# British Airways to start London-Austin non-stop on 787!



## Texan Eagle (Sep 3, 2013)

This one came from completely nowhere! If you'd have asked me to guess 10 cities where a European airline would start a new non-stop Dreamliner route, I would have still never included *Austin* in the list!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/british-airways-become-first-airline-122900778.html

Good for the people of Austin I guess, not having to go to DFW or IAH to take flights to Europe and South Asia.

I wonder what our _Devil's Advocate_ based out of that part of the country has to say about this


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 3, 2013)

I live in Austin and believe it or not as a Growing City with over 1,000,000 People and Thousands More moving here Weekly it's about time we had a Real International Flight! ( We have a Grand Prix and the Music and Film Fests draw people from all over the World as does the Hi-Tech Industry and the University oif Texas!) Im not Interested in Flying Anywere (been there, done that) but Plenty of People will Love this! 

Chris (DA) lives in San Antonio which is much Larger than Austin and has had International Flights to Mexico for years! Those not interested in going to London will still have to do the Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York Shuttle for International Flights to other places!


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 3, 2013)

Here's a little background about the new service:

KUT News


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 3, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> Those not interested in going to London will still have to do the Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York Shuttle for International Flights to other places!


Or they can connect in London to other destinations. The Austin flight reaches London Heathrow at 10:00am local time, so that gives a lot of opportunities for passengers to connect to other BA flights to Europe and Indian subcontinent. Now, would you want to ever transit through living manifestation of hell on Earth, also known as Heathrow Airport, is an altogether different question ^_^


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 3, 2013)

I pass through LHR once or twice a month, and I don't find it bad at all. BA+AA have made changes between the terminals a rather painless process. If you want to see hell-on-earth in terms of a place to change planes, try CDG.

Raleigh-Durham, with a metro population about the same as Austin, has had a "thin route" nonstop to London since 1994. About half of the passengers are headed to/from the UK, and the other half connect on BA to various points in Europe or beyond. Austin's service will succeed if BA can sell enough seats in the front cabin where fares are high.


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 3, 2013)

Been there, done that. LHR is nowhere I want to go again!  Until there's a train from the US to London, I'll pass.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 3, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> Been there, done that. LHR is nowhere I want to go again!  Until there's a train from the US to London, I'll pass.


They are supposed to start work on the Tunnel from NYP to England soon, wonder if Amtrak and British Rail will Honor AGR Points when Trans-Atlantic Service Starts? (and will the Penthouse Clear the Tunnels???) :giggle:

And Connectins @ Heathrow must really be improved, it's still the Worst Connection Experience i've had this side of Benito Juarez in Mexico City!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 3, 2013)

Me thinks me glad I can't afford international travel. If I ever do go across the pond it most likely will be to Ireland.


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 3, 2013)

Ireland is a beautiful country! I'd love to go back and spend more than a weekend. (I worked for  an airline  at the time!)

And if I'd have to connect, I'd much rather chose Shannon over LHR or CDG.


----------



## jis (Sep 3, 2013)

LHR still remains one of my airports of last resort, i.e. go there only if completely unavoidable. Fortunately I can fly to most areas of UK directly without wasting time through LHR these days.


----------



## tp49 (Sep 3, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Those not interested in going to London will still have to do the Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York Shuttle for International Flights to other places!
> ...


I'd rather transit at LHR than either the hell on Earth that is CDG or FCO any day of the week.


----------



## tp49 (Sep 3, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Been there, done that. LHR is nowhere I want to go again!  Until there's a train from the US to London, I'll pass.
> ...


Be glad you never had to connect in the absolute worst airport I've ever connected in...Lagos.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 3, 2013)

This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system. The fire problem is still discerning for many potential customers.



tp49 said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


I agree, CDG is terrible! I once flew across the Atlantic on an AF 77W with 10-abreast Economy then had to transfer through the hellish CDG for my connection to Germany. That 77W was also plenty bad, the seats were both narrow and had poor legroom. EK's 77W is 10-abreat, but at least it has extra Greyhound-style legroom!

Still, would take a 9-abreast 777 any day. These planes dominate the international airways, so it's important to find the best.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 3, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system. The fire problem is still discerning for many potential customers.


The average traveling passenger has very short memory. There hasn't been any negative press about 787 in the last month or so, as a result I'd say 90% air travelers would have already forgotten all the hoopla around Dreamliner and fire. By the time this flight starts in March, assuming no more untoward incidents happen, it would be pretty safe to say for everyone except aviation fans this would be a non-issue.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 4, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system. The fire problem is still discerning for many potential customers.
> ...


