Asiana Club - Business Class for ICN-JFK

I might be taking OZ C for ICN-JFK.

What's the seat like? Is it a fully-flat bed or only lie-flat model?

Thanks.

I might be taking OZ C for ICN-JFK.

What's the seat like? Is it a fully-flat bed or only lie-flat model?

Thanks.

It's angled flat bed.

It's angled flat bed.

Thanks for the quick reply....sigh...as expected.

How "new" is the seat? Most of the Asian-based carriers like SQ and CX have the fully-flat business seat nowadays.

Thanks for the quick reply....sigh...as expected.

How "new" is the seat? Most of the Asian-based carriers like SQ and CX have the fully-flat business seat nowadays.

It is a standard seat like you will find on QF, LH and the new "regional" SQ. The seat is perfectly fine and the service will be better than SQ or CX.
Enjoy the flight!

It is a standard seat like you will find on QF, LH and the new "regional" SQ. The seat is perfectly fine and the service will be better than SQ or CX.
Enjoy the flight!

I asked my agent to book Upper-Deck, but, she told me it's not available for booking??? :confused:

How "new" is the seat? Most of the Asian-based carriers like SQ and CX have the fully-flat business seat nowadays.

Incorrect, for asian carriers, ONLY SQ and CX have 180 degrees horizontal flat business seat.
OZ, KE, CI, BR, TG, NH, and JL all have angle flat seats in C.

If you want 180 degrees horizontal flat C seat, there are US carriers like AC, DL and UA have it, but service of course are not comparable to asian carriers.

Incorrect, for asian carriers, ONLY SQ and CX have 180 degrees horizontal flat business seat.
OZ, KE, CI, BR, TG, NH, and JL all have angle flat seats in C.

If you want 180 degrees horizontal flat C seat, there are US carriers like AC, DL and UA have it, but service of course are not comparable to asian carriers.

KE is progressively introducing 180 degree lie flat in C - including 1/2 JFK-ICN runs.

http://www.koreanair.com/local/na/gp/eng/if/ni/eng_if_ni_main.jsp

and the service will be better than SQ or CX.


Really?:rolleyes:

Really?:rolleyes:

Really! Yes, you will find people who prefer CX or SQ (especially in F) but if you look through this board than most people believe service on OZ is better. I personally would chose OZ over SQ any time.

Really! Yes, you will find people who prefer CX or SQ (especially in F) but if you look through this board than most people believe service on OZ is better. I personally would chose OZ over SQ any time.

I'll second that. I can't compare F because I've yet to fly either SQ or OZ in F, but in C I definitely prefer the OZ service over SQ. On average, the OZ FAs seem the most genuine/caring in seeing that the passengers have a pleasant flight. As mentioned by many others, SQ's FAs seem almost robotic at times. Of course that's my opinion after having flown many flights on OZ and SQ. I often see reports by people who after having only flown an airline once or twice form a very absolute opinion of that airline, which I think is totally ridiculous. Of course I can pick a single SQ flight and say the service on that flight was better than one particular flight on OZ. You have to though have many flights and average out the experience.

I'll second that.

Our (Mrs and I) limited experiences find SQ and OZ to be very similar in service and definitely a notch above CX. We completed a OW DONE4 coupled with a *A business class award travel in Spring this year. The CX and BA flat-bed seats were very comfortable but the SQ (SIN-CMB-SIN-ICN) and OZ (ICN-SEA) services were a class apart from the OW counterparts.

I've never had so many glasses of orange juice on a flight like the one experienced on the SQ SIN-ICN red-eye flight breakfast. I had to literally say "Please, no more!" before the flight attendant got the hint :)

The wine was pouring non-stop on the ICN-SEA OZ flight (whereas we had to literally ask for refills, call buttons and all, on CX flights - and we flew CX quite a bit!) The Bibimbap dinner was absolutely delicious and rivals the best of SQ meals. The attention to detail and the warm but yet professional OZ service made for the perfect encore to our 3-month long RTW journey!

That said, we didn't care much for the OZ business class lounge in ICN. This lounge doesn't even stack up to SIN T2 lounge, let alone the new T3 lounge.

That said, we didn't care much for the OZ business class lounge in ICN. This lounge doesn't even stack up to SIN T2 lounge, let alone the new T3 lounge.

