UA744Flagship From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4155 times:
This award isn't so much a function of onboard product or impeccable inflight service, as much as it is concerned with the breadth of flight options and ease of connections to secondary US cities that United provides to/from Asia, topped off with solid airline partners in the region.
We all know United isn't renowned for its inflight service, or seating products for that matter, but it makes available premium economy, a comfy enough (for now) business class, lie-flat first, and generally good food and amenities (albeit basic, still good enough... for now). Let's not mention the shame that is Y-class on the 744 though... ugh. I shudder at having to ever fly in that product again.
If things go according to plan, however, expect service levels and our product to improve markedly post-bankruptcy.
Yes, Northwest Airlines, has to be one of the black eyes in the market for Trans Pac service. People fly Northwest Airlines for the price. Bottom Line. People fly Singapore Airlines, and ANA for the service. United Airlines, as much as I do not want to admit. Is currently in the middle of the two. United Airlines is attractive for both price and service(Premium).
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4044 times:
To what degree do $$$ spent on advertising in OAG influence this particular "best airline" award? It seems that many information/media products connected with airline aviation sponsor a "best airline" award of some type -- which seem to be bestowed upon airlines who spend the most advertising $$$ with them. Sheer coincidence, no doubt
Will never forget going to PHX one day some years ago and seeing within a space of about 100 ft/30 m AS, US and TW all displaying "...Airline of the Year" banners behind their Terminal 2 counters. And just next door in T3, it was the same at DL. At that point "Airline of the Year" seemed to have become a meaningless charade.
Sshank From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 3975 times:
Try the likes of ANA, Korean Airlines, China Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, and Thai Airways
Yes, I have tried SQ and MH and I prefer UA Economy Plus to economy in those carriers. In a 14 hour flight 5 extra inches of leg room beats 300 channels of IFE, thank you. Business class is a different matter - SQ is so far ahead its not even funny.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9826 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3924 times:
People on this board constantly rant about how horrible American Carriers are and how wonderful Asian carriers are. This is a horrible over generalization. Sure SQ and CX and maybe some others are great, but that doesn't mean they are light years ahead of UA. UA offers a very nice first class suite, that is only truly beat by EK (on the very few A345s that they have). I have flown the seat and it is fully flat, rather private, has on demand movies via the cassette players, and has attentive service in a quiet cabin.
I have heard many complaints about the 55 inch pitch business class seat of UA. Business classes are where the huge differences are normally felt, so why don't you compare the seat pitch of: Low Quality
Air China 42''
China Airlines 50''
Eva Airlines 42-61''
Korean Air 50''
Thai Airways 50''
Northwest Airlines 60''
Delta Airlines 60''
Cathay Pacific 60''
China Eastern 60''
UA is by no means the worst. Yes ANA, Singapore, Cathay Pacific and JAL have really good and are class leading contenders, but UA and NW aren't that bad. UA and NW might not have young, attractive, and thin people serving you, but that does not mean that you can over generalize and say that the service is horrible. Also how many people have actually tried UA meals in premium cabins? They tend to be really good. They might not be 25 courses, but the food is rather good and prepared well. I am sorry if you don't get your caviar on UA, but does that make or break an airline? Also in first and business you will get a PTV. While it is not a fifty thousand dollar system, it still gets the job done with movies, as well as cassettes in first class that allow for a more manual type of on demand. Also many economy flights have PTVs and there is always the option of economy plus to frequent flyers for no extra charge.
People on Anet are obsessed with small little frailties and make them seem like they are so huge of details that warrant comments like "UA is so horrible across the Pacific". UA offers a strong product that millions of people use. Sure there are some stand outs that beat it in some areas, and expecting the best is a good thing, but the average traveler is not going to want to go through the extra effort of choosing Multiple airlines (one domestic US airline is needed to connect to flights from many of these Asian carriers) and take more connections than necessary. Expect the best, but don't be ridiculous. I might be different then most Anetters, but I would prefer a one stop UA flight in business class, rather than making two stops and take 5 extra hours in order to be served by a cute Asian woman and have a "flat" seat.
Honestly, UA does offer one of the best options. If you neglect prices, UA offers the best options to US travelers in general. NW is not the tops because unless you live in LAX, SFO, PDX or SEA and are west of the Mississippi you will have to back track and go through one of their hubs or switch carriers. UA also serves all of the major Asian markets. While they may not be the best option for people in smaller Asian markets, the core business routes are covered, and worst comes to worst you can connect with Asiana, ANA or SQ which are all in Star Alliance. UA also has decent service. If you read through the trip reports, almost all of them praise UA and say that the writers were pleasantly surprised with the service and expected worse (probably due to the constant insults towards the airline due to its not class leading products, or bankruptcy). UA is a good carrier that offers good fares, good options, good service and an overall good product.
Sorry for the length of this post.
