Continental to Italy

Old Jun 5th, 2002, 11:54 AM
  #1  
karen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Continental to Italy

Has anyone flown Continental to Rome or Milan since they broke off with Alitalia???<BR>Has anyone flown Delta to Europe?? I was wondering how they compared to Alitalia.
 
Old Jul 2nd, 2002, 02:32 PM
  #2  
GAC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I flew Continental to Rome and back out of Milan last month. Both flights were booked solid and both arrived early. Service and food were unexceptional but adequate. Would fly them again any day.
 
Old Jul 2nd, 2002, 02:41 PM
  #3  
GAC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
One other thought: the flight to Rome was a 767-400 with 200 economy seats and only 4 restrooms, all in the center of the aircraft! The return flight out of Milan was a 767-200 with 149 economy seats and still 4 restrooms, one of which was in the rear. The 767-400 can be easily confused with the 777-200 which Continental flies to London and Paris (the latter is a heavier, wider plane, but nearly the same length). At the Newark airport, where dozens of Continental widebodies are lined up, one very easily confuses these planes.
 
Old Jul 3rd, 2002, 06:18 AM
  #4  
karen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Is the 767-400 a better plane to be on because of the individual TV screens - do they have these - the same as the 777???
 
Old Jul 3rd, 2002, 06:22 AM
  #5  
jj
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
karen,<BR>We flew Continental to Milan last summer. I agree with GAC; food & service were unexceptional but adequate. If Continental's price was better than the other airlines, I would fly them again. However, we were on one of their ancient DC-10's, and it was cramped. This summer we flew U.S. Airways to Paris on an Airbus, and returned to the U.S. on their 767. Much roomier and comfortable than last year's Continental flight; food pretty bad though.
 
Old Jul 3rd, 2002, 06:28 AM
  #6  
karen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
But the planes this year are 767's. They also were less expensive, $959 RT on a weekend vs. Altialia at 1250 RT.
 
Old Jul 3rd, 2002, 07:55 AM
  #7  
GAC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Both the Continental 767-200 and the 767-400 were BRAND NEW, and both had individual seatback TV screens. These are good looking, comfortable aircraft. Continental's European routes have pretty much been taken over by these two models, with very few flights left using the still larger 777-200. There is really no difference between the interior of these two 767 models (other than the number of seats and the restroom arrangement described in my previous posting). In some respects, the 200 model is preferable because there are fewer passengers! The 400 model is 41 feet longer (there are two large economy class sections) and about 35,000 lbs. heavier than its "little brother" I think that the 400 model is aesthetically better looking from the exterior, due to its greater length. Evidently, Continental uses the smaller model for Milan because of lower demand (compared to Rome).
 
Old Jul 3rd, 2002, 08:03 AM
  #8  
sn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Bummer....I flew last Sept. from EWR-Rome on the dumpiest DC 10 ever.
 
Old Jul 14th, 2002, 04:44 PM
  #9  
at-at
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I was on a flight from Newark to Rome on a 767-400 a few weeks ago. I was fortunate enough to be in Business First which was excellent. <BR><BR>Continental, BA, and a few Asian carriers are the only airlines that make it worth it to pay for their International Biz/First Class.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
chopinplayer
Europe
11
May 20th, 2007 04:23 PM
ParadiseLost
Europe
38
Oct 24th, 2006 07:23 AM
Gekko
Europe
11
Aug 6th, 2006 09:49 AM
soccr
Air Travel
6
Jun 21st, 2003 09:00 AM
Judy
Europe
11
Jun 18th, 2002 02:07 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Your Privacy Choices -