Asiana Club - OZ stinks

Appears to be the view of posters.

Like democracy, the worst form of government until you look at the others, OZ is not perfect.
The main problem, which DOES need solving, is communication. It's the difference between the Korean approach and a western view.
The info about pre-ordering meals in F ex ICN is there on the website. I spoke to OZ here in London and they were well aware of it. They were however almost shocked that any westerner would want other than western food, a situation that I often come across in Korea itself.

As for atrocious F food, I wouldn't know. My company won't waste money on F, and to/from Europe, it's not an option anyway.

I guess if the dissatisfied vote with their feet by either moving down a class or to another airline, like UA (which I avoid at all costs), OZ management may get the message. But from my point of view the product is excellent- my firm uses OZ to go anywhere in Asia via ICN.

But from my point of view the product is excellent.
I agree and I think a lot of other people do.

Strange choice of thread title though; I thought it was going to be a discussion about on-board kimchi.

Appears to be the view of posters.


The main problem, which DOES need solving, is communication. It's the difference between the Korean approach and a western view.

The info about pre-ordering meals in F ex ICN is there on the website. I spoke to OZ here in London and they were well aware of it. They were however almost shocked that any westerner would want other than western food, a situation that I often come across in Korea itself.

I guess if the dissatisfied vote with their feet by either moving down a class or to another airline, like UA (which I avoid at all costs).

Wow, so much BS. First off, the website says you CAN order Korean in advance. It also says you can order Hindu or Diabetic. Show me where it says you'll only have two western choices if you don't pre-order? Show me where it says Asian options are ONLY available by pre-ordering. If those choices are not available in flight, then seriosuly, why the heck are they on the printed menu? If you pre-ordered, you know what you're getting. If you didn't you can have you options on OZ printed on an index card. Heck, why not just have the FA ask, "Beef or Fish?"

If this is the difference between eastern and western views, how do SQ and NH manage? Are they western or are you saying that Korean culture is so different from western and all other eastern cultures as well? Just a bizarre justification.

I'd fly UA Business over Asiana First other than for the lie flat seat. No brainer. I'd fly UA new Business over Asiana First given any opportunity and I'm not a huge fan of UA by a long shot. As much as I think UA has a weak soft product, it's easily better than OZ's.

I'd fly UA Business over Asiana First other than for the lie flat seat. No brainer. I'd fly UA new Business over Asiana First given any opportunity and I'm not a huge fan of UA by a long shot. As much as I think UA has a weak soft product, it's easily better than OZ's.

Wow. That's quite a statement to make based, apparently, on a single flight on OZ. For those of us who have flown one too many times on UA business, that statement tells me perhaps more about mlasser than about Asiana.

I don't doubt that he was dissatisfied with his (single?) experience on Asiana. But compare that with the following on UA business: near-certainty of full cabin due to the incredible ease of upgrading from Y; near-certainty that some people will have limited choice (or no choice) or meals; low quality of food and drink; fewer flight attendants per passenger in all cabins (compared to all Asian carriers); fewer ground personnel (and consequently longer check-in and baggage delivery times); etc etc etc.

This is a very intriguing analysis of culture. :confused:
It almost sounds like a subject at a six party nuclear talks on the Korean peninsula. @:-)

The main problem, which DOES need solving, is communication. It's the difference between the Korean approach and a western view.

I'd fly UA Business over Asiana First other than for the lie flat seat. No brainer.

If you have no brain ;)

I'm drawing a conclusion from my expereinece and the postings and observations of other FTers. Seems a pretty fair extrapolation. Also seems like many of the problems are airline policy, not just attributable to one bad crew. Every airline has it's apologists. Some like First in SQ, BA, QF, NH seem not to need them.

I'm drawing a conclusion from my expereinece and the postings and observations of other FTers. Seems a pretty fair extrapolation. Also seems like many of the problems are airline policy, not just attributable to one bad crew. Every airline has it's apologists. Some like First in SQ, BA, QF, NH seem not to need them.

Funny... that you mention that your basis was the observations of other FTers as many FTers (who are frequent fliers with OZ) seem to be fine with OZ and mentioned that it's a "no-brainer" to take OZ over UA. Of course there were some recent threads that indicates some downsides to OZ's service, including yours, but if you say that your opinion on OZ is based on some FT posts and your single flight experience, it's hard to say you are making an unbiased comment.

