# Goofy Air Fare Question



## Anderson (Feb 2, 2012)

Ok, I went a-looking at airfares to Europe (window shopping when you get down to it).

Now, I understand the idea of offering a discounted return fare...that makes sense (look at the old fare tables for trains, and you'll find a 5-10% discount for a return within six months or so). But why is a round trip to Europe usually in the $700-800 range (as near as I can tell) while a one-way ticket (well, at least one not involving some slightly insane connections through Istanbul or Moscow and layovers that make the traditional Chicago layover look brief) tends to run about $1200+ (and can get hilariously insane if you're not careful)?

Mind you, air fares are more alien to me than the Moon's surface (I've at least looked at the former with a telescope growing up), so...thoughts here? And while I'm at it, the natural question comes to mind: If the differential is _so_ awful, even if I'm doing a multi-city trip in Europe, why wouldn't I just pay for the round trip and no-show for the return leg each way?


----------



## jis (Feb 2, 2012)

Trapping people in emergency situations, and business people who absolutely positively must travel one leg only to pay more perhaps. Also typically RT with weekend stay is cheaper than just RT. And summer fares in general are higher than fall and spring.

It also depends on the market. In many Asian markets there is no difference between buying OW or RT fares for each leg. In others there is a huge difference. For example in the Indian subcontinent I always buy single fares in the local currency which is almost always cheaper than buying it in dollars.

For a air hater you sure spend a lot of time reading about airline stuff


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 2, 2012)

In the U.S. Southwest Airlines usually charges twice as much for a round trip as for a one-way. This means that other airlines competing on those routes usually offer the same pricing, even if they don't offer it on routes where Southwest is not a competitor. For example a round trip MSP-ORD in March is $137.60, one way is $68.80 (exactly the same price as Southwest). MSP-MOT on the same dates is $376 round-trip, $393 one-way (and that's why I take Amtrak between those cities).


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 2, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Ok, I went a-looking at airfares to Europe (window shopping when you get down to it).
> 
> Now, I understand the idea of offering a discounted return fare...that makes sense (look at the old fare tables for trains, and you'll find a 5-10% discount for a return within six months or so). But why is a round trip to Europe usually in the $700-800 range (as near as I can tell) while a one-way ticket (well, at least one not involving some slightly insane connections through Istanbul or Moscow and layovers that make the traditional Chicago layover look brief) tends to run about $1200+ (and can get hilariously insane if you're not careful)?
> 
> Mind you, air fares are more alien to me than the Moon's surface (I've at least looked at the former with a telescope growing up), so...thoughts here? And while I'm at it, the natural question comes to mind: If the differential is _so_ awful, even if I'm doing a multi-city trip in Europe, why wouldn't I just pay for the round trip and no-show for the return leg each way?


If your goal is an "open jaw" trip - fly to a European city, then return from another city - then the fare will not be the same as two one-ways. It will be half the round trip fare to the outbound destination, then half the round trip fare back from the return city (as long as it is the same airline both ways). Price it using the "multi-city" option on the airline or agency web site.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 2, 2012)

jis said:


> Trapping people in emergency situations, and business people who absolutely positively must travel one leg only to pay more perhaps. Also typically RT with weekend stay is cheaper than just RT. And summer fares in general are higher than fall and spring.
> 
> It also depends on the market. In many Asian markets there is no difference between buying OW or RT fares for each leg. In others there is a huge difference. For example in the Indian subcontinent I always buy single fares in the local currency which is almost always cheaper than buying it in dollars.
> 
> For a air hater you sure spend a lot of time reading about airline stuff


Below is a rant. Be forewarned.

Well, a fair portion of it is schadenfreude. I'm not even joking there...with no offense to those working in the airline industry, I actually look forward to seeing service cutbacks and would love nothing more than to see an overall collapse of short/mid-haul domestic air service.

