Is the price for the flight from Chattanooga, TN to Los Angeles on March 19 going to drop?
I'm about to purchase a flight ticket (delta) from Chattanooga, TN to Los Angeles. The thing is, the price was half several days ago, but now it has jumped up to $500 including tax. Do you guys think the ticket price will drop in few days?
Air Travel - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
im assuming that maybe it will . and if not you could always choose to a different airline :] also another note check for airline promotions you find them in the airlines websites ..what they are , are discounts were you could get cheaper ticket by using a code Good luck
2 :
I would check out other city closer to you. Seeing if the ticket price cheaper then that.
3 :
If you do not buy your ticket 14 days before your departure date, the price will be higher and not lower. Today is March 9 so if you travel on March 19, you purchased your ticket with less than 14 days before your departure date. Therefore the price is higher. If you change your departure date to say March 23 or 24, then the price should be different.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
I'm looking a cheap non-stop flight from LAX Los angeles to MDW midway chicago on 6-27 and return 7-5-07
I'm looking a cheap non-stop flight from LAX Los angeles to MDW midway chicago on 6-27 and return 7-5-07?
Looking in price under $300 I've check southwest that's what it's at? 1st to find one gets best answer for 8 passengers+++
Air Travel - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sidestep.com checks pretty much every airline except Southwest and shows no non-stop flights between those two airports. Looks like it's your only choice.
2 :
www.priceline.com
3 :
www.ytb.com/awitravel Click on Book Travel $238 per person. 37 non-stop flights. they take max. of 6 people per reservation, price above based on 2 persons. 6 would be $283 per person, so 4 groups of 2, and you all book same flight, it would be cheaper
4 :
I have a little travel blog that will help you find the cheapest airfare! Use the Kayak search bar on the right side to find the cheapest airfare! I did a quick search using my Kayak bar and got $259 per person on a nonstop flight. It is going into O'Hare, though. it is a good deal, though! it includes all taxes and fees too! The blog is about travel to and around Europe, but you can use the Kayak bar to find really cheap flights anywhere in the world! http://besttravelsearch.blogspot.com
5 :
I have tried to look around for the your option and the best I am getting is $211.40 at cheapoair.com - there will be some tax but I am sure the total price wont cross your budget.... You can have a look. I have used cheapoair's service 7-8 times and again I have booked with them for my next trip - they seems to be best in terms of giving air tickets for cheap.. all the best... pal
Looking in price under $300 I've check southwest that's what it's at? 1st to find one gets best answer for 8 passengers+++
Air Travel - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sidestep.com checks pretty much every airline except Southwest and shows no non-stop flights between those two airports. Looks like it's your only choice.
2 :
www.priceline.com
3 :
www.ytb.com/awitravel Click on Book Travel $238 per person. 37 non-stop flights. they take max. of 6 people per reservation, price above based on 2 persons. 6 would be $283 per person, so 4 groups of 2, and you all book same flight, it would be cheaper
4 :
I have a little travel blog that will help you find the cheapest airfare! Use the Kayak search bar on the right side to find the cheapest airfare! I did a quick search using my Kayak bar and got $259 per person on a nonstop flight. It is going into O'Hare, though. it is a good deal, though! it includes all taxes and fees too! The blog is about travel to and around Europe, but you can use the Kayak bar to find really cheap flights anywhere in the world! http://besttravelsearch.blogspot.com
5 :
I have tried to look around for the your option and the best I am getting is $211.40 at cheapoair.com - there will be some tax but I am sure the total price wont cross your budget.... You can have a look. I have used cheapoair's service 7-8 times and again I have booked with them for my next trip - they seems to be best in terms of giving air tickets for cheap.. all the best... pal
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Would a flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo be on a 747 or a 777
Would a flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo be on a 747 or a 777?
I know that either one would do the job, but with the economy the way it is, many are starting to switch to more fuel-efficient planes. When I was a child, all of my flights were on Boeings; nowadays, my three previous flights were on Airbuses. The 777 only has two engines, but they're larger than those of the 747, which has 4 engines. Also, there could be other issues such as comfort, number of passengers, etc. Plus, the hump on the 747 would probably increase drag, although at 36,000 ft, the air is so much thinner than at ground level, so it may be an irrelevance. Given all of these circumstances, would it be a 747, 777, or none of these?
