British Airways to start London-Austin non-stop on 787!

[Texan Eagle]

This one came from completely nowhere! If you'd have asked me to guess 10 cities where a European airline would start a new non-stop Dreamliner route, I would have still never included Austin in the list!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/british-airways-become-first-airline-122900778.html

Good for the people of Austin I guess, not having to go to DFW or IAH to take flights to Europe and South Asia.

I wonder what our Devil's Advocate based out of that part of the country has to say about this

 

[Bob Dylan]

I live in Austin and believe it or not as a Growing City with over 1,000,000 People and Thousands More moving here Weekly it's about time we had a Real International Flight! ( We have a Grand Prix and the Music and Film Fests draw people from all over the World as does the Hi-Tech Industry and the University oif Texas!) Im not Interested in Flying Anywere (been there, done that) but Plenty of People will Love this!

Chris (DA) lives in San Antonio which is much Larger than Austin and has had International Flights to Mexico for years! Those not interested in going to London will still have to do the Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York Shuttle for International Flights to other places!

 

[PRR 60]

Here's a little background about the new service:

KUT News

 

[Texan Eagle]

Those not interested in going to London will still have to do the Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York Shuttle for International Flights to other places!

Or they can connect in London to other destinations. The Austin flight reaches London Heathrow at 10:00am local time, so that gives a lot of opportunities for passengers to connect to other BA flights to Europe and Indian subcontinent. Now, would you want to ever transit through living manifestation of hell on Earth, also known as Heathrow Airport, is an altogether different question ^_^

 

[xyzzy]

I pass through LHR once or twice a month, and I don't find it bad at all. BA+AA have made changes between the terminals a rather painless process. If you want to see hell-on-earth in terms of a place to change planes, try CDG.

Raleigh-Durham, with a metro population about the same as Austin, has had a "thin route" nonstop to London since 1994. About half of the passengers are headed to/from the UK, and the other half connect on BA to various points in Europe or beyond. Austin's service will succeed if BA can sell enough seats in the front cabin where fares are high.

 

[the_traveler]

Been there, done that. LHR is nowhere I want to go again! Until there's a train from the US to London, I'll pass.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Been there, done that. LHR is nowhere I want to go again! Until there's a train from the US to London, I'll pass.

They are supposed to start work on the Tunnel from NYP to England soon, wonder if Amtrak and British Rail will Honor AGR Points when Trans-Atlantic Service Starts? (and will the Penthouse Clear the Tunnels???) :giggle:

And Connectins @ Heathrow must really be improved, it's still the Worst Connection Experience i've had this side of Benito Juarez in Mexico City!

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Me thinks me glad I can't afford international travel. If I ever do go across the pond it most likely will be to Ireland.

 

[the_traveler]

Ireland is a beautiful country! I'd love to go back and spend more than a weekend. (I worked for an airline at the time!)

And if I'd have to connect, I'd much rather chose Shannon over LHR or CDG.

 

[jis]

LHR still remains one of my airports of last resort, i.e. go there only if completely unavoidable. Fortunately I can fly to most areas of UK directly without wasting time through LHR these days.

 

[tp49]

Those not interested in going to London will still have to do the Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York Shuttle for International Flights to other places!

Or they can connect in London to other destinations. The Austin flight reaches London Heathrow at 10:00am local time, so that gives a lot of opportunities for passengers to connect to other BA flights to Europe and Indian subcontinent. Now, would you want to ever transit through living manifestation of hell on Earth, also known as Heathrow Airport, is an altogether different question ^_^

I'd rather transit at LHR than either the hell on Earth that is CDG or FCO any day of the week.

 

[tp49]

Been there, done that. LHR is nowhere I want to go again! Until there's a train from the US to London, I'll pass.

