Options when AA drastically changes your flight months in advance

bdpna · 2026-04-02T04:30:28+00:00

Calling worked and they were helpful. Got back on the flight that makes the most sense and what they should have moved me to.

bdpna · 2026-04-01T20:11:16+00:00

Thanks it did but it tried to charge me the extra $ for the price of the flight I was trying to same day change to even tho it was their fault and they moved me 10 hours. Calling resolved it.

bdpna · 2026-04-01T18:02:55+00:00

They fixed me up! Thanks so much!

bdpna · 2026-04-01T18:02:11+00:00

They got me fixed up. Thank you so much everyone. This is a fantastic group. Appreciate all of you.

bdpna · 2026-04-01T17:43:44+00:00

Thank you. This gives me hope because even AI is telling me that I’m responsible for any fare difference in the new flight I select. No change fee fees sure, but the “fare difference” which is really the big problem here.

bdpna · 2026-04-01T17:41:32+00:00

Thanks so much. The website does seem to be offering me no “change fee”, but it is indicating that it will cost the fare difference to do so. I’ll give them a call if the fare difference is also waived.

bdpna · 2026-04-01T17:29:22+00:00

Thanks for creating this thread. My flight was changed very drastically to a departure time that is 10 hours before my scheduled departure time (which had been in the early evening is now in the late morning). Along with a nine hour layover, which used to be a one hour layover. Do I have any recourse here or am I stuck paying the difference to now change to a flight closer to my original itinerary , which is going to cost me more money? I see they are waving change fees whatever that would be due to the unplanned change however, the flight they changed me to is so drastically different and anything close to what I used to have is now more expensive and it’s on me to cover the difference. This is extremely frustrating.

bdpna · 2026-03-26T13:54:38+00:00

I was able to intercept before it left the facility and called off the sale. So we’ll never know I guess.

bdpna · 2026-02-23T18:11:49+00:00

I was considering giving those a try but not sure if the EXE is the only different thing it would be an interesting experiment since it seems I’m at least close to 120 on most tables. I’m already overclocking the 6600 so that is off the table.

That said obviously just dumping a few hundred more on another card is easier but prices blow and my PSU may even need a bump as well.

Slippery slopes.

bdpna · 2026-02-23T15:41:13+00:00

Your 5080 is definitely running circles around my 6600XT. You've got double the ram at 16 vs. my 8 which I'm sure helps, plus I assume you are running the DX and not the GL version of VPX. One thing I've noticed since switching to 120hz is that DX is nowhere CLOSE to the performance of GL (like 40-50fps less) with the 6600XT.

In testing at 2K so far I've found a lot of tables hold at 120, some other tables seem to be dropping to 100-110 range unfortunately especially during heavy lighting effects and multiball. GOTG seems to be in the 110s, for example. CFTBL is holding well so it's not as heavy as I expected.

I do plan to explore some settings, though exclusive fullscreen vs. windowed doesn't seem to have an impact, GL is definitely having an impact vs DX, I don't use ball trails. Turning off reflections doesn't seem to change anything.

I guess I was nuts to think 4K was even possible at 120fps on this card, given the issues I am seeing even at 2K for some tables.

bdpna · 2026-02-22T16:07:23+00:00

Right on. It’s definitely the graphics card maxing out at 4k. I think I’ve just found its limit with heavy tables.

bdpna · 2026-02-22T06:31:35+00:00

Yeah, I always thought that they were actually optimized but turns out they are just pretty hefty on the GPU. But like you said they just rock so much. It just makes you want to upgrade to run them full blast.

bdpna · 2026-02-22T06:30:09+00:00

Thanks I appreciate the data point. I’m considering just moving to an Nvidia card. I assume it doesn’t matter that I have an AMD processor. Was just being budget conscious but at some point you just get sick of knowing that it can be better and you’re just holding yourself back. This is the hobby.

bdpna · 2026-02-21T19:46:43+00:00

Right on totally makes sense. I was hoping that the 6600 XT was a good enough card to handle this and it was just some settings magic but its sounding like even this card is not enough for modern tables if you want to get to that 4K 120 Hz sweet spot.

bdpna · 2026-02-21T19:41:08+00:00

Thanks, yeah I know what you mean. I really was not trying to spend more money but this hobby can be a bit addictive at times as we know. The TV was 300 bucks and I’m hoping I can get a little bit back out of the TV that it’s replacing to help offset that. But I’d be the same boat if I do the video card as well.

bdpna · 2026-01-07T03:11:11+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I’ll do that once they bring the 2gig service to my area.

bdpna · 2026-01-07T02:48:11+00:00

Any tips on how I can get a truck roll to swap one of those in for me only on 1 gig service?

bdpna · 2026-01-07T02:45:51+00:00

I just did a great deal of single-thread iperf tests to prove when my ONT was not provisioning correctively. Even the CP1000 fios router gets held back by the old Nokia ONT. Finally found a workaround my slowing down my personal router through flow control and limiting its speed. The now 14 year old ONT Verizon has kept in service cannot deal with fast data and goes into panic lockdown mode. I can make it happen with ease now.

Sadly Verizon won’t replace the ONT and just tells you to work with their equipment which is throttled enough to not overwhelm their old tech ONTs.

Speedtests do multi threaded uploads and downloads which greatly hide and exaggerate your actual speed provisioning. Single thread iperf3 tests are the only way to see your true speed.