Good for Ba and the Dreamliner. An aviation fan like me still has to wonder if these fires could end up causing a dealy accident, like if they burn up the avionics (think Swissair 111).


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 4, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Good for Ba and the Dreamliner. An aviation fan like me still has to wonder if these fires could end up causing a dealy accident, like if they burn up the avionics (think Swissair 111).


So does the aviation fan like you also worry about flying in an A330 that has a history of causing 339 fatalities? Or A320 that has caused 789 fatalities? How about the good old Boeing 737 that has a history of 4,243 fatalities?

If you say you're an aviation fan, I would guess you do realize the 787 is as safe, if not more, as any other commercial airliner flying in the sky today.


----------



## cirdan (Sep 4, 2013)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Me thinks me glad I can't afford international travel. If I ever do go across the pond it most likely will be to Ireland.


 I live in Switzerland and my next US trip (which I'm planning) will involve an Easyjet flight to London (Gatwick, not LHR, Gatwick is much more civilized), then train plus ferry via Holyhead to Dublin and then a flight into JFK or Philadelphia (and then Silver Service to Miami). All that costs about the same as a direct flight but is so much more interesting.


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 4, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Good for Ba and the Dreamliner. An aviation fan like me still has to wonder if these fires could end up causing a dealy accident, like if they burn up the avionics (think Swissair 111).
> ...


And don't forget that before the crash in Paris, the Concorde was the safest plane in history. It never had a fatal accident in over 25 years of flight! But within seconds, it went from the safest to last place. Now none are flying at all!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 4, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system. The fire problem is still discerning for many potential customers.
> ...


I think back to the AA DC-10 Crash in Chicago after which most Flyers didnt want to ride on DC-10s ( I heard lots of people asking @ Airports if their plane was a DC-10 and Travel Agents friends told me people asked them frequently) and as a result it wasnt long until the Airlines started replacing them and selling them off to Cargo Operations and Overseas! I flew many Miles on DC-10s and had no problem with them, a Wide Body is always better than a Pencil Plane no matter where you fly!


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 4, 2013)

There are always flyers concerned about one plane or another. The two largest operators of the DC-10 in the U.S. were American and United. Both of those fleets were still in frequent use as late as the mid-1990s, a long time after AA 194 (1979). The withdrawal of the DC-10 had more to do with its three-person cockpit, its fuel consumption compared to twin jets, the number of cycles accrued since 1971, and the trend to offer more frequent service with smaller aircraft.

It's true that the MD-11 successor was a poor seller, but I think that had more to do with the problems of the MD-11 specifically.


----------



## MrFSS (Sep 4, 2013)

xyzzy said:


> There are always flyers concerned about one plane or another. The two largest operators of the DC-10 in the U.S. were American and United. Both of those fleets were still in frequent use as late as the mid-1990s, a long time after AA 194 (1979). The withdrawal of the DC-10 had more to do with its three-person cockpit, its fuel consumption compared to twin jets, the number of cycles accrued since 1971, and the trend to offer more frequent service with smaller aircraft.
> It's true that the MD-11 successor was a poor seller, but I think that had more to do with the problems of the MD-11 specifically.


We flew In a DC-10 to Hawaii and back in 2002, so they were still going, then, I guess.


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2013)

xyzzy said:


> It's true that the MD-11 successor was a poor seller, but I think that had more to do with the problems of the MD-11 specifically.


Yes. The fact that it never met its performance objectives had more to do with the state of its sales than anything to do with perceived additional risk or such.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 4, 2013)

MrFSS said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> > There are always flyers concerned about one plane or another. The two largest operators of the DC-10 in the U.S. were American and United. Both of those fleets were still in frequent use as late as the mid-1990s, a long time after AA 194 (1979). The withdrawal of the DC-10 had more to do with its three-person cockpit, its fuel consumption compared to twin jets, the number of cycles accrued since 1971, and the trend to offer more frequent service with smaller aircraft.
> ...


Wow! What Airline Tom, must have been an "Off Brand" or Charter to still be using DC-10s that Late in the Game? Did the Pilot look and talk like Borat?? :giggle:


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 4, 2013)

Hawaiian acquired some DC-10s from American and flew them until 2003. HA was able to postpone ETOPS that way.


