Air Tahiti Nui To Start JFK-LAX in September

[Iberia A340-600]

Effective 5 Sep. The November schedule shows back to non-stop PPT-JFK. This is not going to help them build the JFK-PPT route up.

--3-5-- TN 202 P A J D Z I Y M LAXJFK- 800A 410P 343 BB 0


--3-5-- TN 201 P A J D Z I Y M JFKLAX- 600P 915P 343 SS 0

Full routing PPT-LAX-JFK
--2-4-- TN 202 P A J D Z I Y M PPTJFK- 645P 410P#1 343 DD 1

Full routing JFK-LAX-PPT
--3-5-- TN 201 P A J D Z I Y M JFKPPT- 600P 435A#1 343 SS 1

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/ge ... n/3482103/ (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3482103/)

I can guarantee you I will try and be on a JFK-LAX-JFK flight if they are bookable!

[SoPictureThis]

This is hard for me to believe, but it seems like it will actually happen. What I don't believe, though, is that U.S. citizens will be able to fly the LAX-JFK or JFK-LAX leg....

I feel that Air Tahiti Nui, if it starts such flights, will have to limit the passengers flying within the U.S. to those in transit to/from Tahiti...similar to Qantas' restrictions on pax flying from SYD-JFK via LAX.

It would be amazing if we Americans were allowed to purchase tickets for JFK-LAX and LAX-JFK...I probably wouldnt be flying AA back and forth from school if that was the case! :P

- jMay

[ISP Pilot]

What I don't believe, though, is that U.S. citizens will be able to fly the LAX-JFK or JFK-LAX leg....
It really doesn't have much to do with being a US citizen but more so with 5th Freedom Rights. If an American citizen (or any other citizen authorized to enter the US) was flying from PPT-LAX-JFK or vv, they could 'stopover' in LAX for a few days and continue on from LAX-JFK. I did this many years ago on SQ on a CGK-SIN-TPE-HNL-LAX flight. I stopped over in HNL for a week then boarded SQ again in HNL to fly to LAX and eventually on DL LAX-DFW-LGA.

[T-Bird76]

Nope won't be bookable as ISP described which is to bad. Its been reported that the nonstop from JFK to Tahiti always had very low load factors and yields. This will give them the ability to take on more passengers and cargo at LAX.

[mirrodie]

TOo bad too. We flew them JFK-PPT, excellent F class service and having spoken with others who flew coach, that is also a great product.


ANd don't forget, the FAs are pretty attractive.

[hiss srq]

ANd don't forget, the FAs are pretty attractive.


The most important part of flying when there is no meal service but since it is Tahiti it is the second most important thing.

[adam613]

It's not a question of being a US citizen. Foreign carriers are not allowed to provide domestic service within the US, and I believe they can only provide direct service to the US from their home country. I vaguely remember a few years ago someone in Europe making a big stink about the fact that, for example, AF can't fly from LHR to JFK. He wanted the EU to do something about it, and I snickered because it's a US law, having nothing to do with the EU.

[T-Bird76]

I believe they can only provide direct service to the US from their home country.

Not true, a good deal of the carriers stop in London. You can book Air India to London from JFK. Cathay Pacific is also bookable to Vancouver from JFK same with Philippines from LAS to YVR. You just can't book domestic segments which imo is the Gov't limiting choice to the consumers. Instead of paying for an airline that will provide you with good service we are stuck with the $hit domestic carriers.

[Matt Molnar]

You just can't book domestic segments which imo is the Gov't limiting choice to the consumers. Instead of paying for an airline that will provide you with good service we are stuck with the $hit domestic carriers.
It's protectionism. Air Tahiti Nui cabin crews probably get paid in a year what AA crews get paid in a month. If US carriers had to compete against that, there would be no US carriers.

[lijk604]

Instead of paying for an airline that will provide you with good service we are stuck with the $hit domestic carriers.

But Tommy...it's the Government protecting US jobs, or better put, US money. If Virgin was allowed to spin off Virgin America in it's original form, the revenue would go to a company NOT based in the US, therefore the company would not need to pay US taxes, only the employees would.

By doing this the US Government is "protecting" the US Carriers, but behind the scenes it's about protecting the US tax dollars.

[T-Bird76]

You just can't book domestic segments which imo is the Gov't limiting choice to the consumers. Instead of paying for an airline that will provide you with good service we are stuck with the $hit domestic carriers.
It's protectionism. Air Tahiti Nui cabin crews probably get paid in a year what AA crews get paid in a month. If US carriers had to compete against that, there would be no US carriers.

You're exactly right but it limits choice in the market place. Look at Virgin America for example, here's an airline that is going to provide high quality service and airlines like CO we're fighting them tooth and nail because they know dam well customers are going to choose Virgin over CO. This practice should be illegal and by all definition is the total opposite of free trade. Let the market dedicate our choice not Uncle Sam!