I, by no means, defending OZ. As I mentioned in other posts, OZ should be told of their inconsistencies so that they may fix the problems. If you weren't happy with the flight I suggest that you ask for a passenger opinion card and express your concerns... including to the in-flight chief purser. That alone will potentially make your rest of the flight more pleasant and helping your future flight with them more pleasant.

It's funny that you prefer UA over OZ (perhaps it's just a cultural thing... Americans wanting to fly an American carrier and Koreans wanting to fly Korean carrier). Having flown 500K + BIS miles on UA (as 1K) and rather small pool of miles on OZ (though I have flown more than dozen premium cabin flights with OZ), OZ wins in all aspect. Even if UA operates their new lie-flat C cabin on the routes which OZ flies, I would use OZ. Again that's my personal choice. No one here is forcing you to take OZ or trying to convince you that OZ is great.

Enjoy UA...

In my experience SQ First>OS Business>LH Business>TG Business>NWA Business>UA Business>OZ First There seems to be consensus that OZ does not meet NH levels in First and certainly not Emirates and Qatar and BA and Quantas. That in my mind makes it hard to see how it's a 5 star airline. Of course if they were cheap I might fly them again and sure, I'd fly OZ First or Business over an American airlines coach product.

In my experience SQ First>OS Business>LH Business>TG Business>NWA Business>UA Business>OZ First

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

It's funny that you put OZ F below NWA and UA business.... :D :D :D :D


That's your personal opinion. Whether or not most of us here would buy into your suggestion is another thing.

UA business better than OZ F.... really shocks me.

And your comment about you'd prefer to take OZ F or C over any coach product (American coach product, which by means is one of the worst) is really a no brainer answer isn't it? Yes, anyone in the world would prefer to fly premium cabin over any coach cabin... when there is means for such option ($$$/miles/etc).

If I may ask, have you really flown all these airlines recently yourself?
Dut to the nature of my job, a sales manager of electronic goods, I fly quite a lot all over the world, something like 200,000 miles per year.
And I try to fly as diverse airlines as possible within * , ST, and some others.
It's been years since I was on OS C, QR Y, C , BA C, and UA C , Y+.
Airline products are also rapidly changing, so it is quite often difficult if not impossible to compare so many airlines at the same time.
Of course, one is free to judge his own opinion from various sources. Whether it is valid or not is another story.

In my experience SQ First>OS Business>LH Business>TG Business>NWA Business>UA Business>OZ First There seems to be consensus that OZ does not meet NH levels in First and certainly not Emirates and Qatar and BA and Quantas. That in my mind makes it hard to see how it's a 5 star airline.

Don't u think u went too far?;)



I'd fly UA Business over Asiana First

In statistics, an outlier is an event that is so far outside all of the other events that it has no real statistical value. I think that's what we have here, in terms of mlasser's opinion.

I am not suggesting that mlasser did not have what s/he considers to have been a poor experience on OZ, nor am I saying that mlasser is being less than candid in offering an opinion that OZ's F product is worse than United's or Northwest's C product. I am suggesting that mlasser's opinions so lie far outside the opinions of other travelers with extensive experience on these carriers that those opinions carry no statistical weight.

In statistics, an outlier is an event that is so far outside all of the other events that it has no real statistical value. I think that's what we have here, in terms of mlasser's opinion.

If something is an airline's policy it would by definition, not be an outlier.

Don't u think u went too far?;)

No. That's real. Give me a choice between OZ F and UA new C and I'd take the later.

And I've flown all the airlines and classes listed within a 24 month period. Also flown CO, DL, F9, AK, US, AC, AA in coach and AA in First. I'm also in sales but much of this travel has been for vacation and other personal trips.

No. That's real. Give me a choice between OZ F and UA new C and I'd take the later.

You'd be in a minority, but that's obviously your choice. I do think UA F or C over OZ C would be a reasonable choice based on having a fully flat bed to sleep.

Clearly OZ has some soft points such as the pre-order Korean menu and M only amenity kits as you experienced, but beyond that you lose credibility.

You'd be in a minority, but that's obviously your choice. I do think UA F or C over OZ C would be a reasonable choice based on having a fully flat bed to sleep.

Clearly OZ has some soft points such as the pre-order Korean menu and M only amenity kits as you experienced, but beyond that you lose credibility.

Really? How do I lose credibility?

