FlyKev From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 1400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4554 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
I would say Emirates looks like a great option.
VS, yes possibly, but they do have a little less legroom in the cabin than otehrs and its not always up to par. Fine for 10 hours, but not for longer.
Malaysian seems to be highly preffered by many people in Y as well, they have a 34" legroom too.
The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only
ClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4948 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4478 times:
Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 7): It looks like I'll be slumming it in Y from Sydney to Frankfurt via Singapore on Qantas at the end of the year.
Why don't you take BA in WT+ ? ... If you do take QF Y, avoid the back of the plane like the plague. It's too cold. Get Y seats as close to the front as possible. I did row 71 last month and it was hell on earth. Good service though!
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 11166 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4470 times:
I personally would go the long way and take Air New Zealand. Recently refurbished 744s with PTVs and 34inches of pitch with that friendly Kiwi hosipitality would certainly make the time pass by a little quicker. And with the new AKL-HKG-LHR route, you could fly completely around the world with a single airline of which little old Air New Zealand will be the only one that you can do that on.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Bullpitt From Spain, joined Mar 2004, 871 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4420 times:
No one has mentioned CX or JL. My brother is comming with JL and I hope to be going with them next year. KL is also a good option, flew with them last year AMS-SIN and had a very nice flight. I also flew SYD-SCL-MAD with LA and IB and had great flights.
These are my principles but if you don't like them I have others
AlekToronto From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4338 times:
On such a long flight go with the airline with the best seat pitch. It really makes a difference on such long flights.
My experience so far is that TG, MH and NZ have more pitch then QF, EK, CX and SQ.
TG is not considered in the same league as SQ and CX but minus the PTVS -the Thai service and food are better IMHO.
Whatever you do avoid VS - a leg cramp nightmare. I couldn't wait to get off a 6 hour trans-atlantic. I could not fathom a OZ-Europe on them!
Ncfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4309 times:
I have only flown MAN-BNE on EK and thought it was quite good. I am going again in about 10 months and I hope to go with SQ.
The freinds I visited in OZ are Australian and have done the UK-OZ trip about 10 times. They Have tried QS and BA and advised us to avoid it like the plague unless good prices. They have also used CX which they thought where ok, but now use SQ exclusively as they rate their flights with SQ as excellent
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2870 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4017 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9): I personally would go the long way and take Air New Zealand. Recently refurbished 744s with PTVs and 34inches of pitch with that friendly Kiwi hosipitality would certainly make the time pass by a little quicker.
Balance this with the insane experience of being an international transit passenger at LAX. Point is, the concept doesn't exist, so you must 'arrive', clear immigration and customs, collect luggage and start the whole sordid process from the beginning. Need a good reason to do that!
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.