transatlantic delta flights

been looking for a flight to vegas and the cheapest by far is with delta
(from manchester via atlanta). £350 compared to at least £500 for us
airways, american and bmi.

any view on them? good, bad, avoid like the plague. I noticed that the
flight uses a 767 from manchester to atlanta so i'm guessing the inflight
entertainment wont be up to the standards of american airlines et al but i'm
not overly fussed about films and such to be honest but then again i'll have
9 hours to kill!

thanks in advance

"Stephen Chaplin" wrote in message
...
been looking for a flight to vegas and the cheapest by far is with delta
(from manchester via atlanta). £350 compared to at least £500 for us
airways, american and bmi.

any view on them? good, bad, avoid like the plague. I noticed that the
flight uses a 767 from manchester to atlanta so i'm guessing the inflight
entertainment wont be up to the standards of american airlines et al but
i'm
not overly fussed about films and such to be honest but then again i'll
have
9 hours to kill!

thanks in advance



Never been transatlantic but I flew Atlanta up to Washington just over a
year ago (to connect with a BA flight back to London). It was a packed
757. Service was minimal (but that's US domestic). Seats were about the
same as a BA 757. It was on time. They didn't lose my bag!

On Jan 9, 9:04*am, "Stephen Chaplin" wrote:
been looking for a flight to vegas and the cheapest by far is with delta
(from manchester via atlanta). £350 compared to at least £500 for us
airways, american and bmi.

any view on them? good, bad, avoid like the plague. I noticed that the
flight uses a 767 from manchester to atlanta so i'm guessing the inflight
entertainment wont be up to the standards of american airlines et al but i'm
not overly fussed about films and such to be honest but then again i'll have
9 hours to kill!


They are as good, or as bad, opinions may vary, as any other US legacy
carrier. Let's say they are so-so but will in all likelyhood carry you
to Vegas and back.

Note that their newer 767-400's have modern entertainment systems
(flew one of those last summer Gatwick-Atlanta). The old 767's indeed
suck in this respect. Take along a good book.

jrk

thanks in advance

On 9 Jan, 14:04, "Stephen Chaplin" wrote:
been looking for a flight to vegas and the cheapest by far is with delta
(from manchester via atlanta). £350 compared to at least £500 for us
airways, american and bmi.

I thought BMI went non-stop to vegas... in which case I would say it
is worth the extra. Have never been to Atlanta but i believe it is a
large hub with all the potential problems that can bring.

any view on them? good, bad, avoid like the plague. I noticed that the
flight uses a 767 from manchester to atlanta so i'm guessing the inflight
entertainment wont be up to the standards of american airlines et al but i'm
not overly fussed about films and such to be honest but then again i'll have
9 hours to kill!

thanks in advance

I thought BMI went non-stop to vegas... in which case I would say it
is worth the extra.

They do, but at about twice the price. I see fares as low as L206 on
Delta via JFK or ATL, L542 on the BMI non-stop.

Have never been to Atlanta but i believe it is a large hub with all
the potential problems that can bring.

Yes, it's a large hub. So is JFK. If the price difference were small
I'd agree with you, but in this case, it's not.

On Jan 9, 3:04*pm, "Stephen Chaplin" wrote:
been looking for a flight to vegas and the cheapest by far is with delta
(from manchester via atlanta). £350 compared to at least £500 for us
airways, american and bmi.

any view on them? good, bad, avoid like the plague. I noticed that the
flight uses a 767 from manchester to atlanta so i'm guessing the inflight
entertainment wont be up to the standards of american airlines et al but i'm
not overly fussed about films and such to be honest but then again i'll have
9 hours to kill!

thanks in advance

One thing to consider when using Atlanta are troubles during the
hurrican season. I always thought Miami would be bad for them, but
Atlanta is much worse. Although inland, the bad weather from the
hurricane, whether it is in the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico will
usually affect Atlanta.
Otherwise, I look at Delta as just another typical airline, nothing
special but basically OK.

George

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:04:04 -0000, "Stephen Chaplin" wrote:

been looking for a flight to vegas and the cheapest by far is with delta
(from manchester via atlanta). £350 compared to at least £500 for us
airways, american and bmi.


My son flew Delta from Manchester to Atlanta on his way to Portland some 8
months ago.

He was so unimpressed by them that when he came for Thanksgiving he paid the
extra to fly BMI via Chicago and said they were very much better.


