transatlantic delta flights

"Rog'" wrote in message
.. .
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.



I wasn't complaining about customs or immigration. And
satellites/terminals who cares? The point is that at most airports once
you clear customs and immigration you're out and free. At Atlanta (and
Charlotte?) you've got a whole extra layer to get through. When I went
through Charlotte in the 90s when they had that arrangement it was just a
bit iritating. But with the latest secuity rules it can be a real pain.
Unless you are really lucky you have to queue to deposit your checked bag
(unless you only have hand baggage) and then queue to go through security at
which point you find out that the fluid you bought on the plane isn't
permitted through the checkpoint but your checked bag has already
disappeared so you can't put the fluid in there and so it gets confiscated.
Didin't happen to me (more by good luck than judgement) but I saw several
disputes.

I was actually quite impressed by the security people at Atlanta. Both on
arrivl on an international flight and on departure they seemed to be good at
organsing people in a friendly way. The queue time was minimal. I have
no idea how efficient the hub itslef is because I've never changed planes
there (well I did in the mid 70s flying Eastern so that's irrelevant). But
that doesn't detract from the fact that instead of stepping from customs
into the terminal and then to the road you have to go through security, get
on a train, find another carousel in the main terminal and finally get to
the road at Atlanta.

Lansbury wrote:

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.


Are they worth paying 42 percent more?
It might be worth it to some people, but the seats have virtually the
same width and legroom. The speed would be about the same.
What would make these carriers worth the $300 USD difference in price?
The food? IFE? What difference makes it worth an extra 150 quid?

"Mr. Travel" wrote in message
...
Lansbury wrote:

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.


Are they worth paying 42 percent more?
It might be worth it to some people, but the seats have virtually the same
width and legroom. The speed would be about the same.
What would make these carriers worth the $300 USD difference in price?
The food? IFE? What difference makes it worth an extra 150 quid?

Yes, it is. I don't know about BMI but the general pincipal of paying more
is definitely worth it. The pressure for cheaper fares is what has led the
ailines to reduce the service they provide. We may like the fares but we
all complain about the service those cheap fares offer. I'm prepared to
pay more to an airline that I percieve as providing me the service level I
want rather than buying the cheapest ticket, ending up chnaging planes at
some god forsaken hub and being squashed into a seat that was built for a
pygmy with plenty of "personal padding".

It's similar to buying shoes that fit and look after my feet and that I can
nurture and repair or a pair of cheap ones that will damage my feet and I'll
throw away after 6 months.

Thanks for all the replies

i'd rather fly via chicago simply because i've done that route so many times
and i'm familiar with it. but a saving of £150 is too good to turn down at
the moment, just thinking of how much i could win at the blackjack tables
with that extra money :-)

My mp3 player and a good book should make the hours fly by


"Mr. Travel" wrote in message
...
Lansbury wrote:

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.


Are they worth paying 42 percent more?
It might be worth it to some people, but the seats have virtually the
same width and legroom. The speed would be about the same.
What would make these carriers worth the $300 USD difference in price?
The food? IFE? What difference makes it worth an extra 150 quid?

Yes, it is. I don't know about BMI but the general pincipal of paying
more
is definitely worth it. The pressure for cheaper fares is what has led
the
ailines to reduce the service they provide.

depends for me really. as i said in original message i'm not overly fussed
about movies etc as i have other things to entertain me. Being 6ft 6ins seat
width and pitch is most important and by all accounts there isnt a huge
difference between delta and the alternatives and i usually get to check in
early enough to get a bulkhead or exit row seat. Would rather go via chicago
simply because i've done it so many times, was put off originally by atlanta
with the first reply but then there is an alternate view that says it's a
piece of cake getting through!

i'd rather fly via chicago simply because i've done that route so
many times and i'm familiar with it. but a saving of £150 is too good
to turn down at the moment

During the winter, weather delays are much more likely at Chicago than
at Atlanta. That's particularly true this year when Atlanta is in the
grip of a serious drought and it hasn't rained there for a year.

just thinking of how much i could win at the blackjack tables
with that extra money :-)

Aha. Perhaps you could bring along a book on basic statistics to
while away the time.

"Stephen Chaplin" wrote in message
...

Yes, it is. I don't know about BMI but the general pincipal of paying
more
is definitely worth it. The pressure for cheaper fares is what has led
the
ailines to reduce the service they provide.

depends for me really. as i said in original message i'm not overly fussed
about movies etc as i have other things to entertain me. Being 6ft 6ins
seat
width and pitch is most important and by all accounts there isnt a huge
difference between delta and the alternatives and i usually get to check
in
early enough to get a bulkhead or exit row seat. Would rather go via
chicago
simply because i've done it so many times, was put off originally by
atlanta
with the first reply but then there is an alternate view that says it's a
piece of cake getting through!



In my case, even at 6ft 2in one of the services I appreciate and pay for is
legroom so I usually use BA World Traveller Plus at 38" legroom. Virgin
have a non stop to Las Vegas some days of the week and they also offer a
"premium" economy. Since you have to change somewhere anyway London might
offer an alternative.

"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



Delta is generally considered to be one of the better U.S. carriers. Their
inflight in international economy class is tolerable; their 767's don't have
AVOD in economy, but they won't charge you for [1] cocktail and the food
won't kill you.

Atlanta's a decent connecting point; customs/immigration seems to work fine.

I would choose Delta over American or US Airways. I would prefer
Continental if available, and also have found Northwest international
service is decent. I've heard BMI has excellent transatlantic service
(although I haven't flown with them); if they're nonstop or direct, that
would be my first choice, but if it is a connection, the domestic segment
would probably be on United, their Star Alliance partners. United is decent
but very average.

Graham Harrison wrote:


In my case, even at 6ft 2in one of the services I appreciate and pay for is
legroom so I usually use BA World Traveller Plus at 38" legroom. Virgin
have a non stop to Las Vegas some days of the week and they also offer a
"premium" economy. Since you have to change somewhere anyway London might
offer an alternative.



I assume he is trying to decide between a cheaper regular economy seat
against a higher price regular economy seat. I doubt he is going to want
to pay the extra money for a BA WT+ seata.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:31:41 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

Are they worth paying 42 percent more?

He obviously considered it was, in the same way I consider paying to fly
business class worth it. Our money we spend as we wish to get the service we
want.


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