Manchester to Hong Kong and back in United First
Jan 2, 2004, 11:37 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: From and of Boston.
Posts: 4,973
Manchester to Hong Kong and back in United First
MHT-ORD UA455
ORD-HKG UA 895
HKG-ORD UA 896
ORD-MHT UA 1214
It’s been awhile since I’d flown UA Int’l F, and I was not expecting a Cathay, or even British Airways, experience. This was a saver award that I’d originally booked on ANA, but some unforeseen last-minute events resulted in a need to change travel dates, and the UA award seats were available.
I very much prefer United’s schedule to Hong Kong to that of Cathay. Almost all of CX’s flights leave late at night, resulting in a gruesomely long travel day from Boston. The UA connection through ORD makes the trip enormously shorter and more convenient. MHT (Manchester NH, for those of you who haven’t memorized the codes for every rinky-dink airport on the planet) had good connections to ORD, and parking at MHT would save >$100 compared to BOS.
The MHT check-in agent handled the fairly complex ticketing (changing a paper ticket to electronic, collecting a change fee, reimbursing a portion of the taxes paid) without a hint of a scowl; he obviously hadn’t been trained by the BOS agents. My seatmate and his colleague in the next row were also headed to HKG, hoping for F. Apparently, their company has a deal with UA where they are upgraded from paid C to F for no extra charge when space is available. (It’d be interesting to know their priority on an upgrade list, but that’s another issue.)
I did not find the Int’l-F lounge at ORD to be the most welcoming of places. The staff were friendly enough, and they were the highlight of the lounge experience. The seating was crowded (lots and lots of empty chairs close together) and generally uncomfortable, the food (snacks and some not-very-fresh sandwiches) unappealing. A pleasant surprise was the booze selection, which included Campari. (Though whoever thought it would be a good idea to refrigerate the Bailey’s should be caned.) When the flight was called, a lounge agent led another customer and me to the plane, bypassing the gate scrum.
The F section was full, and I was pleased with 2J. The amenity kits and menus were handed out before we left the gate, and lunch and orders were taken by row, not (apparently) by MP status.
I found the United First Suite to be extremely comfortable for sleeping. The zillion different positions made it easy to find one that was comfortable, and the cocoon effectively blocked out anything that was going on in the cabin. I’m 5’9, however, and my feet were against the wall at the foot of the bed; I suspect that some taller people would have difficulty finding a comfortable position when the bed is flat.
The cabin itself is much more crowded than the CX cabin (owing in large part to 14 seats compared to CX’s 12), and the ambience of the UA cabin is just about nil. I did like the storage area between the seat and the window – a perfect place to keep a toiletries bag that I might need during the flight and other little items that always seem to find their ways to undesirable locations.
The cabin crew were attentive, coming through the cabin regularly to check on our needs. At least one of them always stood guard at the lavs, keeping them for use by F customers.
One should not hop on a United plane in anticipation of a great meal. The champagne was Billecart-Salmon, which was excellent, but things went downhill from there. I got the filet mignon, which had a taste and texture of pot roast. I forget what else might have been part of the meal, but none of it was to be recommended. The second meal was a choice of pasta or fruit (no meat) – seemed to me an awfully scant 2nd meal in F for a scheduled 16-hour flight.
The flight route itself was fascinating, as we never crossed the Pacific. Instead, the flight path took us over the Arctic Ocean, well north of Alaska and within 600 miles of the North Pole. (I know this ‘cause I asked the FA to ask the flight crew.) We had a tailwind virtually all the way, so the actual flight time was ‘only’ about 14h30m.
Baggage handling in HKG was impressive. The MHT agent had put a 1st-class tag on my suitcase, and it was delivered no more than 10 or 15 minutes after we arrived at the gate. (I didn’t specifically time it, but it probably took 10 minutes to reach and clear immigration, and I waited no more than a minute or two for my bag.)
I split 10 days in Hong Kong between the InterContinental and Conrad and plopped some info in their respective forums. Or fora, if you’re one of those people.
On the return flight, check-in was especially easy and friendly, and the agent was able to change my seat to the always-desirable 2J. United’s 1st lounge in HKG is much nicer than the one in their ORD home: the HKG lounge had a wonderful selection of food (3 or 4 types of very good dim sum, plus hot western breakfast items), and the ambience of the room was far cozier than Chicago’s. The staff weren’t as friendly or helpful though, and we weren’t escorted to the plane. Amazingly enough, we still made it to the plane on our own.