--
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

"John L" wrote in message ...
I thought BMI went non-stop to vegas... in which case I would say it
is worth the extra.

They do, but at about twice the price. I see fares as low as L206 on
Delta via JFK or ATL, L542 on the BMI non-stop.

Have never been to Atlanta but i believe it is a large hub with all
the potential problems that can bring.

Yes, it's a large hub. So is JFK. If the price difference were small
I'd agree with you, but in this case, it's not.


Now there's a thought. Atlanta is one of these airports with a main
terminal and then lots of satellites. To get from the main terminal (which
is the only one accesible from public roads and the underground (known as
MARTA I believe)) to the terminal where international flights arrive you
have to go through all the other satellites (there is a train). What this
means is that when you arrive at Atlanta you go through immigration, pick up
your bags, and then enter an area where there are check in desks for the
onward flights. Immediately after check in you go through security. So,
if you buy anything on the flight from London to Atlanta in the way of
liquids you will have to pack it in to your chckd bag before you re check in
or you'll fall foul of the "no liquids rule".

As a connecting passenger that's probably not totally unreasonable but as an
arriving passenger you have to do the same thing. Having cleared customs
and immigration you place your checked baggage on a conveyor, go through
security (as if you were catching another plane), ride the train to the main
terminal and then pick your bag up for a second time. I went through there
twice last year and both times I saw people having stuff confiscated that
they had purchased on the plane from London to Atlanta.

On Jan 9, 5:26*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Now there's a thought. * Atlanta is one of these airports with a main
terminal and then lots of satellites. * To get from the main terminal (which
is the only one accesible from public roads and the underground (known as
MARTA I believe)) to the terminal where international flights arrive you
have to go through all the other satellites (there is a train). * What this
means is that when you arrive at Atlanta you go through immigration, pick up
your bags, and then enter an area where there are check in desks for the
onward flights. * Immediately after check in you go through security. * So,
if you buy anything on the flight from London to Atlanta in the way of
liquids you will have to pack it in to your chckd bag before you re check in
or you'll fall foul of the "no liquids rule".


C'mon. Give Atlanta a break. There are no "satellites" in Atlanta,
just a series of terminals, connected by a very efficient underground
rail. The rule of going through customs and security upon arrival in
the US is the _same_ at all international hubs, no exception, and
often much less well organized than in Atlanta.

Of all the international hubs I know in the US, Atlanta, despite its
size, is the most transparent, best organized and yes -- based on my
multiple individual experience at least -- the most friendly in terms
of the Immigration officials' attitude.

To the other poster, complaining of the hurricanes. Again, what a
preposterous post. Atlanta has its share of bad weather like any other
airport in the SE States, but a chance of a hurricane there is perhaps
10-20% of that in Miami or Houston. On the other side, the chance of a
winter storm there is incomparably smaller than at any NE or Midwest
airport.

Flying through Atlanta at least once a month.

jrk




As a connecting passenger that's probably not totally unreasonable but as an
arriving passenger you have to do the same thing. * Having cleared customs
and immigration you place your checked baggage on a conveyor, go through
security (as if you were catching another plane), ride the train to the main
terminal and then pick your bag up for a second time. * I went through there
twice last year and both times I saw people having stuff confiscated that
they had purchased on the plane from London to Atlanta.

wrote:
C'mon. Give Atlanta a break. There are no "satellites" in
Atlanta, just a series of terminals, connected by a very
efficient underground rail.

Atlanta is one of the world's busiest airports, and yet, IME, the
most efficient. I've never had a problem going between terminals
using the underground shuttles. I like to whine that, no matter
which flight I'm taking, its always at the farthest gate. At ATL,
as compared to some other airports, that doesn't seem too far.
---------------
To the other poster, complaining of the hurricanes. Again, what
a preposterous post. Atlanta has its share of bad weather like
any other airport in the SE States, but a chance of a hurricane
there is perhaps 10-20% of that in Miami or Houston. On the
other side, the chance of a winter storm there is incomparably
smaller than at any NE or Midwest airport.

That post was absurd. About once every 3 or 4 years, rements
of a tropical storm will bring in gusts of wind sufficient to cancel
or delay flights for a few hours, but that happens more often due
to severe thunderstorms at just about every airport. You might
as well avoid O'Hare due to the risk of a tornado.