I'll also admit that there are a few airlines I don't mind, but they are _exclusively _not American carriers at this point (let me put it this way: If all of the American carriers went bust, the US would have to drop the no-foreign-carriers-on-domestic-routes rules). As far as I'm concerned, the American carriers have about as much of a spot on them as Lady Macbeth over the TSA's rules...but in truth, my anger here runs a bit deeper than that.

Going overseas, I've seriously looked into crossing the Atlantic via ship. _Unfortunately_, nobody is trying to break those records anymore, so for the most part you're looking at a 6-7 day trip rather than the 5 Cunard ran for the longest time or the 4 you could hope to manage with the _United States_. Please see also my general disdain for "rail cruises" (i.e. trips that take several extra days to go from A to B; as a rule I want to get from A to B comfortably). At _some_ point, the time spent in transit becomes an issue, and this isn't helped by the fact that Cunard (for an example) only does a once-a-month transatlantic trip. So you've got a double whammy of connectivity times and travel times that make taking a sea crossing to Europe about as convenient as Espee's Sunset Limited (albeit with _far_ better food). Asia is even worse (and for an American, parts can be unreachable by not-air travel...it's not like traveling from Turkey to India via Iran is an option, and it's not like I can think up any other option that doesn't involve multiple weeks' travel).

So in short, that leaves me looking at unpleasant options if I'm going to go to Europe...I'm _probably_ looking at either a BC flight or, if the schedule _happens_ to work, flying one way and taking a ship the other (not that I'm a big fan of cruises for their own sake...the Caribbean model is particularly unenjoyable versus a railroad trip because in spite of there being about a half-dozen lines offering gobs and gobs of cruises...I think Grand Cayman has more ship passenger traffic pass through the harbor than any rail station in the US save NYP...there's no way to "stop off" for 2-3 days and enjoy an island or two before continuing on that I know of; I've certainly never heard of such a thing even if that's effectively what I do when I go out to Arizona by train!).

Anyhow...sorry for the rant, but that's what is going on: When going overseas, ship-based options not only aren't functional, they're not even as practical as they _could_ be!

Edit: As to what I'd be looking at, it'd probably be an open jaw. If I ever visit Europe, I'm going to be doing a decent amount of train travel (duh!), and in all fairness I'd be picking the most workable/cheapest in/out cities possible.* I suspect that this is one of the few cases I would be inclined to actually consult a travel agent if something didn't become fairly self-apparent.

*And actually, if it were doable, I'd have no problem with something like JFK-Heathrow out and Paris-Boston Logan back if it were cheaper for whatever class of service I'm looking at.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 3, 2012)

(Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to blow you out of the water or anything. I know you were giving me a good-natured hard time. It's just that what you raised _does_ hit at something earnestly frustrating to me.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 3, 2012)

I've never really thought about trying to cross an ocean by ship in 2012. I don't think I'd have much if any time left over for actual exploring at that point. Like many folks I find the time to be an even bigger constraint than the cost. Even on trips to far flung locales like Tokyo have sometimes only lasted three or four days to avoid impacting something important at work. Such is life. If I were stuck with only trains and ships I might not have much chance of getting beyond the Caribbean. So I fly. In coach. I spend my luxury dollars where they get more value for the money. Could be a high rise luxury hotel room overlooking a busy city center or a fancy dinner in a top rated restaurant or a visit to a tropical island resort. If I need _Krug Grande Cuvée_ or _Dom Pérignon_ or _La Grande Dame_ on a plane I'll pick one up in the duty free store and save four or five grand in the bank.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 4, 2012)

In all honesty, unless prompted by a friend going, I have _no_ real desire to go to Asia, so that side of things is out of the question all else being equal.* The sheer length of the flight is a killer there.** With Europe, the costs are more workable in Economy, E+, and Business (First is still ridiculous for Europe)...an RT to Europe in Business is the same as one in coach to Asia from what you've said. I'd also note that with Europe, I feel quite free picking and choosing destinations based on cost and fiddling with getting around Europe on the European side of things. If I fly into Paris or I fly into London and take a train to Paris...either works.

