Originally Posted by norodnik
value for money is questionable.
Yes, if you fly through FRA its cheaper in J but:
1) You have all the hassle of getting to and back from FRA
2) Per point 1, your day is going to be much longer
3) WT+ can be as expensive as LH C, but it can also be half the price. So, on value for money, WT + direct for 50% off direct would win everytime with me.
4) The LH lounges are so bad, there is little difference between standing in or outside, therefore this point is void.
5) LH seats are better than WT+ but you still get jammed in by the window, or have the window crawling over you if you are in the aisle. Being Old/Old club style seats you would have only a marginally better chance of getting some rest than WT +.
Its obvious I loathe LH and thats mainly because on all 6 longhaul flights I have either been treated appalingly and been totally unimpressed by everything to do with them.
Speaking of which, I am just off to SFO and had the chance to go LH via FRA for about £1600 in club or fly WT+ to Denver and on from there at less than half this cost. (almost no availability 12/13th back from the West Coast next week, hence the need to go via somewhere)
Needless to say, WT+ wins
1) Not if you need to fly from MAN Anyway, more miles in LH MAN-FRA in C than BA MAN-LHR in Y (and more space) [and this question is for SFO-India, so a change somewhere, anyway]
2) See 1.
3) We've already established that WT+ to LH C is like comparing apples to oranges. Though for for the route in question, the price is similar.
4) Free food and drink and and a nice seat or not. I know which I'd take.
5) I've yet to be attacked by a window, though I await the experience. IMHO the best seat in LH C (and I am by no means a regular) are the centre seats. They manage to avoid the crawling window.
Originally Posted by norodnik
Its obvious I loathe LH
'nuff said