The F cabin crew for HKG-ORD was the type of which legends are made. One FA did not walk but shuffled to get anywhere, and never at a dangerous speed. The other FA tried a bit harder, but not by much. If ever a cabin crew was the embodiment of doing the minimum required, it was these two FAs. Service was never with a smile, and thank you’s would routinely go unacknowledged. I was once foolish enough to press the FA call button in the middle of the flight to ask for a water bottle; after 10 minutes I got up to get my own. Needless to say, they made no effort to keep the F lavs for the F customers, and waits to use the lavs were not uncommon. I saw no evidence that the lavs were cleaned at any time during the flight. This cabin crew was puttin’ in their time, and they were very clearly making no effort to please United’s best customers.
No matter, though: the First Suite was just as comfortable on the way back as on the way over. On the way back to Chicago, we crossed the Pacific and not the Arctic – I’d estimate that the eastbound flight path was at least 1000 miles south of the westbound.
Baggage handing in ORD was again excellent, and the transfer of bags after going through customs was quick and efficient. I had an hour to kill before the short flight to MHT, but saw no reason to trek to the Intl-F lounge, as my flight would leave from the B concourse. An RCC was adjacent to my gate, and it proved to be a marginally better place to wait than the terminal itself. (Good grief, not even a restroom in the RCC!?!)
The flight to Manchester was uneventful (though a Southwest captain just behind us apparently wasn’t all that thrilled with ATC when he had to execute a missed approach), and baggage handling was again surprisingly good (and far quicker than I’m accustomed to on AA). MHT is a delightful little airport, maybe not quite as charming as when they’d collect parking fees by putting an envelope on your windshield and asking you to mail back the $1/night charge, but nonetheless perfectly ok. Such a shame that it’s in NH.
Anyway, traveling UA in F really isn’t all that bad, as long as you set your expectations low enough. You wouldn’t go into Applebee’s or TGI Friday’s expecting fine food and personalized service, and that’s more or less the way it is on UA.
[This message has been edited by wideman (edited Jan 02, 2004).]
ORD-HKG UA 895
HKG-ORD UA 896
ORD-MHT UA 1214
It’s been awhile since I’d flown UA Int’l F, and I was not expecting a Cathay, or even British Airways, experience. This was a saver award that I’d originally booked on ANA, but some unforeseen last-minute events resulted in a need to change travel dates, and the UA award seats were available.
I very much prefer United’s schedule to Hong Kong to that of Cathay. Almost all of CX’s flights leave late at night, resulting in a gruesomely long travel day from Boston. The UA connection through ORD makes the trip enormously shorter and more convenient. MHT (Manchester NH, for those of you who haven’t memorized the codes for every rinky-dink airport on the planet) had good connections to ORD, and parking at MHT would save >$100 compared to BOS.
The MHT check-in agent handled the fairly complex ticketing (changing a paper ticket to electronic, collecting a change fee, reimbursing a portion of the taxes paid) without a hint of a scowl; he obviously hadn’t been trained by the BOS agents. My seatmate and his colleague in the next row were also headed to HKG, hoping for F. Apparently, their company has a deal with UA where they are upgraded from paid C to F for no extra charge when space is available. (It’d be interesting to know their priority on an upgrade list, but that’s another issue.)
I did not find the Int’l-F lounge at ORD to be the most welcoming of places. The staff were friendly enough, and they were the highlight of the lounge experience. The seating was crowded (lots and lots of empty chairs close together) and generally uncomfortable, the food (snacks and some not-very-fresh sandwiches) unappealing. A pleasant surprise was the booze selection, which included Campari. (Though whoever thought it would be a good idea to refrigerate the Bailey’s should be caned.) When the flight was called, a lounge agent led another customer and me to the plane, bypassing the gate scrum.
The F section was full, and I was pleased with 2J. The amenity kits and menus were handed out before we left the gate, and lunch and orders were taken by row, not (apparently) by MP status.
I found the United First Suite to be extremely comfortable for sleeping. The zillion different positions made it easy to find one that was comfortable, and the cocoon effectively blocked out anything that was going on in the cabin. I’m 5’9, however, and my feet were against the wall at the foot of the bed; I suspect that some taller people would have difficulty finding a comfortable position when the bed is flat.
The cabin itself is much more crowded than the CX cabin (owing in large part to 14 seats compared to CX’s 12), and the ambience of the UA cabin is just about nil. I did like the storage area between the seat and the window – a perfect place to keep a toiletries bag that I might need during the flight and other little items that always seem to find their ways to undesirable locations.