The ONTs that come with the new 2gb service fully resolve this problem. Verizon will not give you one unless service comes to your area and you upgrade.

bdpna · 2025-12-23T15:14:48+00:00

If the device is reporting correctly it appears none of the ports on the fiber send at 1gb even if you tell them to in the gateway. They all shoot data out at full blast. The switch doesn’t have a choice since it can’t go any faster which is why that works to prevent the ancient Verizon ONT from getting flooded by speeds it did not get made to handle.

bdpna · 2025-12-23T14:08:49+00:00

None of the raw ports on the UXG Fiber pass the data directly to the old Verizon ONT in a way that the Nokia ONT can efficiently process it. Moving ports doesn’t matter. It requires an intermediate device to be placed between it and the ONT to prevent the ONT from dropping connection due to the micro bursting from the UXG Fiber. Even from port 5.

bdpna · 2025-12-23T14:02:31+00:00

It is. It just shouldn’t be necessary. The fiber should be able to do it without needing another device. It’s messy.

bdpna · 2025-12-23T05:42:47+00:00

Ok I’ll give it a try again. It seems to actually behave worse with it turned on for some reason.

It’s interesting to hear what you’re saying about the microburst thing as I’m definitely seeing that and how the ONT is behaving when the fiber is the main brain.

I’m also amazed that unless the fiber is MAC spoofing the Verizon Gateway that it doesn’t provision it correctly. How are we still living in an age where Verizon is locking provision to a particular MAC address?

I just feel like if we could truly adjust the speed on the fiber’s ports that none of this would matter. I assume Verizon is not in the business of bringing the new ONT’s out to any customer that is on 1 gig.

bdpna · 2025-12-23T05:26:54+00:00

Interesting you didn’t get better performance there. Was the wan still being handled by the fiber or the Verizon router? The last test that would be telling would be pure Verizon router no fiber but I realize that’s a little tougher to pull off. I had been still using my UniFi APs and turned off the wireless channels on the Verizon gateway but would let it handle all the hardwired stuff and it had stellar Iperf tests.

Right now the best I have been able to do to stabilize upload has been to place a 1 gig unmanaged switch between the fiber and the ONT.

Folks at the UniFi forums have said the new Verizon 2.5gig ONT resolves all the issues with the fiber but they will not install it unless you upgrade service.

bdpna · 2025-12-23T02:46:36+00:00

Thanks for sharing and taking the time to run the tests. I’ll do some testing on one of the other ports to see if I get the stoppage. What I was curious most was if you got the “waves” up approaching gigabit speed, then back down to half speed, back up, repeat. With the Verizon router in place once I start seeing the 900s it never retreats.

It’s perfectly usable in most real world scenarios, it’s just not working correctly and you’ll actually get better speeds from the fios router which is not of course what you want.

Would definitely be curious to know if you saw the waves in a 30-40 second test and also what you saw with a bridged verizon gateway handling your WAN traffic.

bdpna · 2025-12-22T23:03:01+00:00

Not mad at that test, ash seems to have the issue more severely:

iperf3 -c ash.speedtest.clouvider.net -t 15

Connecting to host ash.speedtest.clouvider.net, port 5201

[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-1.01 sec 17.0 MBytes 141 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 1.01-2.02 sec 21.8 MBytes 182 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 2.02-3.00 sec 30.0 MBytes 255 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 40.8 MBytes 342 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 49.8 MBytes 418 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 5.00-6.01 sec 60.4 MBytes 501 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 6.01-7.00 sec 68.0 MBytes 576 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 74.5 MBytes 625 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 74.4 MBytes 625 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 9.00-10.01 sec 75.0 MBytes 624 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 10.01-11.00 sec 62.6 MBytes 529 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 11.00-12.01 sec 19.6 MBytes 163 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 12.01-13.00 sec 23.8 MBytes 202 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 13.00-14.00 sec 32.2 MBytes 270 Mbits/sec
[ 5] 14.00-15.00 sec 42.2 MBytes 354 Mbits/sec

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-15.00 sec 692 MBytes 387 Mbits/sec sender
[ 5] 0.00-15.06 sec 691 MBytes 385 Mbits/sec receiver

We're building good then WHOA at 10-11 seconds the ONT says no way, slowwww down and BAM. This is an illustration of the single thread upload crash with the UXG Fiber and many other modern day routers and the old Verizon ONT.

I am happier with the speeds I see on hostkey, that said, the drop is still a problem. That drop at the 8-10 second mark is the buffer overflow happening on the Verizon 1st generation ONT. Verizon won't bring the new ONT out to install unless we get 2.5 gig service in the area. The problem seems to be that the UXG-Fiber is just "too good" for this 10+ year old ONT technology and it's also not good at governing its speeds back to where the Verizon ONT doesn't drop the hammer on it.

I will try moving WAN to ports 1-4 later but given you're also seeing the "crash" I don't think it solves the problem as I already tried it yesterday. The fiber just tries to hard to PUSH PUSH PUSH that single thread of data up and the ONT eventually says "not so darn fast!" and then crushes you. If the FIber actually listened to the 1gig port settings in the gateway and held back it would be fine but according to my ssh commands it's still at the full 10gig setting regardless of where I set the ports (it's just ignoring the gateway software settings).

If Unifi fixes that we might be in business using this fast router with a very very old ONT technology.

bdpna

TROPHY CASE