Aircraft - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
DOES NOT MATTER BOTH ARE GOOD PLANES AND WILL GET YOU TO TOKYO.
2 :
It depends on the airline.
3 :
It depends on an airline. Japan airlines sometimes puts B747 or B777 on this route. B747 can carry a little bit more passengers. I live ten minutes from Chicago O'hare International Airport, and every morning, around 7 am I see either Japan Airlines' 777 or 747 flying from Tokyo.
4 :
I dont think it matters i believe the 777 is a little more fuel efficient but if the airline has more passengers they would use the 747
5 :
It can be either, but I'm telling you man the Boeing 747 is the best jetliner ever made.
6 :
Well you are right economics are really the bottom line when it comes to determine what plane is being used. The 777 is an interesting plane in that it fills up a long range capability with a large load. I would guess the 747 would be the pick for he LA/Tokyo flight because it's a popular route and would easily fill a 747ER. However a Seattle to Tokyo might be a 777, as demand may be great but not great enough to fill out a 747 consistantly. Here is another thing - depends what airline. Many US Airlines don't purchase 747 - I think Northwest/Delta and United are the only 2 airlines that actively fly 747's. Let's face a 747 is really for long distance/high volume type routes and that really doesn't work into a lot of US airline routes. The 777, because it has lower loads is more versitile it want it can be used for - as a matter of fact, American Airlines uses a 777 on a LAX-Miami route - always found that strange but using a 747 for the route makes no sense. Also, you have to factor in the engines and mechanical work that goes into the engines - airlines want to cut costs and to streamline the equipment is cheaper. What the means is that for every 747 they buy/lease, the airline has to be able to service the airplane. So unless you have multiple 747's - which means you have to a lot of long range/high volume routes - and usually only international carriers can guarantee that. International Carriers are Government owned or have significant Government assistance when they are contracting the routes. So that is one reason you see international carriers purchasing larger 747's. Especially in Asia where 1,200 to 3,000 mile routes from populous cities can be serviced by 747 because they can pack people in. As for Airbus making in roads in the commercial airliner market - well there are many reasons for that. Airbus has the luxury not really having to pay R&D cost. EU countries - led by France have subsized Airbus on all it's failures. I could go on for many paragraphs about this but I'm going hang back. However - that allows Airbus to present the product at reasonable prices. Also, they have designed fuel efficient airplanes - the A320 has done some nice things for the passengers compared to the 737's. Airbus offers airlines some great passagner entertainment. I always thought that was determined by the carrier but it seems that Boeing aircraft don't offer the same systems Airbus has - like DirecTV and things like that. Todays 747's are amazing works of engineering. The fuel effiency of this airplane is probably 20% to 25% more effiecient that 747's that were flying in the mid-70's. You mentioned "the hump" of the 747. Well, I believe it's probably more efficient with draft then the A380 - if anything less over all draft is produced on a 747 then an A380. The 787 is going to be the interesting airplane. Were talking about an airplane that can fly from New York to Hong Kong and service only 200 passengers. It's going to be a plane that an airline can use for NY to LA and also use for a route like Seattle to London - both in great comfort and efficiency. Boeing took a different approach to the future the Airbus. Airbus is putting the future on big numbers over large distances - Boeing's future is better point to point long distance flights that are cost effective. Both have questions but the A380 Market is limited and we know that they are - it's the same as 747. The 787 market is unknown - but it looks exciting.
I know that either one would do the job, but with the economy the way it is, many are starting to switch to more fuel-efficient planes. When I was a child, all of my flights were on Boeings; nowadays, my three previous flights were on Airbuses. The 777 only has two engines, but they're larger than those of the 747, which has 4 engines. Also, there could be other issues such as comfort, number of passengers, etc. Plus, the hump on the 747 would probably increase drag, although at 36,000 ft, the air is so much thinner than at ground level, so it may be an irrelevance. Given all of these circumstances, would it be a 747, 777, or none of these?
Aircraft - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
DOES NOT MATTER BOTH ARE GOOD PLANES AND WILL GET YOU TO TOKYO.
2 :
It depends on the airline.
3 :
It depends on an airline. Japan airlines sometimes puts B747 or B777 on this route. B747 can carry a little bit more passengers. I live ten minutes from Chicago O'hare International Airport, and every morning, around 7 am I see either Japan Airlines' 777 or 747 flying from Tokyo.