The cabin crew were attentive, coming through the cabin regularly to check on our needs. At least one of them always stood guard at the lavs, keeping them for use by F customers.
One should not hop on a United plane in anticipation of a great meal. The champagne was Billecart-Salmon, which was excellent, but things went downhill from there. I got the filet mignon, which had a taste and texture of pot roast. I forget what else might have been part of the meal, but none of it was to be recommended. The second meal was a choice of pasta or fruit (no meat) – seemed to me an awfully scant 2nd meal in F for a scheduled 16-hour flight.
The flight route itself was fascinating, as we never crossed the Pacific. Instead, the flight path took us over the Arctic Ocean, well north of Alaska and within 600 miles of the North Pole. (I know this ‘cause I asked the FA to ask the flight crew.) We had a tailwind virtually all the way, so the actual flight time was ‘only’ about 14h30m.
Baggage handling in HKG was impressive. The MHT agent had put a 1st-class tag on my suitcase, and it was delivered no more than 10 or 15 minutes after we arrived at the gate. (I didn’t specifically time it, but it probably took 10 minutes to reach and clear immigration, and I waited no more than a minute or two for my bag.)
I split 10 days in Hong Kong between the InterContinental and Conrad and plopped some info in their respective forums. Or fora, if you’re one of those people.
On the return flight, check-in was especially easy and friendly, and the agent was able to change my seat to the always-desirable 2J. United’s 1st lounge in HKG is much nicer than the one in their ORD home: the HKG lounge had a wonderful selection of food (3 or 4 types of very good dim sum, plus hot western breakfast items), and the ambience of the room was far cozier than Chicago’s. The staff weren’t as friendly or helpful though, and we weren’t escorted to the plane. Amazingly enough, we still made it to the plane on our own.
The F cabin crew for HKG-ORD was the type of which legends are made. One FA did not walk but shuffled to get anywhere, and never at a dangerous speed. The other FA tried a bit harder, but not by much. If ever a cabin crew was the embodiment of doing the minimum required, it was these two FAs. Service was never with a smile, and thank you’s would routinely go unacknowledged. I was once foolish enough to press the FA call button in the middle of the flight to ask for a water bottle; after 10 minutes I got up to get my own. Needless to say, they made no effort to keep the F lavs for the F customers, and waits to use the lavs were not uncommon. I saw no evidence that the lavs were cleaned at any time during the flight. This cabin crew was puttin’ in their time, and they were very clearly making no effort to please United’s best customers.
No matter, though: the First Suite was just as comfortable on the way back as on the way over. On the way back to Chicago, we crossed the Pacific and not the Arctic – I’d estimate that the eastbound flight path was at least 1000 miles south of the westbound.
Baggage handing in ORD was again excellent, and the transfer of bags after going through customs was quick and efficient. I had an hour to kill before the short flight to MHT, but saw no reason to trek to the Intl-F lounge, as my flight would leave from the B concourse. An RCC was adjacent to my gate, and it proved to be a marginally better place to wait than the terminal itself. (Good grief, not even a restroom in the RCC!?!)
The flight to Manchester was uneventful (though a Southwest captain just behind us apparently wasn’t all that thrilled with ATC when he had to execute a missed approach), and baggage handling was again surprisingly good (and far quicker than I’m accustomed to on AA). MHT is a delightful little airport, maybe not quite as charming as when they’d collect parking fees by putting an envelope on your windshield and asking you to mail back the $1/night charge, but nonetheless perfectly ok. Such a shame that it’s in NH.
Anyway, traveling UA in F really isn’t all that bad, as long as you set your expectations low enough. You wouldn’t go into Applebee’s or TGI Friday’s expecting fine food and personalized service, and that’s more or less the way it is on UA.
[This message has been edited by wideman (edited Jan 02, 2004).]
Jan 2, 2004, 12:10 pm
#2
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas
Programs: AA PLT/5MM; AS MVP GLD 75K; DL DM; EK SLV; HHonors DIAM; Marriott GLD
Posts: 4,092
Great report; your observations although somewhat disappointing, don't surprise me. In contrast, I have found UA's intra-Asia flights in F to be fairly delightful. Typically, the short-haul Asian routes have excellent ground service and the crews appear to be primarily Asia-based, therefore lacking the surliness and sense of entitlement that is all too common among U.S.-based FAs.