While the OZ lounges do have some issues and there's a lot of room for improvement, they're way better than almost all *A lounges in the U.S. and Europe, at least in my opinion. Still though they're a far cry from the old, now closed, SKL at ICN. As to comparing them to the SQ lounges in SIN, I'd say there's not really all that much difference, though hot food service times at the OZ lounges is pretty poor, so if you want to eat the SQ lounges would defintely be a big step up.

You will find people who prefer CX or SQ (especially in F) but ... most people [on this board] believe service on OZ is better.

I'll second that ... in C I definitely prefer the OZ service over SQ. On average, the OZ FAs seem the most genuine/caring in seeing that the passengers have a pleasant flight.

AGREE! :D

On average, the OZ FAs seem the most genuine/caring in seeing that the passengers have a pleasant flight. As mentioned by many others, SQ's FAs seem almost robotic at times.

I never flew with SQ :eek: I flew with OZ numerous times and the F/A's are very nice. BTW, I believe OZ hires only University graduates as F/A's - at least this is what I heard... (or I mixed OZ with BR:confused:) - but there is one airline in Asia, that hires only University graduates as F/A's... And I believe it is OZ.

PS. I am flying with them to SYD tomorrow, so I will ask...

I'll second that. I can't compare F because I've yet to fly either SQ or OZ in F, but in C I definitely prefer the OZ service over SQ. On average, the OZ FAs seem the most genuine/caring in seeing that the passengers have a pleasant flight.

On return from SYD to LHR, FA came up to my wife -after we had landed - and said "you look so tired, let me make you a cup of tea".

Not expected!

I never flew with SQ :eek: I flew with OZ numerous times and the F/A's are very nice. BTW, I believe OZ hires only University graduates as F/A's - at least this is what I heard... (or I mixed OZ with BR:confused:) - but there is one airline in Asia, that hires only University graduates as F/A's... And I believe it is OZ.

PS. I am flying with them to SYD tomorrow, so I will ask...

One thing I've noticed for quite a while is that OZ FAs don't seem to be quite so physically attractive as KE or other FAs. Not that they're ugly by any means. They're more though like just average Korean women of their age, and they typically aren't overdone with makeup. Rather than choose FAs for only their physical beauty, OZ seems to have a hiring policy of choosing the best for the job who will give the customers the best experience, with physical appearance taking a back seat. Having spent a lot of time at ICN, I also notice that the KE FAs walking around, in, and out of the airport rarely smile and seem quite distant. They typically are all made up and seem to have an attitude to match they're perceived physical beauty. I'm sure their personalities change once on the plane, but from looking at them in real life they are not on average someone that I would think would make a good FA. Of course you can find OZ FAs also with a similar look, but overall they seem to be a much friendlier crowd when outside the plane and their working environment. That's just my take on it.

So I wouldn't doubt at all if OZ does only hire college graduates plus ones which have good personalities and people skills. Whatever they do, I think they have one of the best recruitment and training departments in the airline industry. Of course as mentioned many times in this forum in the past, many of them could definitely stand to improve their English. They do though try hard to communicate effectively.

BTW, I believe OZ hires only University graduates as F/A's - at least this is what I heard... (or I mixed OZ with BR:confused:) - but there is one airline in Asia, that hires only University graduates as F/A's... And I believe it is OZ.

Almost all the carriers in Asia(especially in Japan, Korea, China) all the FAs are college educated and FA jobs are respected/admired and very hard to get. In Korea, KE gets the first dip of the applicants and OZ gets the not-so-sloppy leftovers. :D KE is twice as big as OZ so obviously they recruit more. Next time you are at ICN or have a chance to check out these group of ladies...you can definitely tell the differences. KE FAs are a bit taller and skinnier. Couple years ago KE decided to recruit China based FAs and the competition was very fierce. (100 people applied for every 1 position) When I flew to Shanghai last year I got to see the result of their recruitment. ^^^
All the Chinese KE FAs were about 23yo, 170cm, skinny, fluent in English and even in basic Korean.

So I wouldn't doubt at all if OZ does only hire college graduates plus ones which have good personalities and people skills. Whatever they do, I think they have one of the best recruitment and training departments in the airline industry. Of course as mentioned many times in this forum in the past, many of them could definitely stand to improve their English. They do though try hard to communicate effectively.