Enough other FTers have had bad crews on OZ to make me think it's a crapshoot. Same for UA. OZ 1 UA 1

Catering choices. OZ 0 UA 1

Catering quality. OZ 0 UA 1

Flat bed OZ 1 UA 1 (In OZ old config OZ 0)

Personal space OZ 1 UA 0

Amenity Kits OZ 0 UA 1 (If you're female OZ -1)

Arrivals. Neither seems capable of deplaning first and business consistently OZ 0 UA 0

OZ 2 vs. UA 5 or if you're a female flying in old config 747 OZ 0 UA 5

For having a razor and an aftershave?:p
(If you're female OZ -1)

mlasser, it's nice that you express your opinions but I think you are pushing a bit too far. Many will come back at you with disagreements on your comments. Plus, after many rounds of this, you will ultimately lose the credibility because you are so determined to convince everyone that your view is the right one and that everyone should be convinced by your view point and accept to say that OZ stinks.

OZ catering worse than UA? That's ridiculous! UA F, C, and Y (international) food is just plastic food. You like course meals? Well, I guess UA wins because they will deliver (in cart) your salad first, main course next, and dessert last. What's so fancy about that? At least OZ has a nice catering that does pretty darn good research in making their in-flight food pretty good (especially the Korean ones). Does UA catering care? I say not!

Remember, you are debating with many of FTers, including myself, who have had a lot more flights than you with UA and OZ. If you search FT threads on OZ experience (proper search), you will find that there are a lot more positive reports than the negatives you tallied up. So, with your one-time OZ flight experience and rather biased search of FT threads indicating bad OZ flight experiences, how can you say your comment about OZ service is unbiased and represents the majority (and also have credibility)?

On the final note, many, including myself felt sorry for your bad OZ F experience, but also indicated that flight operations are not always consistent (if you know UA, you know what we mean). Out of many good flights OZ had without you, it's a pity that you were on one of the minor bad flight(s). In the end, as many have said, it's your personal choice to not to fly OZ again based on your one-time experience. No one is forcing you and you should not force others to think the same as you do.

By the way, what is it with the amenity kit anyway? You can buy a bulgari parfume at a duty free shop... for about 40-50 bucks. If you can afford F ticket, you can get those with your credit card. I like amenity kits but I would never choose one airline over another for the amenity kit. Plus, UA F amenity kit compared to what OZ offers you is just plain crap. The only thing that's worth keep (whether or not you are male or female) is the bag itself... it has some decent use for storing your tickets. But you should have seen the older one that UA had... it was a CD case (but only with three or four CD jackets inside... pure waste.

So... signing off from the thread.

I'd fly UA Business over Asiana First other than for the lie flat seat. No brainer. I'd fly UA new Business over Asiana First given any opportunity and I'm not a huge fan of UA by a long shot. As much as I think UA has a weak soft product, it's easily better than OZ's.

In my experience SQ First>OS Business>LH Business>TG Business>NWA Business>UA Business>OZ First I'd fly OZ First or Business over an American airlines coach product.

Give me a choice between OZ F and UA new C and I'd take the later.



Really? How do I lose credibility?

Enough other FTers have had bad crews on OZ to make me think it's a crapshoot. Same for UA. OZ 1 UA 1

Catering choices. OZ 0 UA 1

Catering quality. OZ 0 UA 1

Flat bed OZ 1 UA 1 (In OZ old config OZ 0)

Personal space OZ 1 UA 0

Amenity Kits OZ 0 UA 1 (If you're female OZ -1)

Arrivals. Neither seems capable of deplaning first and business consistently OZ 0 UA 0

OZ 2 vs. UA 5 or if you're a female flying in old config 747 OZ 0 UA 5

Enjoy UA! One of worst airlines in the *A IMHO.

Trust me...there aren't many here on FT trying to redeem our miles for UA C of F seats.

For having a razor and an aftershave?:p

I love the double standard and really hope a magazine like Robb or T&L pick up on it. If men were haded a pink bag with perfume, feminine products and lip gloss and told that the airline policy was to only offer these there'd be FT mass hysteria. LOL So yeah, OZ -1 if this in in fact policy, Totally idiotic.

Enjoy UA! One of worst airlines in the *A IMHO.

Trust me...there aren't many here on FT trying to redeem our miles for UA C of F seats.

