with just about everything and nothing changes. Look at our mobile phone rates, price of retail goods, price of cars etc.

I'm not sure what the cause is of this, perhaps it's the Canadian culture of mediocrity and fence sitting pacifism.

ACDC8 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:21 pm

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 34):
Canadians are the most spineless consumers on the planet. We get ripped off with just about everything and nothing changes. Look at our mobile phone rates, price of retail goods, price of cars etc.

Yet it seems to work just fine with the price of fuel at the pump. Go figure. (I meant with taxes, surcharges being included in the price they advertise).

[Edited 2007-11-27 12:29:40]

N1120A · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:27 pm

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 34):

Canadians are the most spineless consumers on the planet. We get ripped off with just about everything and nothing changes. Look at our mobile phone rates, price of retail goods, price of cars etc.

Canadians are no different from Americans, except that they are perhaps a bit more scrupulous when it comes to their consumption. The main issue now is that prices have not corrected for exchange rates.

VonRichtofen · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:36 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 36):
Canadians are no different from Americans, except that they are perhaps a bit more scrupulous when it comes to their consumption. The main issue now is that prices have not corrected for exchange rates.

You're right about the exchange rates. But it's not only that. The mobile phone plans in the US are waaay better than the plans up here. I think this is because of more competition in the US. I don't know what kind of phones are sold in the US, but in Canada we pay $150 for a garbage phone that's obsolete in the rest of the world and we only get that "low" price if we sign a three year contract on some shitty plan.

Anywho, it's a bit off topic. Obviously Canadian prices can never completely match US prices because of economies of scale, higher taxes in Canada etc. But the differences shouldn't be near as extreme as they are.

N1120A · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:40 pm

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 37):
The mobile phone plans in the US are waaay better than the plans up here.

Not really. The biggest problem I see with Canadian plans is that they still make you roam

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 37):
I don't know what kind of phones are sold in the US, but in Canada we pay $150 for a garbage phone that's obsolete in the rest of the world and we only get that "low" price if we sign a three year contract on some shitty plan.

My ex got her phone, which was going for exorbitant prices in the US at the time, for free with her Rogers contract renewal. Anyway, the US and Canada both get shafted on the cool phone subject.

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 37):
Obviously Canadian prices can never completely match US prices because of economies of scale, higher taxes in Canada etc.

Taxes are not a major issue, and NAFTA should dispense with any economies of scale problems.

VonRichtofen · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:49 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
Taxes are not a major issue, and NAFTA should dispense with any economies of scale problems.

Good point, but these are the two main excuses that are spouted by the retail chain execs whenever the media starts asking why.

Kris

N1120A · Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:53 pm

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 39):

Good point, but these are the two main excuses that are spouted by the retail chain execs whenever the media starts asking why.

Of course, because they make a killing in Canada.

itsnotfinals · Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:03 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
US and Canada both get shafted on the cool phone subject.

The iPhone was a really backward phone that was only available in the US when it came out Smile

This is 2007, the days of bad phones in the US are over, 5 years ago yes, now not so much.

N1120A · Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:05 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 41):

This is 2007, the days of bad phones in the US are over, 5 years ago yes, now not so much

Other than the iPhone, which is a completely different debate, the phone technology in the US still lags WAY behind that of Asia and Europe

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 41):

The iPhone was a really backward phone that was only available in the US when it came out

The iPhone has its own problems.

itsnotfinals · Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:12 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 42):
Other than the iPhone, which is a completely different debate, the phone technology in the US still lags WAY behind that of Asia and Europe

How so? you cannot even hope to prove that opinion (and that is all it is)

Phones and airlines are just as sophisticated as their European counterparts these days, we have reached information parity on both sides of the pond.

N1120A · Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:19 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 43):

How so? you cannot even hope to prove that opinion (and that is all it is)

First, more than half the US mobile providers are still not even on GSM technology, let alone 3G. Even those that are on GSM don't offer the same type of connectivity that is offered in other countries, particularly places like Japan.

itsnotfinals · Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:25 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 44):
First, more than half the US mobile providers are still not even on GSM technology, let alone 3G. Even those that are on GSM don't offer the same type of connectivity that is offered in other countries, particularly places like Japan.

So very wrong. All CDMA,TDMA and GSM providers all have 3G equivalent or better,and even VoIP not to mention much broader and cheaper networks,and GSM phones all work in Europe now not to mention all the CDMA providers have world-phones that are GSM compatible.

Where have you been for the past 3 years?

I hate to tell you 3G is like 1999-2001 dude.

N1120A · Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:39 pm

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 45):
not to mention all the CDMA providers have world-phones that are GSM compatible.

Which is not the same as having a GSM network of their own.

Quoting Itsnotfinals (Reply 45):

I hate to tell you 3G is like 1999-2001 dude.

Um, no. 3G was initially rolled out in 2003, and not in the US. In fact, US providers are still using EDGE as opposed to UMTS, which means they have not gone to full 3G.

itsnotfinals · Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:47 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 46):
Which is not the same as having a GSM network of their own.

LOL,and every tel com in Europe owns the entire GSM network from Finland to Africa? too funny.

it's called reciprocity, and that is the same all over the world. No Telcom in their right mind would create a fully overlapping GSM network (and none have) when they can piggy back on each others' networks for a fraction of the cost.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 46):
Um, no. 3G was initially rolled out in 2003, and not in the US. In fact, US providers are still using EDGE as opposed to UMTS, which means they have not gone to full 3G.

3G technology was designed and ready for installation in 2001,the technology is quite old.

in most cases EVDO is faster than UMTS, also they are all considered "Third Generation"

here is a nice primer for the un-initiated,its a little dated as this has been rolled out for a few years now in the US

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-11288_7-5664933-5.html

"UMTS: Universal Mobile Telephone Service, the 3G service that GSM carriers AT&T and T-Mobile plan to roll out for its subscribers. UMTS boasts speeds of up to 2Mbps, although users will typically see speeds in the 300Kbps-to-400Kbps range."

1xEV-DO: Also known as Evolution, Data-Only, this subset of CDMA2000 runs on CDMA networks and reaches peak speeds of 2.4Mbps and averages 300Kbps to 600Kbps. As its name implies, EV-DO networks handle only high-speed data; handsets supporting EV-DO would use the underlying CDMA network for voice calls. Both Verizon and Sprint are launching 1xEV-DO service.

http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=16530

"defined the original 3G back in 2000, but now the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) manages the standard. It became an ITU standard, with first implementations in Europe and Japan, in 2001. "

"The cdma2000 standard began as a 2.5G standard, yet it's continuously spilling into 3G's domain as a result of various upgrades. The 1xRTT version supported data rates to 144 kbits/s, while the first EV-DO versions (Rev. 0) crossed into 3G territory with a maximum downlink speed of 2.45 Mbits/s under ideal conditions. Later versions known as Rev. A and Rev. B have leaped well ahead of UMTS in some ways. "

[Edited 2007-11-27 14:21:41]

VonRichtofen · Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:16 am

Itsnotfinals,

Have you ever set foot in a mobile phone shop in Europe or Asia? Sorry, the handsets in North America are joke compared to ones being sold there.

To give you an idea just go to Nokia's website and compare phones available for different reasons.

bakersdozen · Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:26 am

This seems to have gotten quite offtopic but I agree with VonRichtofen in his point.

Back to YYC-LHR talk!!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net