BA: LHR-AUS

Discussion in 'British Airways | Executive Club' started by Mike Reed, Sep 3, 2013.  |  Print Topic

  1. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Status Points:
    2,025
    Austin finally grows up... international flights from somewhere that's not Mexico.

    Too bad it's BA, though... fuel surcharges and fares still make it more economical to fly AA via DFW, especially with the new -300ER.
     
    skyvan and uggboy like this.
  2. Wandering Aramean
    Original Member

    Wandering Aramean Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,216
    Likes Received:
    61,746
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Something tells me they're more focused on the revenue customers than awards when planning routes. ;)

    This will be interesting in a few ways. There are a number of markets it opens up or augments but not quite as many as there once were.
     
    David and LETTERBOY like this.
  3. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Status Points:
    2,025

    Right. I didn't mention awards. The revenue customer who can choose a higher total fare on BA AUS-LHR (reportedly nearly double right now) vs. a much lower fare and fuel surcharge by connecting through DFW on AA and on an at-least-equivalent aircraft in terms of hard product and service (787 vs 777-300ER).

    Given most businesses require lowest logical fare, I suspect most will still do AUS-DFW/ORD/JFK-LHR on AA vs. AUS-LHR on BA. The only ones that won't will be the ones with a "non-stop trumps price" policy, or the ones that have the freedom to choose.

    What this really offers is the chance to get the long segment out of the way fiirst vs. a short segment to a connecting airport.
     
  4. ukgooner
    Original Member

    ukgooner Silver Member

    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    114
    Status Points:
    380
    And given AA & BA share the revenues, your point is largely academic. In Europe you generally would expect to pay less if you were going indirect. As you say as soon as your destination involves a change somewhere then it becomes more of preference of where you want to change. The prices generally fall into line in those cases.

    Wait and see where the final price point is, as it's probably not quite settled in yet. I bet it becomes identical in the end.
     
    LETTERBOY likes this.
  5. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Status Points:
    2,025
    The fare, perhaps, but not the final price. Good point about the JBV though.

    Sent from my iPhone using milepoint
     
  6. Wandering Aramean
    Original Member

    Wandering Aramean Gold Member

    Messages:
    28,216
    Likes Received:
    61,746
    Status Points:
    20,020
    :confused:

    You specifically mentioned YQ. Other than on on award why does that matter? If the total fare is higher for the non-stop that's one thing (and often is the case on many routes) but the total fare is what matters, not the YQ. Not to mention that AA and BA generally have the same YQ in markets for TATL fares. The current "spread" on the fare via JFK versus the nonstop for a random one-way I searched is based on the NYC-LHR fares being quite a bit lower so an end-on-end AUS-JFK+JFK-LHR prices out less. It also taxes far longer to complete. The shortest connecting itinerary is a hair under 2 hours longer and only saves ~$200 on a $1800+ fare. But the YQ on the two is identical at $229.

    I disagree. When the lowest fare requires missing a full day in the office rather than working a full day and still making the flight I doubt that policy rule will hold. And when the cost difference on similarly timed flights is marginal I'm guessing many will be permitted to take the non-stop.
     
    David, ukgooner and LETTERBOY like this.
  7. enichols22124

    enichols22124 Silver Member

    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    131
    Status Points:
    395
    Having done the Austin-Dallas-LHR route twice before...I had the unfortunate luck to miss that Dallas-LHR flight both times and end up on another much later flight due to delays in leaving Austin. This next month, I went with the direct flight, it's much easier to relax realizing even if delayed, it didn't cost me an extra 6-8-10 hours of waiting for the next flight or making an even worse combination of flights. I still land in the morning, just late morning at worst. But, I hear you, it was not cheaper to go direct. But, luckily for me, within the cost range permitted for me to travel with that as an option.
     

Share This Page