Uh, yeah, with UA being my SECOND to last choice of the ones I've flown recently and below BA, NH, JAL, LX, AF, AC and who knows what else, you draw the conclusion that it's my first choice. All I'm saying is that OZ First is currently crappier based on my experience and based on what I've been reading recently and based on trip reports showing the old First Class still operating transpac. Hope you enjoy the 1 in 6 shot of flying that bird. :p

mlasser, it's nice that you express your opinions but I think you are pushing a bit too far. Many will come back at you with disagreements on your comments. Plus, after many rounds of this, you will ultimately lose the credibility because you are so determined to convince everyone that your view is the right one and that everyone should be convinced by your view point and accept to say that OZ stinks.

OZ catering worse than UA? That's ridiculous! UA F, C, and Y (international) food is just plastic food. You like course meals? Well, I guess UA wins because they will deliver (in cart) your salad first, main course next, and dessert last. What's so fancy about that? At least OZ has a nice catering that does pretty darn good research in making their in-flight food pretty good (especially the Korean ones). Does UA catering care? I say not!

Remember, you are debating with many of FTers, including myself, who have had a lot more flights than you with UA and OZ. If you search FT threads on OZ experience (proper search), you will find that there are a lot more positive reports than the negatives you tallied up. So, with your one-time OZ flight experience and rather biased search of FT threads indicating bad OZ flight experiences, how can you say your comment about OZ service is unbiased and represents the majority (and also have credibility)?

On the final note, many, including myself felt sorry for your bad OZ F experience, but also indicated that flight operations are not always consistent (if you know UA, you know what we mean). Out of many good flights OZ had without you, it's a pity that you were on one of the minor bad flight(s). In the end, as many have said, it's your personal choice to not to fly OZ again based on your one-time experience. No one is forcing you and you should not force others to think the same as you do.

By the way, what is it with the amenity kit anyway? You can buy a bulgari parfume at a duty free shop... for about 40-50 bucks. If you can afford F ticket, you can get those with your credit card. I like amenity kits but I would never choose one airline over another for the amenity kit. Plus, UA F amenity kit compared to what OZ offers you is just plain crap. The only thing that's worth keep (whether or not you are male or female) is the bag itself... it has some decent use for storing your tickets. But you should have seen the older one that UA had... it was a CD case (but only with three or four CD jackets inside... pure waste.

So... signing off from the thread.

Nice double standard. I lose cred for expressing my view but you don't for countering it. I lose cred for posting to multiple threads, but you do not lose cred for replying on multiple threads. Huh?

And BTW, most of my beef is not with things that are atributable to one flight. They're airline policies that would be effective all the time.

I do hope I've helped steer other FTers who have not flown OZ clear of the experience. I also wish I had known months ago what I know now. I would have made different decisions. Thank god I avoided the experience ORDinHKG had!

This is rather silly.

I do put SQ F and NH F above OZ F. But OZ F is a nice product. A little rough around the edges at times, and certainly the could offer a bit more on the ground. Some annoying cutbacks. And the new seat could have used a bit more thoughtful of a design IMHO. But it is way better than many airline F experiences.

They don't publicize or make clear how to pre-order well, granted. And they've had some catering cutbacks. But OZ does a very nice meal service and outstanding presentation. UA F? Let alone UA C? The catering is abominable. That's where other posters suggest the claim loses credibility, the over the top rhetoric that brings silly statements like UA has better catering than OZ.

I'd take the OZ F seat over the UA F seat, both new and old, and the UA C seat is flat to be sure and I'd take it over OZ C if the primary interest is hard product (and for me it is). But OZ F wins hands down.

OZ F, PJs and the male amentiy kit is much much better than any amenity kit UA offers.

Service may be inconsistent at times on OZ but is legions better than the median UA FA offering.

OZ ground service isn't great, but UA doesn't have any meaningful ground service at all...

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

It's funny that you put OZ F below NWA and UA business.... :D :D :D :D


That's your personal opinion. Whether or not most of us here would buy into your suggestion is another thing.

UA business better than OZ F.... really shocks me.

And your comment about you'd prefer to take OZ F or C over any coach product (American coach product, which by means is one of the worst) is really a no brainer answer isn't it? Yes, anyone in the world would prefer to fly premium cabin over any coach cabin... when there is means for such option ($$$/miles/etc).

Agree with what you said. I don't at all question that mlasser had a bad experience on OZ F. Bad experiences happen on occasion with even the best of airlines. I think once someone does have a bad experience, it's very easy for them to overreact to the bad experience and do as mlasser has and say OZ F is worse than UA C. There have been a couple of posters recognizing some of the same problems, but by no means are they also saying that OZ F is worse than UA C. I have no direct experience with OZ F, but have lots with OZ C and some with UA C and can say certainly for me that OZ C is way better than UA C. So I find it almost impossible to believe that OZ F would be worse than UA C, at least for me and my tastes and what's important for me.