4 :
I dont think it matters i believe the 777 is a little more fuel efficient but if the airline has more passengers they would use the 747
5 :
It can be either, but I'm telling you man the Boeing 747 is the best jetliner ever made.
6 :
Well you are right economics are really the bottom line when it comes to determine what plane is being used. The 777 is an interesting plane in that it fills up a long range capability with a large load. I would guess the 747 would be the pick for he LA/Tokyo flight because it's a popular route and would easily fill a 747ER. However a Seattle to Tokyo might be a 777, as demand may be great but not great enough to fill out a 747 consistantly. Here is another thing - depends what airline. Many US Airlines don't purchase 747 - I think Northwest/Delta and United are the only 2 airlines that actively fly 747's. Let's face a 747 is really for long distance/high volume type routes and that really doesn't work into a lot of US airline routes. The 777, because it has lower loads is more versitile it want it can be used for - as a matter of fact, American Airlines uses a 777 on a LAX-Miami route - always found that strange but using a 747 for the route makes no sense. Also, you have to factor in the engines and mechanical work that goes into the engines - airlines want to cut costs and to streamline the equipment is cheaper. What the means is that for every 747 they buy/lease, the airline has to be able to service the airplane. So unless you have multiple 747's - which means you have to a lot of long range/high volume routes - and usually only international carriers can guarantee that. International Carriers are Government owned or have significant Government assistance when they are contracting the routes. So that is one reason you see international carriers purchasing larger 747's. Especially in Asia where 1,200 to 3,000 mile routes from populous cities can be serviced by 747 because they can pack people in. As for Airbus making in roads in the commercial airliner market - well there are many reasons for that. Airbus has the luxury not really having to pay R&D cost. EU countries - led by France have subsized Airbus on all it's failures. I could go on for many paragraphs about this but I'm going hang back. However - that allows Airbus to present the product at reasonable prices. Also, they have designed fuel efficient airplanes - the A320 has done some nice things for the passengers compared to the 737's. Airbus offers airlines some great passagner entertainment. I always thought that was determined by the carrier but it seems that Boeing aircraft don't offer the same systems Airbus has - like DirecTV and things like that. Todays 747's are amazing works of engineering. The fuel effiency of this airplane is probably 20% to 25% more effiecient that 747's that were flying in the mid-70's. You mentioned "the hump" of the 747. Well, I believe it's probably more efficient with draft then the A380 - if anything less over all draft is produced on a 747 then an A380. The 787 is going to be the interesting airplane. Were talking about an airplane that can fly from New York to Hong Kong and service only 200 passengers. It's going to be a plane that an airline can use for NY to LA and also use for a route like Seattle to London - both in great comfort and efficiency. Boeing took a different approach to the future the Airbus. Airbus is putting the future on big numbers over large distances - Boeing's future is better point to point long distance flights that are cost effective. Both have questions but the A380 Market is limited and we know that they are - it's the same as 747. The 787 market is unknown - but it looks exciting.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Is the Angels Flight railway in Downtown Los Angeles open again
Is the Angels Flight railway in Downtown Los Angeles open again?
I've never seen it before but want to check it out. I've read that it closed in 2001 after an accident, but was supposed to open this past summer.
Los Angeles - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's like a 1 minute trip, why waste your money?
2 :
hmmm, Fusion you should definitely check it out (I did not know they ever closed it). It is a very important remnant of Los Angeles history (which I like). It is one of the last remaining (maybe the last one ?) of many funiculars that were all over L.A. maybe 80 years ago. (Usually as a means of getting people to their homes, to shopping or to the beach from the light rail lines.)....
3 :
No it is not running.
4 :
No it remains closed
I've never seen it before but want to check it out. I've read that it closed in 2001 after an accident, but was supposed to open this past summer.
Los Angeles - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's like a 1 minute trip, why waste your money?
2 :
hmmm, Fusion you should definitely check it out (I did not know they ever closed it). It is a very important remnant of Los Angeles history (which I like). It is one of the last remaining (maybe the last one ?) of many funiculars that were all over L.A. maybe 80 years ago. (Usually as a means of getting people to their homes, to shopping or to the beach from the light rail lines.)....
3 :
No it is not running.
4 :
No it remains closed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)