There _was_ a time when the shipping schedules between London and New York would have made such a trip practical (travel times do seem to have gotten packed down to about 5 days for a while, as I noted earlier; assuming a two week vacation, this might well allow a comfortable exploration of Britain or of Paris if the schedule worked out nicely). That's...not the case now.

Likewise, with the Caribbean, there are enough ships running circles there that one would think you could arrange some sort of on/off schedule to give you a few days on a single island (or to split a vacation between two destinations). On the one hand, I don't mind sampling a few destinations; on the other, I'd _really_ like more than 12 hours at a destination...and I _might_ like a decent dinner on land at some point or to get some actual depth out of a destination rather than simply showing up for lunch and a shopping trip.

In short, travel preferences lock me out of several parts of the world because travel to those places...well, let's just say that it's not very practical to go to Australia from anywhere, period. Airlines haven't fixed that...it's just somewhat less impractical.

*I've got one friend who wants to go. If we _do _go at some point, he's _already _giving me a hard time about my stated (and unsurprising) intent to spend a decent amount of time taking the train. It's more that...well, let's just say that my friends have gotten used to the fact that I take the train a lot.

**This also likely newts any trip to Australia...and some of the connections you have to make there can be insane (the cheapest flights I can find there run through _China_, and I have _no_ desire to spend more than 24 hours cooped up on airplanes over 2-3 days en route somewhere).


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 4, 2012)

With regard to Australia, yes it is a long trip, but it is absolutely practical, even in coach. Our family travelled there twice from Philadelphia: both times in coach. The first time our kids were 8 and 13. We had a ball. First you head to LAX. Then you just settle in on the SYD flight, watch some movies, eat the three meals, drink lots and lots of water (make lots and lots of trip to the loo), maybe even sleep a bit, and after just(?) 14 1/2 hours (non-stop from LAX or SFO), you are in Oz. You then spend the first day trying to figure out what time it is, get a good night's sleep, and the next day you're set. If you like train rides, Australia has lots for you to do. Don't miss out just because you think the trip is too long. It's really not that bad. Thousands do it every day - in coach.

As for fares, every so often there's a sale that gets the price down to $1000 or so from the east coast. Plus, there could be some new competition coming on the USA - Australia route (Virgin Blue), so that could help matters as well. When I consider that an Acela trip from PHL to BOS would be over $300 round trip, paying $1500 round trip for a trip to Australia does not seem too bad.

My wife and I want to head down there again, but this time we would like to cash in some miles and use Business Class with lie-flat seats. The problem is that Business Class awards USA to Australia are among the most coveted of all redemptions, and getting them at the low mile rate is really tough.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 4, 2012)

I'm just curious...with BC now generally involving lie-flat seats, what is the difference between BC and FC on these flights?

Also, how does Virgin Blue rate as far as airlines go?


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I'm just curious...with BC now generally involving lie-flat seats, what is the difference between BC and FC on these flights?
> 
> Also, how does Virgin Blue rate as far as airlines go?


The distinction between BC and F can be a bit blurry. In fact, with some airlines like CO, US, VS, Business Class is the only premium class offered.

A source of information about each airline's classes, services and seating is Seat Guru.  They have info for each airline and aircraft type, and comparison charts for what each airline means by each class. It is not always 100% up-to-date, but it's still a good reference.

Virgin Blue is now called Virgin Australia (I was a year behind by calling them Virgin Blue). It started as a low-cost Australian domestic carrier and now offers service to and from the USA using 777-ER's with economy, premium economy and business class. I have no direct knowledge of Virgin Australia, but the entry of VA into the USA-Oz market has held fares to at least a semi-reasonable level, so even those who would prefer to fly Qantas or United benefit.