In summary, I think mlasser has gone way overboard in getting too emotional about one bad experience and using the few data points from other posters that confirm a part of his bad experience and trying to show that this proves OZ F is an absolutely horrible experience. When you go so overboard and make a comment that almost everyone will disagree with, you then lose a lot of credibility with the rest of your comments. I think all reports, both good and bad, are appreciated here, but it's best if possible to try to leave out emotional and over-the-top exaggerations about how good or bad a service is.

I'm not trying to be too critical of mlasser because I know I find myself doing the same sort of thing sometimes after a bad experience. Just trying to say anyone reading these reports and considering OZ F should keep an open and objective mind and look at all the reports, not just a select one or two, in making up their mind. I know I for one wouldn't hesitate to fly OZ F if given the chance, and wouldn't think twice about choosing it even over SQ F or NH F if the OZ flight was more convenient for me. I would though keep everything said here in mind, and would pre-order my meal, and be on top of any of the other problems reported here and try to nip them in the bud. That's what's so great about even the negative reports - they give you a heads up so that you can prevent the same problem from happening to you.

Nice double standard. I lose cred for expressing my view but you don't for countering it. I lose cred for posting to multiple threads, but you do not lose cred for replying on multiple threads. Huh?

And BTW, most of my beef is not with things that are atributable to one flight. They're airline policies that would be effective all the time.

I do hope I've helped steer other FTers who have not flown OZ clear of the experience. I also wish I had known months ago what I know now. I would have made different decisions. Thank god I avoided the experience ORDinHKG had!

You are going way beyond about this. I was simply saying that I sympathized you for your poor experience with OZ in F, which the service should have been more attentive and consistent. Now, if you keep on pressing about small things like amenity kits, meals, etc... when everyone else on this thread (with few expections) keep on reminding you that your rather strong opinion on OZ is a relatively minor to what other's have said, that my friend, loses the credibility of your arguement. It's just seems like a little kid trying to argue to the point that he/she isn't happy until everyone agrees.

You have to realize that like you others have freedom of choice. The sense of entitlement here on FT is unbelivable sometimes. Even ORDnHKG's post about thinking about "jumping ship" is ridiculous as he was flying OZ F on his mileage award. If you paid for F with $$$, well, the most of the cost is based on the amount of space the seat occuppies the aircraft. So, if you had a lie-flat bed for your long flight and slept well, that's what you've essentially paid for the cost. If you compare what UA is asking F passengers to pay vs. other carriers that compete on the similar routes, you will know what I mean (there is essentially no service with UA and food in F is just about the same as C). So, with all the amenity kits, turn down service, letting you off the plane first, etc., that's just extras... that would constitute very small percentage of your fare. OZ got you from point A to point B, in a relatively new and comfortable seats. You paid for the seat and that's it. Nothing more to argue. If you didn't like OZ's service... then put your future $$$ to other airlines that you like. You seem to like UA a lot so fly with UA. It would be odd that if you started a thread complaining about UA's customer service... :D after all these discussions.

I think you've done enough to express your concerns for OZ and if someone here on FT see this thread and base their decision on your post, that's fine with me. It's time to move on.

I read mlasser's original post about his experience on OZ more closely and discovered that this was part of his/her honeymoon trip. Now, honeymoon is really a killer for expectations. But it by no means provides any excuse to honeymooners to feel entitled to absolute best treatment. Also, honeymooners are not exampt from 'bad' experiences and service inconsistencies.

Really? How do I lose credibility?



Your continued ranting based on a single experience. As I noted, the amenity kit and need to pre-order Korean meals are legitimate issues, and both points were good feedback. Otherwise you come across as an amateur traveler the way you are handling this.

The main problem, which DOES need solving, is communication. It's the difference between the Korean approach and a western view.

If this is the difference between eastern and western views, how do SQ and NH manage? Are they western or are you saying that Korean culture is so different from western and all other eastern cultures as well? Just a bizarre justification.

A little rough around the edges at times, and certainly the could offer a bit more on the ground. Some annoying cutbacks. And the new seat could have used a bit more thoughtful of a design IMHO.

