Qantas Frequent Flyer - Need advice for USA-Australia in J: QF versus Air Canada versus Virgin

I did a quick search and came up empty, so would appreciate any help, especially since I need to decide on this very soon.

I have a trip coming up in late July from San Francisco to Canberra, in business class. FWIW, because of some budget constraints (about $7,000 total) and airline preferences (would rather not fly UA and would like to check out once of the other airlines, none of which I've flown before), I might need to fly via LAX or Vancouver, and from SFO to those places and between SYD and CBR in economy, on separate tickets from the transpacific legs.

Also FWIW, flying QF gets me AA miles and flying AC gets me UA miles, but this isn't a crucial consideration.

So, a few questions:

1. Most importantly, it seems like AC and Virgin have better J seats than QF, in that they are independent units each having aisle access. I've flown the somewhat similar Cathay Pacific seats and liked them...don't mind the configuration, the limited window views, etc. But am I missing something here? Is QF better re the reliability, service or even seats for that matter? And if it's AC versus Virgin, any recommendations?
2. If I do fly AC, the earliest return flight on QF or Virgin from CBR to SYD would get in 7 a.m. or so, with the AC leaving for YVR at 10:25 a.m. Is that a fairly safe domestic to international connection in SYD early in the morning in July?
3. If I do fly QF, any preference between the 380 and 747?

Thanks for any help!

I did a quick search and came up empty, so would appreciate any help, especially since I need to decide on this very soon.

I have a trip coming up in late July from San Francisco to Canberra, in business class. FWIW, because of some budget constraints (about $7,000 total) and airline preferences (would rather not fly UA and would like to check out once of the other airlines, none of which I've flown before), I might need to fly via LAX or Vancouver, and from SFO to those places and between SYD and CBR in economy, on separate tickets from the transpacific legs.

Also FWIW, flying QF gets me AA miles and flying AC gets me UA miles, but this isn't a crucial consideration.

So, a few questions:

1. Most importantly, it seems like AC and Virgin have better J seats than QF, in that they are independent units each having aisle access. I've flown the somewhat similar Cathay Pacific seats and liked them...don't mind the configuration, the limited window views, etc. But am I missing something here? Is QF better re the reliability, service or even seats for that matter? And if it's AC versus Virgin, any recommendations?
2. If I do fly AC, the earliest return flight on QF or Virgin from CBR to SYD would get in 7 a.m. or so, with the AC leaving for YVR at 10:25 a.m. Is that a fairly safe domestic to international connection in SYD early in the morning in July?
3. If I do fly QF, any preference between the 380 and 747?

Thanks for any help!
If QF, take the 380. Better seat pitch and proper lie flat beds whereas the 744 has sloping flat beds.

If you are on AC you will struggle for a window view as your seat is angled. It is, however, much better than the old herringbone CX coffin J seats. Also, if you like the window view, get as far forward as possible due to the engine. And, the window seats are better than the centre aisle pair - the centre seats seem more exposed to the passing traffic. If on AC YVr-SYD, there are no showers in the International MLL in YVR - you'll have to use the PP lounge and pay :eek:

Wouldn't you be better off on UA with their direct SFO-SYD flight? They are not that bad! Of course, if UA miles are important, the AC flight is the longest ;)

Thanks for this quick reply. Very useful! Among other things, I hadn't realized the QF 380 seats were lie-flat.

As for UA NS from SFO, for whatever reasons the SFO flights are more expensive than those originating in LAX right now, so I have to connect anyway. And given the way post-merger UA is falling apart in terms of its deteriorating frequent flier program, antiquated reservations system, big problems dealing with irregular operations, and general attitude toward customers, I don't mine accumulating miles on it but would rather not give it my money.

Thanks for this quick reply. Very useful! Among other things, I hadn't realized the QF 380 seats were lie-flat.

As for UA NS from SFO, for whatever reasons the SFO flights are more expensive than those originating in LAX right now, so I have to connect anyway. And given the way post-merger UA is falling apart in terms of its deteriorating frequent flier program, antiquated reservations system, big problems dealing with irregular operations, and general attitude toward customers, I don't mine accumulating miles on it but would rather not give it my money.

It is your money, but I would suggest that UA's business class seat is a pretty decent one; dismal meals onboard but a decent seat. I would definitely take UA over QF on a 747 but if you can get an A380 that would be nobbad.

As far as whether a 7am flight arrival into SYD will be ok ex CBR, it should be , but if you have separate bookings for the flights you need to accept the risk that exists with any connection on different tickets

Dave

Thanks for this quick reply. Very useful! Among other things, I hadn't realized the QF 380 seats were lie-flat. ...Many of the 744 Business seats are lay flat as well these days; by June, more likely than not. (If you can pre-check a seat map, the full lay flat ones have no row 4 - in these 5J/5B are single seats with a storage compartment).

The 388 are better overall, since (as with the AA 763), the configuration is 2x2x2,so all the centre seats have direct aisle access without one PAX having to climb over another.

