United MileagePlus (Consolidated) - UA or OZ - pleese halp me choose

Any advice is appreciated.

I am choosing between UA and OZ to get to ICN (where I am connecting to an award itin on OZ). Will be flying in coach on a miles-earning fare.

UA pros:

- Annual E+ on UA will get me the same seat as in Y on OZ - 34" pitch;
- UA is a US carrier and I will be supporting local economy (however misguided it seems to support UA);
- UA fare is about half a grand lower.

UA cons:

- IRROPS. UA cancelled a bunch of int'l flights recently, which matters to me because I have to make my connections.

OZ pros:

- better service;
- same carrier as on award itin;
- lower chance of IRROPS.

OZ cons:

- not a US carrier;
- UA fare is lower.

TYIA.

Any advice is appreciated.

I am choosing between UA and OZ to get to ICN (where I am connecting to an award itin on OZ). Will be flying in coach on a miles-earning fare.

UA pros:

- Annual E+ on UA will get me the same seat as in Y on OZ - 34" pitch;
- UA is a US carrier and I will be supporting local economy (however misguided it seems to support UA);
- UA fare is about half a grand lower.

UA cons:

- IRROPS. UA cancelled a bunch of int'l flights recently, which matters to me because I have to make my connections.

OZ pros:

- better service;
- same carrier as on award itin;
- lower chance of IRROPS.

OZ cons:

- not a US carrier;
- UA fare is lower.

TYIA.

From my perspective you get what you pay for. I think it is commonly known that if you are flying to an international destination and that destination has its own carrier that generally the service and experience will be better than the US based carrier taking you there.

IE. Lufthansa to go to Germany, JAL to Japan, BA to UK

From my perspective you get what you pay for. I think it is commonly known that if you are flying to an international destination and that destination has its own carrier that generally the service and experience will be better than the US based carrier taking you there.

IE. Lufthansa to go to Germany, JAL to Japan, BA to UK

The price is not the issue here - it is merely one of the factors. I'd rather support a US carrier, but with all the IRROPS, it seems that doing so presents too many risks.

if you don't care about lifetime status, definitely OZ

"support a US carrier"? Why, what did they ever do for you? Take the previous posters advice, fly an international airline.

"support a US carrier"? Why, what did they ever do for you? Take the previous posters advice, fly an international airline.

Although I don't think it is this extreme I do agree one should always cross an ocean on a non US based carrier.

OZ offers better soft and hard products. You also already are continuing on OZ out of ICN. OZ is the better choice.

Hands down OZ, especially if you are in Y.

Spending my own money? I'm gonna have to speak in favour of saving five hundred bucks.

I don't care how good the food is on OZ. For five hundred bucks I can have breakfast, lunch and dinner at three-star restaurants and still have enough left over for a bottle of Dom Perignon. :cool:

Spending my own money? I'm gonna have to speak in favour of saving five hundred bucks.

I don't care how good the food is on OZ. For five hundred bucks I can have breakfast, lunch and dinner at three-star restaurants and still have enough left over for a bottle of Dom Perignon. :cool:

+1

Do you have Premier status with UA? If so, keep in mind that you don't get bonus RDM on OZ. I recently few OZ and didn't get my usual 100% match.

I think it is commonly known that if you are flying to an international destination and that destination has its own carrier that generally the service and experience will be better than the US based carrier taking you there.

IE. Lufthansa to go to Germany, JAL to Japan, BA to UK

So, there on OZ, return on UA (or US)? :rolleyes:

I would go with OZ strictly because of the IRROPS situation. The $500 saved will be worth the piece of mind.

Although I don't think it is this extreme I do agree one should always cross an ocean on a non US based carrier.

Definitely agree, and this is not a new idea either!

It's called the Christopher Columbus rule of travel and this line of thought been around for quite a while!!

I would go with OZ strictly because of the IRROPS situation. The $500 saved will be worth the piece of mind.

+1

With the recent history of delayed and canceled TPAC flights on UA, I would be afraid of making a connection.

The OP indicated they were using a paid ticket on UA to connect to an award ticket on UA.

I am choosing between UA and OZ to get to ICN (where I am connecting to an award itin on OZ).

I don't know if the PNRs have been joined/merged. Will the OP get IRROPS support if the UA flight is really late and the connection is missed?

There are reports that not all economy fares on OZ earn full mileage, so be mindful if this is important to you.

I would leave a lot of extra connection time if you are traveling on different itineraries (PNR's) unless you can somehow get them linked. Even more so if you do fly on UA, who seems to be having huge operational issues almost daily.

Spending my own money? I'm gonna have to speak in favour of saving five hundred bucks.