They are supposed to start work on the Tunnel from NYP to England soon, wonder if Amtrak and British Rail will Honor AGR Points when Trans-Atlantic Service Starts? (and will the Penthouse Clear the Tunnels???) :giggle:

And Connectins @ Heathrow must really be improved, it's still the Worst Connection Experience i've had this side of Benito Juarez in Mexico City!

Be glad you never had to connect in the absolute worst airport I've ever connected in...Lagos.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system. The fire problem is still discerning for many potential customers.

Those not interested in going to London will still have to do the Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York Shuttle for International Flights to other places!

Or they can connect in London to other destinations. The Austin flight reaches London Heathrow at 10:00am local time, so that gives a lot of opportunities for passengers to connect to other BA flights to Europe and Indian subcontinent. Now, would you want to ever transit through living manifestation of hell on Earth, also known as Heathrow Airport, is an altogether different question ^_^

I'd rather transit at LHR than either the hell on Earth that is CDG or FCO any day of the week.

I agree, CDG is terrible! I once flew across the Atlantic on an AF 77W with 10-abreast Economy then had to transfer through the hellish CDG for my connection to Germany. That 77W was also plenty bad, the seats were both narrow and had poor legroom. EK's 77W is 10-abreat, but at least it has extra Greyhound-style legroom!

Still, would take a 9-abreast 777 any day. These planes dominate the international airways, so it's important to find the best.

 

[Texan Eagle]

This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system. The fire problem is still discerning for many potential customers.

The average traveling passenger has very short memory. There hasn't been any negative press about 787 in the last month or so, as a result I'd say 90% air travelers would have already forgotten all the hoopla around Dreamliner and fire. By the time this flight starts in March, assuming no more untoward incidents happen, it would be pretty safe to say for everyone except aviation fans this would be a non-issue.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system. The fire problem is still discerning for many potential customers.

The average traveling passenger has very short memory. There hasn't been any negative press about 787 in the last month or so, as a result I'd say 90% air travelers would have already forgotten all the hoopla around Dreamliner and fire. By the time this flight starts in March, assuming no more untoward incidents happen, it would be pretty safe to say for everyone except aviation fans this would be a non-issue.

Good for Ba and the Dreamliner. An aviation fan like me still has to wonder if these fires could end up causing a dealy accident, like if they burn up the avionics (think Swissair 111).

 

[Texan Eagle]

Good for Ba and the Dreamliner. An aviation fan like me still has to wonder if these fires could end up causing a dealy accident, like if they burn up the avionics (think Swissair 111).

So does the aviation fan like you also worry about flying in an A330 that has a history of causing 339 fatalities? Or A320 that has caused 789 fatalities? How about the good old Boeing 737 that has a history of 4,243 fatalities?

If you say you're an aviation fan, I would guess you do realize the 787 is as safe, if not more, as any other commercial airliner flying in the sky today.

 

[cirdan]

Me thinks me glad I can't afford international travel. If I ever do go across the pond it most likely will be to Ireland.

I live in Switzerland and my next US trip (which I'm planning) will involve an Easyjet flight to London (Gatwick, not LHR, Gatwick is much more civilized), then train plus ferry via Holyhead to Dublin and then a flight into JFK or Philadelphia (and then Silver Service to Miami). All that costs about the same as a direct flight but is so much more interesting.

 

[the_traveler]

Good for Ba and the Dreamliner. An aviation fan like me still has to wonder if these fires could end up causing a dealy accident, like if they burn up the avionics (think Swissair 111).

So does the aviation fan like you also worry about flying in an A330 that has a history of causing 339 fatalities? Or A320 that has caused 789 fatalities? How about the good old Boeing 737 that has a history of 4,243 fatalities? If you say you're an aviation fan, I would guess you do realize the 787 is as safe, if not more, as any other commercial airliner flying in the sky today.

And don't forget that before the crash in Paris, the Concorde was the safest plane in history. It never had a fatal accident in over 25 years of flight! But within seconds, it went from the safest to last place. Now none are flying at all!