Wow, what a thread. I just go to the 7th Annual QF AGM in BNE (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qantas-frequent-flyer/864571-7th-annual-agm-bne-qp-sat-21-feb-2009-a.html)for a day and miss all the fun here.

The OP, mlasser and many here raise good points (and they would be even better without personal attacks).

I also think OZ is a great airline. But there are quite a few things which are quite strange and which the airlines needs to works on.


Pre-ordering of F Korean F meals is one.
FAs, ground and office staff not speaking English properly.
Service inconsistency.
One particular 747 which turn every booking into a kind of Russian Roulette.
The new F&C seats are behind other airlines current F&C seats
the flight from Sydney not connecting to anything usefull.
many more.


I guess part of the problem is culture and communication. But there are also just some plain oversights. And I guess it doesn't help that OZ thinks their only competitor on the planet is KE.

If someone here has connections to OZ management, we should communicate to them about those shortcomings.

This is not the first time OZ has been flamed by a UA fan. A couple of years ago there was a guy on the board who would appear only to slag off OZ and to praise UA.

This is not the first time OZ has been flamed by a UA fan. A couple of years ago there was a guy on the board who would appear only to slag off OZ and to praise UA.

Jeez, how are y'all figuring I'm a UA fan? I listed a string of like 6 airlines F&C in order with UA being second to last. Even in coach I prefer F9 most of the time. I'd fly just about any EU carrier over UA trans atlantic athough lack of air vents and 25 degree cabins on LH are gross. As for Asian carriers, Ive had very positive experiences on TG, SQ, JO, and even in coach on AK, PG and VN.

And I'm not flaming OZ as pointing out they have some crazy issues that are integrated into their system that make them not seem 5 star to me. That's it.

This is not the first time OZ has been flamed by a UA fan. A couple of years ago there was a guy on the board who would appear only to slag off OZ and to praise UA.



Me? While I would take UA C over OZ C, I'm not insame enough to praise UA C over OZ F. Eight seats in a row for UA new C sounds horrible to me. Regardless of airline, I would go for international F over international C.

As for catering, I would rate OZ C a lot higher than UA C although I'm a UA fan. Seriously, UA C catering is totally ......... Could not describe how it was ridiculous to see just a chicken wrap with nothing else for the second meal service on CDG-IAD last December and last January. At least, OZ makes a decent second meal service on trans oceanic flights.

BTW, it's pretty good to see many threads bashing OZ recently. It's good that now more and more people are realizing how bad OZ is.

BTW, it's pretty good to see many threads bashing OZ recently. It's good that now more and more people are realizing how bad OZ is.

Right on cue. This is the guy :D

You are welcome to make your own judgement, but a gernalized conclusion after only a single OZ flight is void.

Right on cue. This is the guy :D

So, it is your dream come true! Happy man.:D



BTW, it's pretty good to see many threads bashing OZ recently. It's good that now more and more people are realizing how bad OZ is.

In my experience SQ First>OS Business>LH Business>TG Business>NWA Business>UA Business>OZ First

Curious as to why you made this post in December then?
SQ, NH, OZ, OS, LH are not really competitors for UA in that I doubt anyone looks at UA and SQ as a rev passenger and has a tough decision. If you're very cost sensative you're looking at UA, CO, NW, DL. If you want best of breed you look at SQ, NH, OZ, OS, LH.

And this post last year about LH:
I think the Business Class service is more like old school coach with bigger seats. Austrian and even (gasp) United are offering a better product. I actually left the flight hungry and wishing I had packed some food. Unforgivable in Business Class.

It seems your airline ratings sure change at the drop of a hat.

Oh, and congratulations on your wedding/honeymoon. Seems like you have a lot of back luck with your honeymoons, such as your post about your previous honeymoon in the middle of last year.

:rolleyes:

Just finishing the last day of my honeymoon in Montreal and wanted to share with the FT community. My wife and I booked 2 nights at Le Westin in Mount Tremblant and 3 nights at the W in Montreal. Both properties are great and both locations have been great. Jazz Fest in Montreal is awesome if you like jazz and can be here during it by the way. Also dinner at La Toque was one of the best I’ve had in my life.

Here are the funny and not so funny details...

Better luck on your next honeymoon! :)

So, it is your dream come true! Happy man.:D



Nah, my dream come true would have been OZ going out of business.

YAY!

Seriously speaking, I'm uninterested in OZ at this point, so that's not my dream come true.