I don't care how good the food is on OZ. For five hundred bucks I can have breakfast, lunch and dinner at three-star restaurants and still have enough left over for a bottle of Dom Perignon. :cool:

$500 is certainly lots of cash, but the difference in fare may be more than just the difference in service, soft products, etc. It's probably because OZ is nonstop whereas a one-stop on UA. While one may not mind connecting to save $500, others may value the time saved from a connection.

LAX

You're listed as a US CP. If you're crediting to US, an additional UA pro is that you'll get 100% preferred qualifying miles plus a 100% bonus for flying United, while some Asiana tickets earn 0%.

For me, $500 plus the miles is a lot. Can you book the United flight one day early for protection, and then use part of that $500 in Seoul? If I had the time, that's what I'd do.

"support a US carrier"? Why, what did they ever do for you? Take the previous posters advice, fly an international airline.

+1 ^^. If supporting a US carrier would have the effect of making those carriers better, I could buy that. However, that's not the case nor has it ever been. US carriers don't support you (fees for every little thing, no help during IROPS, etc). So why ever should you support them? I'm all for "buying American" when the product is at least comparable. When it comes to air travel, sadly it's not

OZ offers better soft and hard products. You also already are continuing on OZ out of ICN. OZ is the better choice.

Still it is NOT worth the extra $500. We are talking about Y here, not F or C.

OZ do not provide mid-flight snack between the two meals to and from any US cities. Due to OZ's small fleet, if OP is flying from SFO or LAX when QS 777 are using, there is a chance it would be swap with one with no AVOD and movies run in a loop. The swap basically happens a few times a month, so you won't know which day it would have a swap.


I would go with OZ strictly because of the IRROPS situation. The $500 saved will be worth the piece of mind.


With the recent history of delayed and canceled TPAC flights on UA, I would be afraid of making a connection.



IRROPS happens, but it never worth $500 for the piece of mind, at least I have never done that, to one that fly UA often for TPAC for the past 10+ years. And the IRROPS on UA was not a recent history, if you do a search on PMUA forum, it happened since a long time ago, particular to flights that are operated by 747, still I have never gotten one UA TPAC IRROPS, no divert, no cancel, no delay.

There are IRROPS on OZ too, you won't hear it as they have very few flights to the US, and not many people are flying it, people choose KE more than OZ as KE has more flights and destinations compare with OZ.

Thank you, guys, for your input.

I decided to collect data for delay performance for SFO-ICN for UA and OZ. Here is what I found - OZ is not much better than UA when it comes to getting you from SFO to ICN on time. Here is the data (delays in minutes):

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-fjs--vNZq-Y/UEDcnDAgyJI/AAAAAAAAADM/HlUk4fPHiYs/s800/Untitled.jpg

I think I'm gonna follow ramolnar's advice and book UA one day in advance.

which would you chose and why?

which would you chose and why?

Asiana F every time. Better food and wine.... without a doubt....

FDW

if all things equal, take OZ

but if UA has a nonstop while OZ require 1-stop or even 2-stops, then maybe UA is preferable.

UA has a better hard product - but the OZ soft product is so much better that they're clearly the choice.

which would you chose and why?

OZ...no question about it! For me, their seats are on par or better than UA and their F service (CS, food, wine) blows UA out of the water!!

I have enjoyed Asiana F and C quite a lot the past couple of years!...and if you ever get to experience their new F suites (only on some of their 777s)...now, these are nice! (I experienced the full size mock up...Wow!)

which would you chose and why?

All things being equal, OZ.

All things are not likely equal since OZ and UA don't fly 747s on the same route.

Then it depends on things like routing and timing (I might take a slight penalty because OZ is a nicer soft product). In my case, I would prefer routing SEA-LAX-ICN on UA/OZ over SEA-SFO-ICN on UA, because SEA-SFO connections have a low batting average thanks to ATC ground holds.

Thanks for the input.

I am going LAX-HKG so OZ requires a stop in ICN and UA would require a stop in SFO.

So, I'd say its equal with both having a stop along the route.

I have enjoyed Asiana F and C quite a lot the past couple of years!...and if you ever get to experience their new F suites (only on some of their 777s)...now, these are nice! (I experienced the full size mock up...Wow!)

Well, thats a good question on OZ... I can do either the 744 in F or 772 in C...

OR I just saw that the 772 ANA in C is open as well...

decisions, decisions!

Well, thats a good question on OZ... I can do either the 744 in F or 772 in C...

OR I just saw that the 772 ANA in C is open as well...

decisions, decisions!

I also like ANA C (especially the new staggered seats)...and the service and food is quite good! I think it comes down to schedule and where you want to connect...If all thing were equal, I think I would choose OZ F followed by ANA C...but that is just my personal preference.