 

[Bob Dylan]

This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system. The fire problem is still discerning for many potential customers.

The average traveling passenger has very short memory. There hasn't been any negative press about 787 in the last month or so, as a result I'd say 90% air travelers would have already forgotten all the hoopla around Dreamliner and fire. By the time this flight starts in March, assuming no more untoward incidents happen, it would be pretty safe to say for everyone except aviation fans this would be a non-issue.

I think back to the AA DC-10 Crash in Chicago after which most Flyers didnt want to ride on DC-10s ( I heard lots of people asking @ Airports if their plane was a DC-10 and Travel Agents friends told me people asked them frequently) and as a result it wasnt long until the Airlines started replacing them and selling them off to Cargo Operations and Overseas! I flew many Miles on DC-10s and had no problem with them, a Wide Body is always better than a Pencil Plane no matter where you fly!

 

[xyzzy]

There are always flyers concerned about one plane or another. The two largest operators of the DC-10 in the U.S. were American and United. Both of those fleets were still in frequent use as late as the mid-1990s, a long time after AA 194 (1979). The withdrawal of the DC-10 had more to do with its three-person cockpit, its fuel consumption compared to twin jets, the number of cycles accrued since 1971, and the trend to offer more frequent service with smaller aircraft.

It's true that the MD-11 successor was a poor seller, but I think that had more to do with the problems of the MD-11 specifically.

 

[MrFSS]

There are always flyers concerned about one plane or another. The two largest operators of the DC-10 in the U.S. were American and United. Both of those fleets were still in frequent use as late as the mid-1990s, a long time after AA 194 (1979). The withdrawal of the DC-10 had more to do with its three-person cockpit, its fuel consumption compared to twin jets, the number of cycles accrued since 1971, and the trend to offer more frequent service with smaller aircraft.
It's true that the MD-11 successor was a poor seller, but I think that had more to do with the problems of the MD-11 specifically.

We flew In a DC-10 to Hawaii and back in 2002, so they were still going, then, I guess.

 

[jis]

It's true that the MD-11 successor was a poor seller, but I think that had more to do with the problems of the MD-11 specifically.

Yes. The fact that it never met its performance objectives had more to do with the state of its sales than anything to do with perceived additional risk or such.

 

[Bob Dylan]

There are always flyers concerned about one plane or another. The two largest operators of the DC-10 in the U.S. were American and United. Both of those fleets were still in frequent use as late as the mid-1990s, a long time after AA 194 (1979). The withdrawal of the DC-10 had more to do with its three-person cockpit, its fuel consumption compared to twin jets, the number of cycles accrued since 1971, and the trend to offer more frequent service with smaller aircraft.
It's true that the MD-11 successor was a poor seller, but I think that had more to do with the problems of the MD-11 specifically.

We flew In a DC-10 to Hawaii and back in 2002, so they were still going, then, I guess.

Wow! What Airline Tom, must have been an "Off Brand" or Charter to still be using DC-10s that Late in the Game? Did the Pilot look and talk like Borat?? :giggle:

 

[xyzzy]

Hawaiian acquired some DC-10s from American and flew them until 2003. HA was able to postpone ETOPS that way.

 

[the_traveler]

There are always flyers concerned about one plane or another. The two largest operators of the DC-10 in the U.S. were American and United. Both of those fleets were still in frequent use as late as the mid-1990s, a long time after AA 194 (1979). The withdrawal of the DC-10 had more to do with its three-person cockpit, its fuel consumption compared to twin jets, the number of cycles accrued since 1971, and the trend to offer more frequent service with smaller aircraft.

It's true that the MD-11 successor was a poor seller, but I think that had more to do with the problems of the MD-11 specifically.

We flew In a DC-10 to Hawaii and back in 2002, so they were still going, then, I guess.

At least I hope they were still going then! :giggle:
BTW: When was the UA crash of a DC-10 in SUX? (That's the code believe it or not for Sioux City, SD! )