I agree, I think no matter college graduate or not, even English is a second language, being a FA should still be fluent in English no matter where they come from. However, OZ defiantely fail to do that. In 3 years time, I can see OZ FA's speaking english skill is still virtually the same. On the other hand, Japanese carriers like JL and NH basically had their FA transform from almost non-existing english (I can still remember there were NH FA 5 or 6 years ago cannot even describ the menus, they actually print out a photo of the meal to show to the pax about what they want) to being able to hold a conversation. With OZ FA, sometime I still have to think about to use the most simple english word to talk to them, but they may still not able to understand.

Do they speak Chinese?

Just arrived home on the dreaded combi ICN/JFK.

First is in the nose. The rest of downstairs is coach.
Upstairs is business, where 18 of 24 seats were taken.
Coach stops in row 45 ish, where you can see a wall where the aisle should be.

On our outbound, we flew a regular 747 upstairs.

Both C beds appeared to be the same, but I had the feeling that the combi didn't recline as far?

As for service... ^ ^ ^

I've flown UA internationally :rolleyes:
I've flown ANA ^
I've flown SQ ^ all in C.

As for the service and overall experience (not counting SQ's C seat), OZ gets a ^ ^ for overall service; and always with a smile.
I used the call button several times on both flights. When my wife saw me counting, she asked why? I told her watch this. I never counted past 8 until a F/A came to my seat. ^
On UA, that would never happen. I'd still be counting. :D

d

I agree, I think no matter college graduate or not, even English is a second language, being a FA should still be fluent in English no matter where they come from. However, OZ defiantely fail to do that. In 3 years time, I can see OZ FA's speaking english skill is still virtually the same. On the other hand, Japanese carriers like JL and NH basically had their FA transform from almost non-existing english (I can still remember there were NH FA 5 or 6 years ago cannot even describ the menus, they actually print out a photo of the meal to show to the pax about what they want) to being able to hold a conversation. With OZ FA, sometime I still have to think about to use the most simple english word to talk to them, but they may still not able to understand.

I usually fly LHR-ICN, mabe sometimes SYD.
On those flights, in C, English is fine- no more problems than when on US carriers. On internal flights, to Beijing and to Narita, English is less good in my experience. However, apart from the fact I need to speak in American fashion as opposed to British English, it all works. (eg "wudder" instead of "war -ter")

On average, the OZ FAs seem the most genuine/caring in seeing that the passengers have a pleasant flight. As mentioned by many others, SQ's FAs seem almost robotic at times.

During my 1st flight (in 2007) with Asiana from Bangkok to LAX through Seoul, I paid for a business class ticket. It was a red eye flight from Bangkok to Seoul and I was so tired that I couldn't remember if I ate.

However, I do remember the seat was flat. I remember I was up front and could see the door leading to the cockpit where the pilots were. So I suspect I was placed in First class even I only bought busienss class tickets (or the plane only have 1st class and economy). Anyways, that was the only flight taken since I was an adult that I actually slept the whole way. That 180 degree bed is actually quite important for resting.

The flight attendent was memorable. I had a 12 hour layover in Seoul and it was my first time in Seoul. I told the flight attendant if I should take a cab to downtown and sleep in my hotel. Before landing, I had a chat with one of the flight attendant. She actually gave me advice saying the airport was far from city center and I should take airport bus there. I remember her because she actually was able to interpret my intentions (trying to get to hotel cheaply and just want to sleep) and gave a good advice. :p

Almost all the carriers in Asia(especially in Japan, Korea, China) all the FAs are college educated and FA jobs are respected/admired and very hard to get.

Couple years ago KE decided to recruit China based FAs and the competition was very fierce. (100 people applied for every 1 position) When I flew to Shanghai last year I got to see the result of their recruitment. ^^^


I think FA in Canada are also very hard to get in. They are unioned and the pay seems quite good. I think there would be 100 people applying for 1 position for Air Canada's FA. Some of my friends who graduated with me applied and a few made it in. They are also college educated and attractive, but since it is union, they are placed not in the highly desired Trans-pacific route or trans-atlantic route, but the less popular Canada-US routes. Have to pay their dues before going international

I've flown UA internationally :rolleyes:
I've flown ANA ^
I've flown SQ ^ all in C.