Curious as to why you made this post in December then?


And this post last year about LH:


It seems your airline ratings sure change at the drop of a hat.

Oh, and congratulations on your wedding/honeymoon. Seems like you have a lot of back luck with your honeymoons, such as your post about your previous honeymoon in the middle of last year.



Better luck on your next honeymoon! :)

Nice detective work. You must have an insane amount of time on your hands. I'm very impressed you're so interested in me to dig up posts all over the place. Maybe you'll do this for ORDnHKG and other detractors as well? Obviously you want to make this personal and detract from the topic of the post.

Ok, here goes, for those of you reading this that would rather know about me and my cred rather than discuss the problems with an airline that are for the most part fixable, yawn.....

First quote: Yep, Generally speaking no rev pax considers UA F over Asian and EU F. This is a complete no brainer. My impression based on talking to many people and readin Airliners.net and Skytrax was that OZ belonged in this bunch. It was extrapolation and I was wrong. Please have mercy. I now speak with increased experience. OZ F is in fact not impressive. OK?

Second quote: I stand by that. LH catering in busines is lacking. From what I've seen, First class is a whole different animal. Factor in the sweaty cabins and lack of air vents and UA is probably a better experience in both F and C especially the new C. So feel free to reorder UA to third from last in my list. OK?

Third quote: Still married. We knew we wanted a long (3 wk) honeymoon but couldn't take it in July. That said, we didn't want to return to work the day after the wedding so we took an extended weekend in Canada. Not so exciting for travellers that need extra passport pages, but better than going into the office the day after. This practice is called a Mini-moon if you care. And yes La Toque is incredible as in Montreal Jazz festival.

I can't believe I'm posting this response. Probably more dignified for me to ignore you. What else do you want to know?

Not a great detective, just recalled vaguely some of your previous posts and did a quick search. Just I was curious as to why you did a complete 180 degree flip-flop on OZ in just two months. I suspected it was because when you have a bad experience you put that airline at the bottom of your list, just like you did for LH last year. I'm not trying to criticize you, because I think it's common human nature to do such a thing, myself included. As I already said, I do really appreciate all the reports - both positive and negative. But as others have pointed out, you really went out on a limb with your suggestion that UA C is better than OZ F. Nobody is supporting you with that comment. I don't doubt that it is your real feeling that this is the case, but I think it's highly likely that your rating is based mainly on emotions due to your one bad experience. As others have already pointed out, it's probably best not to keep going on and on about your negative experience.

Overall, in looking at your posts, you're an extremely negative person. It's very easy for you to find lots of faults with airlines and anyone who stands up for an airline is criticized by you for being an airline apologist. You probably consider me an apologist for OZ. I do not consider myself to be one though. I do fly OZ a lot though and would like to see the airline continue with what I consider to be extraordinary service (when compared to the average airline), and to see them improve some of their faults. Hopefully this board is read by OZ managers and they can use this as well as direct customer feedback to learn better what the customers like and dislike and how to improve their product. So I think both praise and criticism of your favorite airline is a good way of helping the airline become what you want it to be. But the praise and criticism does need to be balanced I think. If you go to the extremes, you're likely to not be believed or to be ignored. Especially with Asian cultures where the concept of saving face is very important. Indirect criticism is almost always much more effective than is direct harsh criticism.

First quote: Yep, Generally speaking no rev pax considers UA F over Asian and EU F. This is a complete no brainer. My impression based on talking to many people and readin Airliners.net and Skytrax was that OZ belonged in this bunch. It was extrapolation and I was wrong. Please have mercy. I now speak with increased experience. OZ F is in fact not impressive. OK?

So I have a question for you, was your previous rating of OZ based on ever actually flying them or not? It sounds like perhaps it was based only on what you read from other people, then you flew them for the first time and they weren't what you were expecting. If I'm wrong, care to share with us how many times you've flown OZ and how recently and in what cabins? And if you were wrong in extrapolating others' positive experiences once, couldn't you also be wrong now in extrapolating others' negative experiences? Sorry, logically, your reasoning for doing such extrapolating doesn't make sense to me.

mlasser,

next time you fly OZ, you have to sit beside me.
I am always pampered by OZ FAs.

So feel free to reorder UA to third from last in my list. OK?
Let me see if I've got this right. You're now modifying your ranking to this:

SQ First>OS Business>UA Business>LH Business>TG Business>NWA Business>OZ First

Correct?