----------



## jamesontheroad (Feb 9, 2012)

As usual I'm late to the conversation. But anyway, in response to the OP:



Anderson said:


> But why is a round trip to Europe usually in the $700-800 range (as near as I can tell) while a one-way ticket (well, at least one not involving some slightly insane connections through Istanbul or Moscow and layovers that make the traditional Chicago layover look brief) tends to run about $1200+


You'll find most long haul airlines always price round-trips cheaper than one-ways for precisely the reasons described by others above. If, however, you absolutely have to buy a one-way fare across the Atlantic, Icelandair (who fly from Boston (BOS), Denver (DEN), Minneapolis-St.Paul (MSP), Orlando (SFB), New York (JFK), Seattle (SEA) and Washington D.C (IAD) are one of the only airlines to price flights by the single sector. If you're flying from Canada, Air Transat have a number of seasonal charters, usually weekly, from various Canadian cities to London and Paris which are also cheaper for a one-way than a return.



PRR 60 said:


> If your goal is an "open jaw" trip - fly to a European city, then return from another city - then the fare will not be the same as two one-ways. It will be half the round trip fare to the outbound destination, then half the round trip fare back from the return city (as long as it is the same airline both ways). Price it using the "multi-city" option on the airline or agency web site.


+1

All airlines sell open-jaw trips (i.e. A-B / C-A) and you'll find they'll be comparable with the equivalent round-trip (A-B-A or A-C-A) fares. This is particularly useful if you want to visit my homeland, the UK, but also see other parts of continental Europe. The UK charges a pretty hefty Airport Departure Tax of £60 economy class and £120 business/first class for long haul. If you fly into the UK, then travel by train or boat or low cost airline to Europe, you can return to the USA from another country and avoid the UK's long haul departure tax.



Anderson said:


> I'm just curious...with BC now generally involving lie-flat seats, what is the difference between BC and FC on these flights?


Depends from airline to airline. I know that some legacy airlines in America (US Airways for example) offer two-class service domestically, distinguishing the cabins as economy and first, yet when they while internationally they will distinguish two-cabin service as economy and business class. Others, like United, offer three classes on some trans-Atlantic routes (economy, business and first) but only two on others. This depends largely on the yields of the specific markets from route to route.

It seems that lie-flat beds are now the standard to which long haul business and first class cabins now aspire. British Airways distinguishes their new First Class (pic) from Business Class (pic) with all manner of luxury extras. The difference between the two is very much felt in the details, the cuisine, the selection of alcohol and the pre and post flight services on the ground. For instance BA maintain two separate kinds of lounges - the Galleries for Business Class and your regular high status flyers, and much more exclusive First Class lounges (including the Concorde Room at LHR) for First.

Edit: oh, and how could I forget Emirates? The world's fastest growing long haul airline, with 150+ aircraft, including 20 Airbus A380 (and another 70, yes 70, on order). Their business class suite is pretty swish (pic) but it pales in comparison with First Class (pic) - which on the A380 includes the famous pair of bathrooms with showers (pic).


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 9, 2012)

I will admit that the first transpacific trip you take will probably be a little hard on your mind and your body, especially if you have difficulty controlling when you're asleep and when you're awake. Your internal clock will be all screwed up at first and you're likely to arrive tired and woozy no matter what your class of service or what route you take. For some folks this hazy period only lasts a couple hours. For others it may last a couple days. After that you should be fine and with each successive trip it should have less and less impact on you.

My first trip was tough, but after that I started taking the time zone (and international dateline) more seriously and managed to eliminate most of the jet lag factor. I would suggest you plan out when you will be sleeping and when will be awake as you make your flight selections. This will also help you identify good times for departure and arrival as well as good locations for layovers. If possible try to add stopovers to help you adjust on your first trip. Even if you can't make use of stopovers you can choose layovers at airports that have sleeping rooms and shower facilities to help make the trip more enjoyable.