As for the service and overall experience (not counting SQ's C seat), OZ gets a ^ ^ for overall service; and always with a smile.

d

I already wrote about my first OZ business experience in my last post. Now I want to respond to my expereince with those other carriers.

I flown in Business in all the above airlines in Trans-pacific (mainly either to HK or NRT) too. Flew ANA in business lots, SQ a few times in business, UA in business a few times.

SQ seems good. I don't remember anything spectacularly good nor terrilbly bad about their service - thus those forgetable experience resulting in me not with SQ.

UA I was unlucky to fly their 747s in my few trips in business. No flat beds but I remember the cabin temperature was cool to comfortable (18 - 22 degrees). Sometimes I need a blanket. The seat was comfortable but yet again, I wasn't able to sleep at all. I remember after take off, I was offered a big bowl of nuts. It reinforces the idea that American sizes are big. I got full after just eating 20% of those nuts and the guy next to me asked for refills! "Free Refills" is a beautiful word and a wonderful North American cultural phenomenon. I remember drinking diet coke and the flight attendant keep asking if I want anther one - which I rarely refused. I must have drank 3 or 4 liters during my 12 hour trip.

I was ANA Platinum before. I got mad when they took away my ANA Super Flyers VISA Card (after I returned to Canada) so I joined Asiana. I do remember ANA Business class keep giving me lots of food each time. By the time the meal was done (looking at 1000 calorie meal), there was Haagen Dazs chocolate parfait and then snack time... it was again Haagen Dazs ice cream. I remember telling the FA that I'll be getting fat just by flying with them. The cabin temperature wa like 25 degrees and hot (must be the temperature Japanese find comfortable but painful for cold-weather adapted Canadians). I remember sweating each time. I remember it was a 170 degree flat bed, I keep slipping and couldn't sleep neither.

There was something interesting with ANA that happened to me - a Chinese Canadian. I was in business class. There was a disproportion number of caucasians in this flight. During dinner time, every one have a choice if they perfer the Japanese course (that has raw fish - which I hate - Chinese always cook their fish!) or the western course (something like steak). I of course chose the western course. Then the FA notice they were 1 out of western course meals! (it appears all the Japanese took the Japanese course meals and I was the only Asian but not Japanese in business). The FA approched me and apologetically asked if I would change my meal to the Japanese one because they didn't have enough. They could have asked a white dude, but no, they asked me. So I with various facal expressions asked her "why me" in a cute way and with broken Japanese (to lower the blow of my disappointment). The cute FA didn't bother coming out with excuses, she told me the others are foreigners and they probably won't eat sashimi (that raw fish). I didn't want her to have a tough job but want to convey my disaapointment so I jokingly gave her an unhappy face and jokingly act if I was crying. She softly and informally apologized and pat me on the head like a child. (if you didn't understand what was going on, basically it was like a flirt). Then I was mad at myself for forgetting to close the deal and ask for her number.

Just arrived home on the dreaded combi ICN/JFK.

First is in the nose. The rest of downstairs is coach.
Upstairs is business, where 18 of 24 seats were taken.
Coach stops in row 45 ish, where you can see a wall where the aisle should be.

On our outbound, we flew a regular 747 upstairs.


sorry to differ, but I think you flew on "a combi", not "the combi".
"The combi" has 45 degree recline chairs, not beds, and is an education.
You would, I think, spot the difference between it and the full pax 747.

UA I was unlucky to fly their 747s in my few trips in business. I remember after take off, I was offered a big bowl of nuts. It reinforces the idea that American sizes are big.

This is off topic, but I want to clear the "bowl" that use by UA for nuts are not "a big bowl", and it is not even a bowl, it is really tiny, about the same size as a sake cup, and UA had been using the same set of chinaware for at least 7 years. And I also believe they have that tiny cup in HKG RCC as well.

Do they speak Chinese?

Mandarin or Cantonese ?

I sm sure no Korean OZ FA can speak neither, and no chinese FA on ICN-HKG.

Some of the Korean FA maybe able to write Chinese traditonal, as one of the Korean FA can write and show me her Chinese name.

Mandarin or Cantonese ?

I sm sure no Korean OZ FA can speak neither, and no chinese FA on ICN-HKG.

If the Chinese FA cannot speak Mandarin or Cantonese, what language(s) can she speak? A bit odd if you ask me.