From the same thread where you were praising OZ as being above UA, titled '100 Reasons why United should go out of business':

[Undue personalization deleted by moderator.] I have yet to see this on CO, DL, NW and certainly not on EU and Asian carriers.

The above was a reply to someone trying to provide an excuse for why UA planes are so filthy.

CO, NW, DL all do. Seriously, you're challenging a guy with 300K flown this year?

I moved 50% of my flying to F9 this year even though they don't have first class or E+. I love the leather seats, Direct TV live, friendly FAs and clean planes. About a third of my UA flights last year had planes that smelled moldy or like the fluid in the lavs. I also managed about 4 skykits for inop lights and IFE. Also astounded at how frequently UA "fixes" problems with duct tape. Literally duct tape.

What else has been a sign of problems? Mismatched nose cones, running out of water, having no water for coffee on 6am and 7am flights, trans atlantics with two rounds of drinks and FAs busing doing Soduko and reading US magazine, *A filtering, worst terminal at IAD, 40% increases in MP redemptions for EU business, lackluster clubs....

Not about feeling good. It's about [edited by moderator] apologists [edited by moderator] who settle for this and make my life miserable because UA decides to serve to [that] level of acceptance. BTW, never seen a UA lav cleaned midflight. Not once.


Ok, it's a bit difficult to follow with so many of your negative/personal comments having been deleted, but I don't see it as being a very positive rating for UA, but yet you still put UA third on the list? Wow, you must really think LH C, TG C, NW C and OZ F/C are absolutely horrible if they're even worse than your above descriptions. Your first ranking was quite difficult to accept but your new ranking is beyond belief for me.

mlasser,

next time you fly OZ, you have to sit beside me.
I am always pampered by OZ FAs.

Here. Here.

I've only taken one flight on them betwen NRT and ICN. Was booked in C but aircraft flown was on a 3 class 747, so we were ended up in the F section. Which was nice. Food was fab too - but I guess one has to like Korean cuisine to understand what it is.

I enjoyed the flight so much that I'm choosing OZ over SQ on my next flight from ICN. Its good to have something different once in a while.

Now if you want 'bad' airlines - have you tried TK on their narrow bodied planes, or MS on the long haul First? I doubt mlasser would last more than an hour on them!

And I'm not flaming OZ as pointing out they have some crazy issues that are integrated into their system that make them not seem 5 star to me. That's it.

Even some 5star hotels make mistakes..I think service can be inconsistant even in SQ or NH..


Like other FTs comments, I think mlasser should try another OZ flight..

NWA and UA C over OZ F is..just wrong.. you should try UA F NRT-ICN and compare it with OZ F..

They don't even serve hot food (although the FA's on this route are sooo much nicer than some domestic FAs..:D)

also, the old 80's F lie flat seat is still comfortable isn't it? last time I flew ICN-JFK OZ F on the old plane they put really fuffy duvet and it was very nice....Do UA or NWA also provide duvets on their F? never tried intl UA F transpacific after horrible experience on their Intl. C class product..

Good work, A_Lee!

And some advice for mlasser: when you've dug yourself a hole, stop digging.

" Mlasser can jump from Plane and Land with(out) Parachute " :D


Now if you want 'bad' airlines - have you tried TK on their narrow bodied planes, or MS on the long haul First? I doubt mlasser would last more than an hour on them!

" Mlasser can jump from Plane and Land with(out) Parachute " :D

Now this is getting out of control!!!

off topic ;)

Now this is getting out of control!!!

off topic ;)

As long as there are enough passengers for OZ to stay in business, I'd be really glad for all the dislikers to fly on UA (or airline of choice). More room for me; fewer flights I can't get on.

In my experience SQ First>OS Business>LH Business>TG Business>NWA Business>UA Business>OZ First There seems to be consensus that OZ does not meet NH levels in First and certainly not Emirates and Qatar and BA and Quantas. That in my mind makes it hard to see how it's a 5 star airline. Of course if they were cheap I might fly them again and sure, I'd fly OZ First or Business over an American airlines coach product.

Suprising that you said OS business is better than LH...and that being over TG?? maybe is more like an one-off only..

This has gotten entirely too personal, and it also appears that the opinions have been fully expressed and the thread has run its course.

I will go ahead and close it to protect members from saying things about themselves and each other that may jeopardize their Flyertalk posting privileges.

Regards,
Gary
aka gleff
Senior moderator