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 4, 2013)

MrFSS said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> > There are always flyers concerned about one plane or another. The two largest operators of the DC-10 in the U.S. were American and United. Both of those fleets were still in frequent use as late as the mid-1990s, a long time after AA 194 (1979). The withdrawal of the DC-10 had more to do with its three-person cockpit, its fuel consumption compared to twin jets, the number of cycles accrued since 1971, and the trend to offer more frequent service with smaller aircraft.
> ...


At least I hope they were still going then! :giggle: 
BTW: When was the UA crash of a DC-10 in SUX? (That's the code believe it or not for Sioux City, SD!  )


----------



## MrFSS (Sep 4, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > xyzzy said:
> ...


NWA - Seattle to Honolulu and back 10 days later - worse trip of my life - NWA cancelled two flights on us - "equipment" problems, they lost our luggage, I was seasick for three days straight on our cruise, and my father died while we were in the middle of the South Pacific with no phone service!


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 4, 2013)

Remember when Northwest Airlines used to be called Northwest Orient? :huh:


----------



## MrFSS (Sep 4, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> Remember when Northwest Airlines used to be called Northwest Orient? :huh:


As in the great movie, _*North By Northwest*_. They flew out of Chicago Midway, the only commercial Chicago airport at the time.


----------



## trainman74 (Sep 4, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> BTW: When was the UA crash of a DC-10 in SUX? (That's the code believe it or not for Sioux City, SD!  )


July 1989. (Wikipedia's writeup)


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 4, 2013)

trainman74 said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > BTW: When was the UA crash of a DC-10 in SUX? (That's the code believe it or not for Sioux City, SD!  )
> ...


United Flight 232, July 19, 1989 - DEN-ORD-PHL. I know that flight and date very, very well.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 4, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> Remember when Northwest Airlines used to be called Northwest Orient? :huh:


They and Pan Am used to be the only airlines flying transpacific back in the regulated days.



PRR 60 said:


> trainman74 said:
> 
> 
> > the_traveler said:
> ...


Why do you know it so well? I was in PHL too back then.


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 4, 2013)

Were you, or someone you know, on UA232 Bill? I hope not!


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 4, 2013)

I haven’t told this story in a long time, but it is one that I remember every detail like it was yesterday.

In the summer of 1989, my wife, daughter (age 11), son (age 6) and I spent a week vacation at Keystone Resort in Colorado. Keystone, a winter ski area, was also a summer resort with lots of activities for adults and kids. We all loved it. After a great week there, we headed home. Our return flight from Denver back to Philadelphia was on Wednesday, July 19.

Our Denver to Philadelphia flight was United Flight 494. There was another United flight to Philadelphia about 90 minutes earlier, a one-stop through Chicago, but since we were driving down from Keystone that day, the later departure of 494 and the fact it was a non-stop was desirable. Flight 494 was a DC10 – a great plane and something I bragged about to our friends and family before we left. As far as our family and friends knew, were coming home from Denver July 19 on a United DC10. We also would have been OK on the earlier flight, and came close to having to book it because 494 was nearly sold out when we booked. That flight was also a DC10. It was United Flight 232.

We departed Denver on time. The flight was uneventful through landing at Philadelphia. As we taxied to the gate, a flight attendant made an ominous PA announcement. She asked that all passengers remain seated after we stop at the gate because the captain had some important information for us before we got off. Her voice was clearly choked with emotion. No one budged when we pulled into the gate.

After parking at the gate, the captain came on the PA. He announced, in a calm business-like manner, that another Philadelphia-bound United flight had made an emergency landing at Sioux City, Iowa. Because of that, the Philadelphia terminal had been closed to all but passengers with tickets (rare pre 9/11) and that anyone meeting us would be waiting outside security. He also added that we should be aware that there would be a large presence of news media outside security. He then asked for several parties he mentioned by name to remain on board (I later found out why).

1989 was before smart phones and even cell phones, so I had no idea what had happened or why an "emergency landing" by another flight in Sioux City would require special security arrangements and media attention in Philadelphia. The airside terminal, with no visitors, was very quiet. However, the public side of security was a mob scene with news crews and cameras and barely enough room to squeeze through the crowd. I overheard conversations and then realized what had happened. The other flight was Flight 232, and the "emergency landing" was a crash landing and over 100 were feared dead. Then it also occurred to me that as far as our family and friends knew, we were on that flight.