A few days before departure you should begin adjusting your sleep schedule. The idea isn't to match your destination exactly, just to get a little closer to it. When you finally arrive do your best to keep up with the current hour. If it's late then hit the bed and go to sleep. If it's early then get up and get moving for as long as you can. Consider using moderate amounts of caffeine and/or sleeping agents if you have trouble forcing yourself to fall sleep or wake up. Not everything will be under your control, but with a little planning even very long journeys can become no more draining than a domestic road trip.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 9, 2012)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> As usual I'm late to the conversation. But anyway, in response to the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, yes...Emirates' Flying Pullmans. If I ever win the lottery and have $30,000 to blow then yes, I _might _take advantage of that. IIRC, those prices are on par with the nicest rooms on the Titanic adjusted for inflation.

As to BA...the complementary access to the post-flight spa facilities may be nice, but that's _probably _not worth the extra cost


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 9, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Ah, yes...Emirates' Flying Pullmans. If I ever win the lottery and have $30,000 to blow then yes, I _might _take advantage of that. IIRC, those prices are on par with the nicest rooms on the Titanic adjusted for inflation.


I happened upon some website that listed the cost of the first class parlor suite. I believe it was over $80,000 when adjusted for inflation. So I guess Emirates first class is actually quite a bit cheaper relative to that. If you want to take Emirates in the future you might want to consider racking up some points with Alaska Airlines' "Mileage Plan" club. Yes, that's actually what it's called. hboy:



Anderson said:


> As to BA...the complementary access to the post-flight spa facilities may be nice, but that's _probably _not worth the extra cost


If you like spas you could take the difference in fares from coach to first and spend a full *week* (or two) at a _real_ spa sampling virtually every treatment they have. I'm guessing you'd barely even remember the flight by the time you were done with that.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 10, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > As to BA...the complementary access to the post-flight spa facilities may be nice, but that's _probably _not worth the extra cost
> ...


The BA spa treatment in the arrival lounge at LHR is open to all paid Club World pax (plus First and elite BA EC club members). I've flown BA Club World PHL-LHR for less than $1000 OW AI. I don't think that would get me a week or two in any _real_ spa.

Is the spa alone worth the extra cost? No. Is it a nice perk if you paid for CW for other reasons? You bet.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 10, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> I've flown BA Club World PHL-LHR for less than $1000 *OW* AI. I don't think that would get me a week or two in any _real_ spa.


I specifically referred to _First Class_, which generally runs around $10,000 on BA from where I live. Maybe it's dirt cheap from Philly, I honestly couldn't say as I never fly out of there. As for Club World I don't think I've seen it come out to much less than $3,000 or so in recent years, at least from where I'm from. Unlike you I'm referring to _round trip_ tickets as I presume most people would eventually want to return to their point of origin without having to downgrade. But I guess I should have made it clearer that there are exceptions to every rule and if you were willing to travel during the off-season and/or didn't mind coming home in a row boat then yes, you could probably find a way to visit an airport spa for less than it would cost you to spend a week at a real spa. :lol:


----------



## jamesontheroad (Feb 10, 2012)

Anderson said:


> As to BA...the complementary access to the post-flight spa facilities may be nice, but that's _probably _not worth the extra cost





PRR 60 said:


> The BA spa treatment in the arrival lounge at LHR is open to all paid Club World pax (plus First and elite BA EC club members). I've flown BA Club World PHL-LHR for less than $1000 OW AI. I don't think that would get me a week or two in any _real_ spa.


There are a couple of Arrival Lounges at London Heathrow, simply because almost all eastbound trans-Atlantic flights travel overnight. I've used the Star Alliance arrivals lounge at LHR-T1 and it's pretty nice; large shower suites with complimentary pressing service (so your suit is nice and sharp when you step out of the shower) and breakfast cooked to order. It's open for all Business Class, First Class and Star Alliance Gold passengers arriving at Heathrow on BMI, South African and United Airlines flights, although it closes at 2pm. Likewise Air Canada have an arrivals suite at LHR-T3 for Super Elite, Elite, and Maple Leaf Club members. Personally I think the spa treatment is excessive, but when arriving on a long-haul flight in the morning, it's very pleasant to have a shower and breakfast before connecting or heading in to the city.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 10, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, yes...Emirates' Flying Pullmans. If I ever win the lottery and have $30,000 to blow then yes, I _might _take advantage of that. IIRC, those prices are on par with the nicest rooms on the Titanic adjusted for inflation.
> ...