[Edited 2005-05-26 02:22:05]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Bushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3869 times:
I dont know all the particulars, about seat pitch and all that. But I have flown trans pacific 3x. On UA 744 in 2000, lax-mel, AC A340 yvr-hnl-syd 2001, and air pacific 744 lax-nan-syd 2004. Air Pacific was nicer than the other two IMO, but United definatly wasnt bad for 14 hours in coach. Though I can say AC was by far the worse. Sorry to my neighbors to the east of AK, but that experience of lost baggage twice, poor food and bad seats was shameful. I wont do that again. From what I have heard from others, I was surprised Qantas or Singapore didnt win. But OAG made the call.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21588 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3837 times:
CO won the best american carrier, and best International Business products. I would agree on both, though I haven't flown every business class in the world.
Why is the CO business product best (or at least among them)? Because it is of first quality in terms of food and service, often is more reasonably priced than competitors, and doesn't crowd you in at all, even with 55" pitch compared to some roomier planes. Due to aircraft types, their product is either 2-2, 2-1-2, or 2-2-2 (no centers for anyone), all with 21" or 22" seats (no 18 or 19 inch business class seats, or even domestic first seats for that matter), with no pseudo business on shorter routes like some airlines have. CO lacks lie flat beds, but lying flat at an angle is very awkard. If a bed isn't flat AND level, it is no better than a 170 degree bed like they have on the T7, and the T7 has a cradle mode as well.
Is VS upper class considered Business or First?
CO also won "Airline of the Year," whatever that means.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4417 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3820 times:
Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 6): People fly Northwest Airlines for the price. Bottom Line.
Not true - NW execs have mentioned on occasion that the airline actually enjoys HIGHER premium yields than CO, for example, on longhaul routes where they compete, like NYC-NRT and NYC/IAH-AMS (remember NW/KL do a full revenue share on TATL and NW does all the ex-USA bookings).
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9): People on this board constantly rant about how horrible American Carriers are and how wonderful Asian carriers are. This is a horrible over generalization. Sure SQ and CX and maybe some others are great, but that doesn't mean they are light years ahead of UA
Too many people here take 4-5 Asian carriers and act as if that comprises all or even most of the Asian airline industry. I'm glad you pointed out that most Asian players have INFERIOR offerings relative to the USA carriers. And frankly, most of the 'edge' of SQ and CX is glossy overhype.
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9): NW is not the tops because unless you live in LAX, SFO, PDX or SEA and are west of the Mississippi you will have to back track and go through one of their hubs or switch carriers.
That's not the reason why NW is not #1 across the Pacific - UA's LAX/SFO-SYD/MEL services are. Excluding Australia, Northwest is larger.
Ryanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4757 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3662 times:
I'm glad you pointed out that most Asian players have INFERIOR offerings relative to the USA carriers.
Care to point out what?
Many people that fly do not know the economics behind the airline industry. The average Joe is not going to know how can an Asian carrier offer so much but an American one so little.
Try explaining to them about the crazy competition from LCCs, they stare at you with blank eyes.
The comparison is inevitable. We are in an industry that what you have on the surface that can be seen from the naked eye pleases, you are bound to receive praises from the general public, ss superficial as it sounds. Only us a.netters will dig deeper into the present state of American carriers when compared to their Asian counterparts - the latter normally has a government's financial backing and a small domestic market when compared to the US's seemingly HUGE local market size.
While most US carriers have done away with international First Class with the exception of UA, most - if not all, premium classes are kept when Asian carriers are concerned. UA's First Class suite was mind blowing when it was introduced, many others have caught up since and in this industry, if you do not up your competition, you just lag behind. UA isn't exactly in the shape to introduce any new products presently.
So while the "easy-connections" mantra is being sung, this only remains true for those who wants to travel beyond the traditional international gateways like LAX, SFO, SEA, JFK, EWR etc... For the O&D traffic from these mentioned cities, whether flying an Asian carrier or an American one across the pond, WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
JeffrySkY From Singapore, joined Feb 2004, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3527 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9): People on this board constantly rant about how horrible American Carriers are and how wonderful Asian carriers are. This is a horrible over generalization.
You know it is really ironic that your entire post was peppered with your endless grouses about the "horrible over generalisations" A.net members make about UA , when you yourself were guilty of spewing a stream of equally horrendous "over generalisations" about Asian carriers and their FAs.
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9): I would prefer a one stop UA flight in business class, rather than making two stops and take 5 extra hours in order to be served by a cute Asian woman and have a "flat" seat.
Perhaps if you can take a step out of that well of yours and realise that the appeal of Asian carriers goes way beyond "cute Asian women" and "flat seats".
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9): UA and NW might not have young, attractive, and thin people serving you, but that does not mean that you can over generalize and say that the service is horrible.
Ironical ! Aren't you yourself "over generalising" that people black-list UA and NW just because they don't have young and attractive inflight attendants?