My mother heard about Flight 232 when they broke into regular Philadelphia TV programming with the new bulletin. She heard United, a DC10 from Denver to Philadelphia with a stop in Chicago. She called my wife’s family. TV had been on the scene at Sioux City when the crippled plane came in and was showing that landing over and over with the plane hitting, flipping, and bursting into flames. She thought, and in fact was certain, that her son, daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren were on that plane. She called Keystone, who could only say that we had checked out that morning. Keystone gave her the number for Stapleton Airport (the airport management office), who of course had no information. A short while later, the local Philadelphia news broadcast the number for a phone line set up by United for family to inquire about passengers on Flight 232. My mother was too upset to dial the phone. My brother called for her, and United told them we were on the other flight – Flight 494.

After I realized what had happened, I called my mother from baggage claim - about an hour after they had gotten the word from United. It was quite a phone call. My wife called her family. Thursday morning, I went into the office where my co-workers were literally waiting to see if I showed up (they were afraid to call my family). It was a little tough sleeping for a while. The feeling was a weird combination of relief and guilt.

One last item: the parties that were asked to stay on Flight 494 were part of families or groups that for various reasons had been split between the two flights. Some of them had loved ones on Flight 232. They were taken to a private area to be told what happened. That also explained the rather vague announcement given on our flight.

It was one of those days we will all remember forever.


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 4, 2013)

I didn't know that, and I'm very glad you were on the "wrong" flight and are here to tell us!


----------



## pennyk (Sep 4, 2013)

WOW. Bill. I am happy that you were not on that plane. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 5, 2013)

I sure am glad that, by some chance of luck, you managed to convince yourself to book United 494 instead of the ill-fated United 232. A slight change of mind, and you might not even be here today. We are all glad that you didn't end up on the crashed DC-10.

United 494 still exists today as a Mexico City-Houston-New York LaGuradia flight on an A319.


----------



## railiner (Sep 5, 2013)

I recall that UAL flight 232. It's Captain, A. C. Haynes, was probably the most celebrated 'hero', for the way he handled the emergency, and for the lives saved, until "Sully" came along years later.....


----------



## Eric S (Sep 5, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> BTW: When was the UA crash of a DC-10 in SUX? (That's the code believe it or not for Sioux City, SD!  )


Sioux City, Iowa, or Sioux Falls, South Dakota?

SUX = Sioux City, IA


----------



## train person (Sep 5, 2013)

LHR bad? Hell on earth? Yeah ok, I can go with that, as long as that festering 3rd world septic festering dump known as Chicago O'Hare has been wiped off the map.

LHR is like the garden of eden compared to that rancid tip.


----------



## jis (Sep 5, 2013)

Bill, that must have been quite an experience.
Incidentally, the inherent problems in burying engines within critical body structures was sort of known from dealing with uncontained engine failures in the Comet IVs. There is a reason that no new large plane with humongous engines buries them in body structures.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 5, 2013)

:hi: Great Story Bill! I'm sure that those of us who Fly ,or used to Fly often, have heard or experienced similar situations, I know I changed Flights many times for various reasons and I can only think of one time that a Flight i was originally booked on Crashed, it was in Mexico and the DC-8 hit a Mountain between Mexico City and Guadalajara while I was in Puerto Vallarta waiting on my rebooked Flight to Dallas! Just wasnt Our Time, call it Fate or Luck of the Draw or whatever! Today's Communication Systems, as we know, make it so much easier to notify people of things unlike back in the day during ya'lls experience!


----------



## jis (Sep 5, 2013)

I have the sad record of having flown in two aircraft that were later blown out of the sky by terrorists. They were

1. Pan Am 747 Clipper Maid of the Seas - the Lockerbie bombing. I flew on it from Hong Kong Kai Tak to Tokyo many moons back Pan Am 2.

2. Air India 747 Emperor Kanishka - the bombing off the coast of Ireland. I flew on it from New York JFK to Delhi Palam via London AI 102.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 5, 2013)

Glad you werent on them on their fateful flights!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 5, 2013)

I think I'll make sure Jis isn't on any flights that I'm on.


----------



## jis (Sep 5, 2013)

Why? Would you rather be on the later flight on the same plane?


----------



## the_traveler (Sep 5, 2013)

I think Betty is saying that you have such a bubbling personality that you never know when it may overload and burst!