This borders on heresy for me, but Alaska Airlines is in an odd little world and generally not a competitor to rail service (the Fairbanks-Anchorage service is in an odd category from my point of view)...how is their plan?


----------



## jis (Feb 10, 2012)

There are many good reasons to want to arrive in LHR by Business Class, not the least of which would be to avoid the infernal and seemingly infinite length immigration line  I usually avail myself of a reward upgrade whenever I can on an itinerary terminating at LHR.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 10, 2012)

Anderson said:


> This borders on heresy for me, but Alaska Airlines is in an odd little world and generally not a competitor to rail service (the Fairbanks-Anchorage service is in an odd category from my point of view)...how is their plan?


Not much of an expert on Alaska Airlines myself, but it looks like you can sign up for their branded card and get 25K or so worth of MP points. Augment that with a Starwood AMEX from a referral link and get another 25K or so that can be converted 1:1 (or better) into MP points. That should net 50k worth of points to get the ball rolling. Then just keep pushing applicable transactions through that pipeline while looking for additional earning options. I'm not sure if the Alaska/Emirates redemption levels are published yet but taking a quick look at CX and QF I'm seeing 140,000 - 160,000 point redemptions for round trip in first class to Australia/New Zealand. Just make sure you can meet the minimum spend without having to carry a balance and you won't be committing too big of a sin against _The Church of the Pointless Arrow_. :lol:



jis said:


> There are many good reasons to want to arrive in LHR by Business Class, not the least of which would be to avoid the infernal and seemingly infinite length immigration line  I usually avail myself of a reward upgrade whenever I can on an itinerary terminating at LHR.


While there are in fact many airports that are objectively worse than LHR, I can't really think of any that were more disappointing relative to their supposed status. I've only visited a couple of the terminals which did not include T4 or T5, so it's probably best to take my comments with a grain of salt, but this is what I remember.

- Red eyes galore, but not much in the way of daytime options ex-US.

- Lots of wasted time (and fuel) circling round and round waiting for a runway slot to open up somewhere below the haze.

- Dark, dank, and generally trashy arrivals processing areas.

- Much more suspicious and reactionary staff than on other airports.

- Ugly facilities down below, exposed waiting areas up top, and obscenely expensive taxis.

On the departures end...

- Nowhere to wait for your flight but a "duty free" shopping mall with the worst prices you've ever seen in your life.

- Legions of home-sized dehumidifiers trying in vain to keep the air breathable and the walls/floors free of mold.

- Fake windows consisting of scratched and discolored Plexiglass.

- Hyper-sensitive staff forbidding photos. Lots of cool hardware all around you but no way to take any crisp and clear pictures of it. Even if you try to snap photos from public spaces outside the airport itself they would get after you.

- One-way boarding "cells" where open gate areas would normally be. Once you're in, there's nothing to see or do until you board.

- Long delays on the outbound as you wait for another slot and wonder why you ever picked LHR in the first place.

Maybe the rest of the airport was a whole lot nicer than the areas I was in at T3 et al. Maybe I was expecting too much. Maybe they've cleaned everything up and it no longer looks like a sad dump. All I know is that next time I want to visit London I'll probably try LGW. Or CDG for that matter.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 10, 2012)

Yeesh. Much as I might like to try that...even a theoretical points buy comes to $4400 or so (maybe around $3000 aside from the card points). The worst part is that if I _did_ go to Australia, I would be _sorely_ tempted to try and acquire those points.