Ironical statements aside, I must say that your valiant attempt to justify UA's award is most admirable. However, being a good airline is one thing ; being the BEST across the Pacific is another thing altogether.
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3520 times:
Flown both UA and SQ this year. I am very surprised UA beat out SQ and CX. But one thing is for sure, this is a positive for the employees of UA. The only problem I see from this, is that UA may believe they have got their service levels right. But in reality, they need to do a little bit more to catch up to the likes of SQ.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9826 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3385 times:
Jeffrysky, you are completely correct. Generalizations can be a good thing, but they need to be moderated for logic. I am sorry for implying that the only good thing about some carriers are the crew members. That was a mistake. Asian carriers have a number of very good things about them, and one of them does happen to be younger cabin crews.
In reality UA might not have the best cabin service, or the best of any specific quality, but if you add it up together, UA does make for a great carrier across the Pacific with a wealth of options and good service.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Flyfirst From Chile, joined Nov 2004, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3348 times:
Generalizations for US airlines are ok, all of them are a crap.
1- Bad food
2- Bad service
3- F/A dont know anything about service
4- F and C seats outdated
5- Everyone gets upgraded, no privacy to paying customers, always full.
6- Even you have to pay for food...come on, next time I will bring a chair just in case.
7- VIP lounges are a joke
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 3290 times:
I'm glad you pointed out that most Asian players have INFERIOR offerings relative to the USA carriers. And frankly, most of the 'edge' of SQ and CX is glossy overhype.
We're not discussing Chinese mainland carriers here. We're talking about the dominant high service Asian carriers.
Even when CX, SQ, MH, JL, TG, or ANA are having a bad day, they are still way ahead of UA and AA across the Pacific. Even TG that has a hopeless IFE product more than makes up for it by the level of service, food, etc. UA may have a good F class seat, but its J class seat is very outdated for a 15 hour flight, and the food is disgraceful and sloppy.
I must agree that UA is better than NW or AA though !
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9): almost all of them praise UA and say that the writers were pleasantly surprised with the service and expected worse
Yes, they were pleasantly suprised because they ended up with a Honolulu, Tokyo, or Hong Kong based crew. The would not have been suprised if they would have had a bag of bones crew ex JFK, LAX, SFO, ORD, or SEA.
Kahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 3255 times:
Quoting F9HNLPLZ (Reply 21): If it wasn't for UAL right now, your little hotel you work at would not have people in it.
Correction. The guests for this hotel, are not inbound from North America. They are inbound from Europe, Asia and South America. A quick look at recent transfers from JFK, EWR, and LGA would tell you that our clients are on VS, BA, AA, NH, RG, AR, AZ, AF, KL, AM, and QF.
Quoting F9HNLPLZ (Reply 21): And from all your other "FACTS" you have, where are you getting your information from?
From the sounds of it... You seem about as scared as all of the other people on this forum. This trend of bashing people who dont feel your American way. Or people that dont think America is the be all end all.. Is a bit tiring. You are not to blame... Look at the mess you all re-elected in November... ...However, there unfortunately are many other airlines, and many other people in this World besides Americans, or American based airlines!
F9HNLPLZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3234 times:
Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 22): You are not to blame... Look at the mess you all re-elected in November... ...However, there unfortunately are many other airlines, and many other people in this World besides Americans, or American based airlines!
Ah, I didn't vote for him either. I just wish sometimes when you post something, you had something to back it up with. I am glad your hotel gets other visitors. However, the majority of the people going to HNL, OGG,KOA, LIH, are from the United States and who is the biggest carrier in the Islands,
I think we get that you are not happy with United. I am sorry for you, but GET OVER IT!!!! And I am not scared. I just find people that can sit back and bash and have no helpful ideas, have no business projecting hate.
That airline is going through change. A lot of change and people have to deal with it. However, they do not need to have them all lumped together and told, that they suck. Let's face it, you had a bad experience with a few so now you are throwing them all to the dogs. Don't blame all, blame the ones who affected YOU.
Frontier Airlines, A Whole Different Animal. Maybe some day to Hawaii???
Timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1344 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3223 times:
ok guys, you all need to cool it! congrats to UA, i too was v impressed with their service. SQ also excellent, but in the end it all comes down to what you prefer - UA had nicer FAs attitude-wise, SQ had better IFE, and the seats were much of a muchness IMO. you have to take each airline on merit - USA vs Asia is just not helpful!
: I totally agree. HORRAY FOR UAL and all the hard working employees. They deserve to have some good news and a good post for a change. Thank you for ma
: Come on guys, no one wants to argue or fight, but be real. Not even at the best times of UA you can compare it with SQ or BA. Is just an air BUS, noth
: United Airlines, can easily be summed up as an airline that took advantage of the public, and is now paying the price for the crime commited. For yea
: First of all, Kahala777....you need some help to get rid of so much anger for one airline. Get over yourself. I laugh at your posts. Seriously. Second