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 5, 2013)

jis said:


> Why? Would you rather be on the later flight on the same plane?





the_traveler said:


> I think Betty is saying that you have such a bubbling personality that you never know when it may overload and burst!


Jis, actually I was going to say that I would ask you what planes you've been on before so I could make sure my plane wasn't one of them. But I might need a 10g tablet to keep track of all of them :giggle:

Dave, I was thinking more of 3 strikes and you're out.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 5, 2013)

jis said:


> I have the sad record of having flown in two aircraft that were later blown out of the sky by terrorists. They were
> 1. Pan Am 747 Clipper Maid of the Seas - the Lockerbie bombing. I flew on it from Hong Kong Kai Tak to Tokyo many moons back Pan Am 2.
> 
> 2. Air India 747 Emperor Kanishka - the bombing off the coast of Ireland. I flew on it from New York JFK to Delhi Palam via London AI 102.


That's not great. What was the Pan Am flight going to? I think PA2 was the round-the-world that came from JFK and would have continued to SFO. Did they ever have SFO-NRT-HKG with a non-SP 747 or did they do SFO-HKG with a 747SP? I'm thinking about that HNL stop.


----------



## trainman74 (Sep 6, 2013)

Thanks for the story, PRR 60.

It occurs to me that the folks on the United forum over at FlyerTalk.com would be very interested in it, although it's certainly understandable if you don't want to _re-_relive it.


----------



## jis (Sep 6, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I have the sad record of having flown in two aircraft that were later blown out of the sky by terrorists. They were
> ...


I have no clue where they flew or did not back then except for the flights I took. I flew Tokyo to JFK on a 747SP on that trip.

Yes, Pan Am 1 and 2 were the round the world flights.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 6, 2013)

jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Just out of interest, which one did you like more, the 741 or 74S? I've flown on them, but not with Pan Am. I was very young when Pan Am sold their SP fleet to United. By the early-1990s the lounges and other good stuff were gone, they just felt like regular 747s.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 11, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> I wonder what our _Devil's Advocate_ based out of that part of the country has to say about this


Alright Ill give it a shot... 



jimhudson said:


> Chris (DA) lives in San Antonio which is much Larger than Austin and has had International Flights to Mexico for years! Those not interested in going to London will still have to do the Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York Shuttle for International Flights to other places!


SAT has multiple daily non-stop flights to all the major hubs, so international travel is fairly easy from here. AUS is often cheaper, but rarely enough to make it a better value when its an hour or two of extra driving each way under the best of circumstances. There are no scheduled services between SAT and AUS.



xyzzy said:


> I pass through LHR once or twice a month, and I don't find it bad at all. BA+AA have made changes between the terminals a rather painless process.


Its been years since I was traveling through LHR, but it was certainly a dump back then. Maybe T5 is nice but some of the other terminals were truly awful. Not to mention the extended delays, hyper-active security, scratched and discolored Plexiglas windows, disgusting moldy carpet, rude and indifferent staff, etc. When I tried to take a photo of a plane I found out they have a zero tolerance policy toward anything but shopping at the worst duty free stores Ive ever found.



xyzzy said:


> If you want to see hell-on-earth in terms of a place to change planes, try CDG.





Texan Eagle said:


> I'd rather transit at LHR than either the hell on Earth that is CDG





tp49 said:


> I agree, CDG is terrible!


Because?



AmtrakBlue said:


> Me thinks me glad I can't afford international travel.


That seems like a rather odd thing to be glad about.



Swadian Hardcore said:


> This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system.


The only way for folks from San Antonio to take this flight is to drive there or connect through IAH/HOS/DFW/DAL, which kind of defeats whatever benefit this would otherwise give them.



train person said:


> LHR bad? Hell on earth? Yeah ok, I can go with that, as long as that festering 3rd world septic festering dump known as Chicago O'Hare has been wiped off the map.
> 
> LHR is like the garden of eden compared to that rancid tip.


Ive flown through ORD dozens of times without issue. What sort of problem does ORD suffer from that is not found anywhere at LHR?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 11, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > This flight could also take up some traffic from San Antonio, Kileen, and the surrounding areas. The 787 is reportedly very good at countering jeg lag with it's new cabin pressurization system.
> ...


What I mean is that Austin is quite close to San Antonio, Kileen, etc., so people could drive from there or ride a Greyhound and connect to the BA 787 at AUS. It's a lot harder to get to DFW or IAH because you have to fly a Regional connection or drive/ride a lot farther.


----------