Jan 2, 2004, 6:07 pm
#3
Join Date: Dec 2000
Programs: AA Platinum 1MM, AC SE*100k, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,353
Wideman,
great report.. I too was disguisted at the service on UAL for First class passengers..
See my previous report which echoes your sentiments.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum81/HTML/004003.html
One of these days, something must be done.. I refuse to fly F on UA.
great report.. I too was disguisted at the service on UAL for First class passengers..
See my previous report which echoes your sentiments.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum81/HTML/004003.html
One of these days, something must be done.. I refuse to fly F on UA.
Jan 5, 2004, 12:57 pm
#6
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Central New Jersey
Programs: UA-Platimum 2 MM, HH-Gold, MR-Lifetime Gold, Hyatt-Discoverist
Posts: 6,238
Good report, and echos my recent experience in UA F IAD-EZE, where I should have heeded the advice of FT'ers and not wasted the miles to upgrade from C!
Jan 5, 2004, 6:15 pm
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: From and of Boston.
Posts: 4,973
I want to make it clear that I did not think that UA's F product is miserable and awful. My first priority on a very long flight (and ORD-HKG is 16 hours) is a comfortable place to sleep, and the First Suite provided that opportunity.
I also never saw an FA scowl or heard one growl. Some FAs seemed indifferent to passengers, but I did not see any who were rude or antagonistic.
I wouldn't pay retail price for UA's F, but I don't believe that very many people do: the people sitting in the pointy end get there either through deep corporate discounts, corporate or FF upgrades, or award tickets.
If the average revenue traveler in United F pays about 60-70% of what the average revenue traveler pays in SQ or CX, that seems to me to be an equitable arrangement.
I also never saw an FA scowl or heard one growl. Some FAs seemed indifferent to passengers, but I did not see any who were rude or antagonistic.
I wouldn't pay retail price for UA's F, but I don't believe that very many people do: the people sitting in the pointy end get there either through deep corporate discounts, corporate or FF upgrades, or award tickets.
If the average revenue traveler in United F pays about 60-70% of what the average revenue traveler pays in SQ or CX, that seems to me to be an equitable arrangement.
Jan 15, 2004, 10:40 pm
#9
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The World! Home Base = DCA/IAD
Programs: HHonors, Hyatt GP, Marriott, Varying Levels w/ UA /AF /DL /SQ /AA
Posts: 2,665
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by wideman:
I’m 5’9, however, and my feet were against the wall at the foot of the bed; I suspect that some taller people would have difficulty finding a comfortable position when the bed is flat.</font>
I’m 5’9, however, and my feet were against the wall at the foot of the bed; I suspect that some taller people would have difficulty finding a comfortable position when the bed is flat.</font>
One suggestion for those who find their feet wedged into the bottom of the suite: After you recline the seat, lower the armrest and *push yourself up as high as you can go toward the head of the bed.* I'm 6'1" (6'2" if I stop slouching), and I *finally* discovered, last week, after umpteen trips in the suites, that if you do this, sleeping is just fine. Since the thing is flat, you don't slide down. I'm a side sleeper, so if you're a back-sleeper, your mileage may vary.
Thanks again for a terrific write-up.
Will
[This message has been edited by TravelinWilly (edited Jan 15, 2004).]
Jan 16, 2004, 2:37 am
#10
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FRA
Posts: 2,175
thank you, wideman
as was forced to learn seven years of Latin in school and I am very thankful for the "fora"
))))
by the way, i will be flying UA F suites for the first time in March and like to know why 2J is such a good seat ...
as was forced to learn seven years of Latin in school and I am very thankful for the "fora"
))))by the way, i will be flying UA F suites for the first time in March and like to know why 2J is such a good seat ...
Jan 16, 2004, 4:45 am
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: From and of Boston.
Posts: 4,973
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Uli:
[I'd] like to know why 2J is such a good seat</font>
[I'd] like to know why 2J is such a good seat</font>
- 1A and 1J are relatively close to each other, and I also do not care to sit directly in front of the headwall.
- The aisle seats in rows 3 and 4 are very close to the center seats in those rows.
- The center seats in rows 3 and 4 have the least privacy; they are best for 2 people traveling together who want to sit in adjacent seats.
- The seats in row 5 are next to the galley and lavs, and they suffer from the noises and other sensory delights associated with those loci.
Never studied Latin, but enjoyed using loci nonetheless. --Wideman