NZ is also a possibility, flat beds and great service. The stop in AKL isn't a problem, gives you a chance to shower and have breakfast and then arrive in SYD at a civilised hour. In the other direction from SYD, you get to fly at a later time so it's jet-lag friendly in both directions

NZ is also a possibility, flat beds and great service. The stop in AKL isn't a problem, gives you a chance to shower and have breakfast and then arrive in SYD at a civilised hour. In the other direction from SYD, you get to fly at a later time so it's jet-lag friendly in both directions
For the flight ex SYD, the later the better. Nothing worse than a trans Pacific that arrives in North or South Americe just when your body clock says "time to sleep".

Thanks again for all of the useful replies. I was curious to check QF, especially for the 380, but decided to go with AC for reasons of both price and the solo seats.

NZ is also a possibility, flat beds and great service. The stop in AKL isn't a problem, gives you a chance to shower and have breakfast and then arrive in SYD at a civilised hour. In the other direction from SYD, you get to fly at a later time so it's jet-lag friendly in both directions

I'm reading this thread about six hours after having got off NZ8 from AKL to SFO and have to moderately lol at the idea of any SYD-SFO routing being "jet-lag friendly". Still, I can definitely get behind NZ as the best option for this route, even if just to avoid LAX.

Yep my first choice is NZ in J out of Australia to the USA

Then Virgin, Qantas (A380 only) then Delta/Air Canada

United Airlines - Nope

I'm reading this thread about six hours after having got off NZ8 from AKL to SFO and have to moderately lol at the idea of any SYD-SFO routing being "jet-lag friendly". Still, I can definitely get behind NZ as the best option for this route, even if just to avoid LAX.

That's interesting as I've always found NZ8 to be fantastic for jet-lag given that you get to sleep about 8pm, get 8 hours in and then wake up mid-morning.

That's interesting as I've always found NZ8 to be fantastic for jet-lag given that you get to sleep about 8pm, get 8 hours in and then wake up mid-morning.
Of course you will have less jet lag on a NZ-North America flight flight than an Australia- North America flight because you already have a 2 hr time zone advantage.

Thanks again for all of the useful replies. I was curious to check QF, especially for the 380, but decided to go with AC for reasons of both price and the solo seats.

This is obviously too late, but having flown all of UA, QF, AC and Virgin trans Pacific in past few months, I would rank them
1) QF in A380 - for allover experience (but costly)
2) Air Canada and Virgin equal (Virgin better on price)
3) QF in 747 (even with reconfigured seats)
3) UA about 10th.

Virgin seat pitch means you can always get past neighbouring passenger without hassle.

But AC will give you a pretty good run.

I would take UA over QF on a 747 ; the meals on UA may not be very good, but the business class seating is good with seats which recline till horizontally flat

+1 for Air NZ.

UA has a highly polarizing effect. There are some pax who won't fly them unless there is no other choice (I'm in that category due to some things UA did years ago -- they are still being punished with revenue denial :) ) while others love them. Most consider DL superior trans-pacific, fwiw, and I would rate AC and NZ higher, and QF much higher. But some do love them, so UA must be doing something right. They do have a good 1K upgrade program.

A UA backward facing seat gives great sleep in their flat beds. My only hesitation is that anyone over 6' may find those beds too short. As for UA meals, I do not understand why others suggest these are terrible. My experience has always been favourable with generous portion sizes and consistency in service (take note QF).

Conversely, the UA SFO lounge, while spacious, is dire in offerings. Even the celery and carrot seems to have gone. If you like pretzels, this is your place. The lounge is relatively clean because there is **** all food to drop on the floor. Oh, and you'll have to tip the bar-man if you want a drink from the bar :rolleyes:

If flying *A Trans Pac and lounges are critical, then fly on AC via YVR. They also have longer beds (window side) than UA. Meal offerings are equal to UA.

A UA backward facing seat gives great sleep in their flat beds. My only hesitation is that anyone over 6' may find those beds too short. As for UA meals, I do not understand why others suggest these are terrible. My experience has always been favourable with generous portion sizes and consistency in service (take note QF).


At 6'1" I have found the seats to be fine nd would have no hesitation recommending the bed for those at that height; the meals on the transatlantic flights I took were dire, even AA was better; fortunately for the 1st flight I had been to pret a manger at heathrow and had some sandwiches for the flight

as far as lounge vs flight, my thought would be that if turning up a reasonable time before the flight, hopefully there will be less than an hour in the lounge vs 15 hours on an aeroplane ( if heading to oz )

...
as far as lounge vs flight, my thought would be that if turning up a reasonable time before the flight, hopefully there will be less than an hour in the lounge vs 15 hours on an aeroplane ( if heading to oz )
Absolutely no incentive to spend "lounge time" in SFO.

Last nights UA SFO-SYD was 14:15 in the air, and 2:45 in the seat prior to push back due to "Chicago administration". At one point during boarding, 100 pax were possibly facing being offloaded or the plane doing a fuel stop in HNL.