Airnewzealand From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 2546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3228 times:
Yes their crew are fantastic...as is their 777 and 330 aircrafts...but their 747 aircrafts leave alot to be desired...I thought they would have to have EVERYTHING 5*star in order to get that ranking???
Oh well...If i got the 747 again esp. PC and JC id be upset!
Quoting Airnewzealand (Reply 4): Yes their crew are fantastic...as is their 777 and 330 aircrafts...but their 747 aircrafts leave alot to be desired
Spot on, which is why I question the 5 star ranking.
I flew on their F product from ICN to JFK last December. IFE was average at best, no power port for the laptop, seats were flat, but old style, and meal service was not much better than normal F service. Thats for a 14 hour flight! Crew was fantastic.
CX F product from JFK to HKG was the best I have seen. 16 hrs in an A346, but with on demand IFE, meal service made to order whenever you wanted it, a wide modern flat bed, and a crew that was much better than OZ, I don't see how OZ could be better than CX.
That's an understatement. Their 747s are barely up to 1997 standards. The F seats have no power ports, no AVOD. The stewardesses' level of English is not even up to the standards of NH or JL, let alone CX or SQ. I fly OZ a few times a year and wouldn't even consider given them more than four stars until the 747s are replaced or refitted.
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2692 times:
Asiana deserves every star they got. Congratulations for all the hard work by all Asiana staff.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6): The stewardesses' level of English is not even up to the standards of NH or JL, let alone CX or SQ. I fly OZ a few times a year and wouldn't even consider given them more than four stars until the 747s are replaced or refitted.
English is widely spoken in Singapore and Hong Kong and are one of the official languages. Unlike CX or SQ, the Japanese and Korean airlines are much more oriented towards passengers of their home countries. Altough this is slowly changing. Most (not all) of their flight attendants are also nationals of the airlines' home country. Having said that, I've never encountered any problems, be it at check-in or onboard, communicating with staf of Asiana. As far as replacing their 744s is concerned, I recal an interview with OZ's CEO that A380 might be ordered to do this.
Norcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1452 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2579 times:
I've flown OZ's in J class countless times and their in-flight service is second to none as far as all the airlines I've flown so far. The 'new' seat on the 777's and A330's are great but the 744 are herendous to say the least. I think they deserve the 5 Star recogition if the 744's were not considered when the decision was made.
Quoting Airnewzealand (Reply 4): Yes their crew are fantastic...as is their 777 and 330 aircrafts...but their 747 aircrafts leave alot to be desired...I thought they would have to have EVERYTHING 5*star in order to get that ranking???
BosWashSprStar From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2577 times:
Having recently flown OZ for the first time, I thought it was a 5-star experience--but this was on a 777 in their new J seats. I have heard that the 744s are miserable, and from looking at the pictures on a.net, I believe it.
Still, the 777 experience was very good. The food was superb--Korean cuisine fully equal to what I had on the ground once in Seoul. The IFE did leave some to be desired (fewer channels of looping programs than on most premium competitors), but the J-class PTV screen was larger than any other I've seen.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9489 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2348 times:
Quoting Jimyvr (Reply 14): Yeah, A380 Combi perhaps. 60-70% of their 747-400 are COMBI and even the Trans-Pacific flight are served by 74M or 77E. A380 seems to be a waste as replacement on long-haul.
Airbus had 2 combi models it presented to the market, one with a seating capacity of a 744, the other with a seating capacity of a 748-i.
"The first version (C7) will carry 7 96x125in pallets on the aircraft’s main deck with 473 passengers in a three-class configuration. The second (C11) will carry 11 main deck pallets with seating for 421 passengers. Both have a 1,285,000lb MTOW and 101,000 USG fuel capacity, giving ranges of 7,270nm and 6,970nm respectively, enabling nonstop from Europe to Asia or US West Coast; Los Angeles to Japan, Singapore to Frankfurt."
The C7 has 7 main deck pallets, and 6 lower deck, 473 pax and bags plus 37.9t cargo (748-i passengers plus 757F cargo load)
The C11 has 11 main deck pallets, and 6 lower deck, 421 pax and bags plus 51.3t cargo (744 pax plus DC8/L10-11 cargo load)
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar