Globaliser

Thanks for reporting back on how it went. I haven't looked into this, but at first glance I struggle to see how this would work because my gut instinct is that the HEX ticket would be valid for HEX only and so it could only take you from Heathrow to London Paddington main line. If that's right, then when you get off the Elizabeth Line train (or if your ticket is inspected on board en route) it would be evident that you aren't holding a valid ticket. If you make it as far as the gate line to exit the station, I would expect an invalid ticket to be rejected. I can only immediately think of one scenario in which you could use the Elizabeth Line without a valid ticket, yet successfully get out of the TfL system without being stopped at a gate line.

As you're on two separate tickets, the published Minimum Connection Time is irrelevant. It only applies to work out which connections are legal on through tickets; it gives an indication of what the airlines think is a reasonably safe connection time on a through ticket, which typically means that bags are transferred automatically. But it sounds like you know the risks. Don't forget that "changeable with no fee" doesn't exclude the possibility that you'll have to pay a fare difference.

But if sbt518 would like to try an inbound deep line Tube near central London at about 8.30 am on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, we Londoners will still be happy to make them feel completely at home!

Airlines don't set immigration policies. And an airline could bring a lot of trouble down on its own head if it unjustifiably denies boarding to a passenger who holds correct documentation for the trip that they're starting. Or to look at it another way, what if the fiance has a further trip planned to the UK in November 2023 for a couple of weeks, and then another one to Australia in mid-January 2024? The rules allow him to make both of those trips on the current US passport: the UK requires that "Passports and other documents accepted for entry must be valid for the period of intended stay"; and Australia requires only that "Passports and other documents accepted for entry must be valid on arrival". There are plenty of people whose travel plans depend on airlines accepting valid and correct documentation rather than arbitrarily imposing their own policies. One of the reasons for that database is precisely so that airlines can immediately see what the requirements are for any combination of passport and destination. If you look at their published policies, some cruise lines appear to act differently from this, stating a policy that requires much longer extra validity than destination countries' actual rules do. But I have personal experience of at least one cruise line that actually consulted a database at check-in (possibly the same database as airlines used), and applied the rules found there.

You've seen the rule set out in different places, and you've now seen what AA agents would probably see if they look up the rule. What concerns do you have about using the existing passport?

I think that the database which AA agents will consult (if they need to) says this for Spain: << Document Validity Passports and other documents accepted for entry must be valid for a minimum of 3 months beyond the period of intended stay. Warning Passports and/or passport replacing documents issued more than 10 years prior to date of entry are not accepted. >> That wording is clear, and as you have a confirmed inbound flight reservation back to the US, the dates clearly permit you to travel. So I would be very surprised if you have any trouble at all. Your reassurance should come from seeing exactly what the AA agents would see. But they may well know the rule inside out, backwards and upside down from memory anyway.

I'm also always a bit uncertain what people expect from a "classic pub experience". In general, the pub experience can be (to put it politely) uncomfortable, malodorous, and unhygienic if not downright hazardous to health - particularly true when smoking was still allowed indoors - and many of one's fellow guests are people who one fervently hopes will remain in the pub until one has got safely home, or at least got out of the likely range of any late-night brawl. So I've mostly avoided pubs for decades, and the only ones I'm happy to go to now are most definitely not classic pubs but really restaurants or bar/restaurants in pub buildings. All around the country, pubs are closing at a rate that some describe as "alarming", but I for one can't feel too sorry about losing the "classic pub experience". But maybe nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

Have you actually bought your tickets? The key question is whether you have a through ticket, or whether they've been written as two separate tickets. "Self transfer" always rings alarm bells for me, because some unscrupulous travel agents use this as code to indicate that you have two separate tickets without spelling out the risks involved.

It looks like you're considering A3 700 arriving MAD T2 at 1220, and then departing MAD T4S on IB 6301 at 1555 - is that right? Would you be booking this on a through ticket? As far as I can see on a quick check, this is a valid connection for a through ticket, and A3 will through-check to IB. So if you book a through ticket, I can't immediately see why you'd need to claim your bags at MAD. (Codeshares are not the benchmark for this, nor is a domestic/international classification - and in any event ATH-MAD is international.) In any event, the published Minimum Connection Time for this looks like it'll be 2:45, and you're comfortably beyond that (with almost a whole hour extra). So on a through ticket, even if you do need to claim your bags, that should easily work out fine unless there's some major snarl-up (in which case all bets would be off anyway) - the MCT allows for whatever steps you have to go through to get to the next flight.

Many, many more than two. Every one of my regular airlines has messed up more than that many trips of mine by rescheduling flights. And that's before all the myriad other ways in which they stuff up and cause me hassle. If I were to ban airlines at the same threshold as you, I'd never be able to fly again. And let me start to tell you the stories that my travel agent tells me. So much whingeing about some four-hour schedule changes! How could you even begin to cope with a four-day schedule change?

On this particular point, the associated loss of time can be reduced by flying to London City airport. You'll get out of the airport faster, and it's closer to central London. (It's even better if you're flying in the other direction.)