(Also, as to the Parlor Suites on the _Titanic_, I'd always heard $40,000...but that was also back in the mid-90s; the fact that the prices were in GBP at the time probably means that you can follow different conversion paths and get radically different prices, too)


----------



## jamesontheroad (Feb 11, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Maybe the rest of the airport was a whole lot nicer than the areas I was in at T3 et al. Maybe I was expecting too much. Maybe they've cleaned everything up and it no longer looks like a sad dump. All I know is that next time I want to visit London I'll probably try LGW. Or CDG for that matter.


Yep, that's our Heathrow. Welcome to Britain 

However, there is a lot of work going on. It should be getting better in the next five years. With two parallel east-west runways, the terminals are (from west to east)

LHR-T5 (satellite view) is brand new, although customs can be under-staffed in all the terminals. It has two satellites and rumour of a third one day if they can relocate the fuel farm between T5 and T3.

LHR-T3 (satellite view) is a mess; vast, sprawling non-sensical hell-hole. Like T1, its layout is inherited from when there were additional diagonal cross runways. As a result neither is very space efficient.

However, now that T2 has been demolished, the southern half of the new LHR-T1 is being built (the big square indentation in the ground in this satellite view... the structure is now advanced from when this photo was taken). When it's ready, the old T1 (to the north) will close, everyone there will move into the new southern T1, and work will begin to demolish the old terminal to build the northern half. This new LHR-T1 (sometimes called Heathrow East) will replace the entire chaotic eastern end of the terminals with a simple new square terminal perpendicular to the runways. Interestingly, the so-called Europier that was built less than ten years ago as a very remote extension of T1 (here) was designed with foresight (that is uncharacteristic in Britain) to become the northern part of a new satellite that will be parallel to the new T1. So when the new LHR-T1 is complete, it'll have a nice parallel satellite to the east, and will have a neat "toast-rack" of terminal and satellite perpendicular to the runways like LHR-T5.

Oh, and LHR-T4 (satellite view) has just had a refresh, and is the second newest terminal (built in the seventies). It's the only terminal not sandwiched between the two runways, sitting to the south. I've never actually used it, so can't really comment.

Every time I fly from the USA back to the UK I generally try to fly direct to one of the regional airports, either transiting through AMS onto one of the dozens of daily KLM Cityhopper flights to regional British airports, or on one of the direct Continental (ahem... United) 757 narrow-body services to Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester or Birmingham. Smaller airports, smaller plane, usually less queuing through customs (although a British passport does help).



Texas Sunset said:


> - Red eyes galore, but not much in the way of daytime options ex-US.


There are, incidentally a couple of "dayliner" flights from North America to London (AC out of Toronto, CO/UA out of EWR, JFK and IAD, not sure about DL, and I don't think US have any), although they generally leave the east coast in the morning, which makes it difficult to connect on to them from anywhere else in the USA. They are a pleasant alternative to a five-seven hour red eye. Eastbound flight times are shorter than westbound because of the prevailing winds, so it can be difficult to get much sleep on a quick flight, especially if you have to endure the drinks, dinner, duty-free and then breakfast service.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 11, 2012)

jamesbrownontheroad said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > - Red eyes galore, but not much in the way of daytime options ex-US.
> ...


I used a day flight on VS from EWR to LHR and it's a nice schedule. 8:00am out of EWR: 8:00pm into LHR. With the wind-assisted easterly flight, it is only seven hours gate-to-gate. Plus, you avoid not having a room ready for occupancy upon arrival at the hotel: a common problem with early morning arrivals of overnight flights from the USA. I wish it was a more common option,

I think the reason there are not more day flights is that it is not great for aircraft utilization. The typical schedule has the overnight flight aircraft making a same-day turn at LHR and heading right back to the USA to start it all over again. The same aircraft makes a TATL RT every day. The plane arriving on the day flight gets into LHR way too late to head back, so it sits until the next day. If an airline has multiple frequencies a day or additional destinations east of LHR, they can minimize the inefficiency, but airlines with limited LHR schedules find it hard to make the day schedule work.

As it is said, planes don't make any money sitting on the ground. However, from the passenger perspective, the day flight is great.


----------

