India

[JFK777]

Why did AA choose Delhi over Mumbai ? Mumbai is the financial center of India, it is further south. I just want to know what criteria was used to make this decision. May the former MODERAATOR could provide some insight. With Continental also starting to Delhi in November, Delhi is getting crowded.

When Delta took over Pan Am's service to India they dumped Delhi and have served Mumbai for all these years. They even expanded to Chennai with another direct fight from JFK. With so many US airlines going to India, when we will see Jet Airways in an american airport. I would also love to see one of those Spice Air A380 serve the US, after making such a splash at the Paris Air Show.

 

[IORFA]

Mumbai, is probably to far for a non-stop. Although we keep hearing rumors about more service to India, although direct service, not non-stop. So Mumbai is probably on the radar and might be around by summer.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Why did AA choose Delhi over Mumbai ?

[post="286214"][/post]​

Delhi has far better overhaul capibilities.

Only kidding.....

 

[MAH4546]

Mumbai can't be non-stop.

Look for Mumbai service to start in late 2006 via Europe, probably Brussels.

 

[jimntx]

Mumbai can't be non-stop.

Look for Mumbai service to start in late 2006 via Europe, probably Brussels.

[post="286271"][/post]​

Just curious...why Brussels? Why not LHR, FRA, CDG, or ZRH? I know LHR is constrained, but are the others?

 

[mjk]

Maybe they have a top secret hangar in BRU where we can have inexpensive A checks done.

 

[Oneflyer]

Just curious...why Brussels? Why not LHR, FRA, CDG, or ZRH? I know LHR is constrained, but are the others?

AA has fifth freedom rights in BRU and they expect to get some local traffic. With the purchase of Swiss, AA might not fly to ZRH much longer.