You don't. You're being hysterical about this. You've had two - merely two - trips on which your flight times were changed, and now you seem to be spinning this into some sort of "American Airlines will do this to everyone on every single trip" story. That's complete cry-baby rubbish.

If your schedule is so tight that this is "unworkable", then maybe air travel is not for you? A rescheduled flight, a faulty part, an air traffic control breakdown, a bad weather event at some place you're not flying to that affects your aircraft ... the list is endless, and any one of those things can easily set your plans awry by 2, 4, 6 or 24 hours. People who fly a lot or know the industry well - including those you are criticising - set their expectations according to experience, and they develop enough resilience to deal with the problems that inevitably arise, often through nobody's fault. If you think American has been unique in disrespecting you on this occasion, then you really just haven't flown other airlines enough.

Do you have two separate bookings for the two flights? If the two flights are on the same booking, then you should have a lot more options that don't require you to abandon one flight altogether. But if you chose to make two separate bookings, then that choice will inevitably limit your options when one flight is rescheduled and you refuse to be a bit flexible. In any case, "other airlines are available" - and if the alternative airline that you've picked has more non-stop flights, then I'm not sure what your complaint is?

Although in general, one would expect non-stop flights between two countries to be operated only by airlines from those two countries, that isn't the case where one of the countries is Iceland, Norway or an EU country. Any airline from those countries can fly non-stop between any point in those countries and the US. Consequently, a Norwegian airline called Norse Atlantic is currently operating daily non-stops between Rome Fiumicino and JFK, in addition to the flights operated by ITA, American, Delta and United. Norse Atlantic also operates other flights including a daily non-stop between Paris Charles de Gaulle and JFK. In addition, there are sometimes special agreements to allow an airline of a third country to operate a non-stop route. For example, Singapore Airlines is currently operating a daily non-stop between Frankfurt and JFK; and Emirates has a daily non-stop between Milan Malpensa and JFK.

I haven't got it any more, but I think that Michael Lazaroff's email specifically said that these would be on Summit. Of course, anything could change until everyone is contractually bound (and possibly even afterwards).

For a similar story, see this thread and this post within it. If you need a phone number, for goodness' sake get it from the airline's website, not from Google.

This is actually all pretty common for prospective charters. My guess is that cruise lines don't take their own announced sailings off sale until the contract with the charterer has become firm/unconditional/similar, or reaches some particular commercial milestone. At that point, those who have booked an affected sailing as a normal cruise get their bookings cancelled by the cruise line with some sort of compensation. The same thing can happen on the charterer's side. If the proposed charter sells really badly but the charterer isn't yet fully locked in to taking the ship, then the charterer might cancel all the bookings it's taken and cancel the charter, paying to the cruise line whatever penalty the contract specifies. But this isn't likely to happen with these Jazz Cruises charters - the SJC sailings will sell out quickly, TJC will reliably get to ~100%, and Botti will as usual be the one that has to be pushed a bit harder. Do we know where the drydock is taking place? I noticed that the first sailing date of the block of charter dates is one day earlier than Celebrity's own plan of 29 January 2025 ex-San Juan. I expect that the ship's likely to have to reposition for its first post-drydock cruise anyway, and Miami or Fort Lauderdale could be a day closer than San Juan to the drydock location. At the end of the block of charter dates (25 February 2025), it's not hard to imagine a 4-night repo to San Juan for the ship to pick up the existing schedule ex-San Juan on 1 March 2025. All of that is speculation, of course, but geography and maths necessarily impose limitations on the permutations.

For casual dining in the immediate area, I'd also give a shout out for a newish place that's very close to the hotel: Chez Antoinette on Palmer Street - we were impressed with both quality and value there. And there are actually a couple of upmarket restaurants nearby: one is a Michelin-starred Indian called Quilon on Buckingham Gate, and the other is The Pem inside the Conrad opposite St James's Park Tube. Although we haven't been to either of them, I believe that they're both highly regarded by at least some reliable commentators. However, I suspect that they may not be the sort of thing that the OP is looking for. I think it's fair to say that the area is pretty quiet in the evenings. However, it's not unsafe and I don't have any concerns about personal safety around there.

Hey, were you that DOT Permanent Secretary who got a motorway to Oxford built decades before Cambridge got one? 😁

Yes, from London Waterloo. I think that Portsmouth Harbour is the station for the cruise terminal.

Thanks. That gets these sailings out of the holiday period, and it also seems to make more sense to have TJC and Botti in successive weeks.

Be careful here. Not "Tottenham", which is a suburb of London about 7 miles away from the British Museum - and is somewhere a tourist probably shouldn't go unless they really mean to. "Tottenham Court Road" is the name of both the station and the road for which it is named.

And Tottenham Court Road is close than any of these to the main entrance. And using either Holborn and Russell Square would mean you'd have to change trains to get to Waterloo.

No: Dover, Harwich, London, Portsmouth and Southampton are all different ports.