If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
transatlantic delta flights
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? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
transatlantic delta flights
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
transatlantic delta flights
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
transatlantic delta flights
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! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
transatlantic delta flights
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
transatlantic delta flights
"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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
transatlantic delta flights
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
transatlantic delta flights
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
transatlantic delta flights
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Transatlantic Flights | Bob Phillips[_2_] | USA & Canada | 3 | February 22nd, 2007 06:31 PM |
Cheapest transatlantic flights | OzMikey | Air travel | 2 | April 6th, 2006 08:20 PM |
Are all Song flights actually Delta Flights? | sms-dca | Air travel | 5 | June 9th, 2005 05:17 AM |