Originally Posted by
SFO777
Why is everyone surprised? OP chose UA instead of NH or JL. Next time, make a better choice.
It's really up to the discretion of the pilot. We don't have the luxury of seeing what the radar was showing them prior to landing and for all we know it could've been severe turbulence on the radar. For all we know the pilot got lucky and dodged all the turbulence on their radar! It's always better to be safe rather than sorry and perhaps UA should have provided some service gesture (i.e. $20 ETC) to soften the blow.
As we all should know whether you get turbulence and the severity of it is very much the role of the dice. For instance, a couple of weeks ago I had a long-haul domestic flight (LHR > LAX) and never encountered any turbulence in spite of it crossing a puddle and being in a heavily travelled air track. In fact I don't recall the seatbelt sign coming on. Fast forward a week later and I'm flying YUL > YSJ and had one of the roughest landings due to turbulence.
Having flown NH, I would agree with you that the service is nicer/friendlier but there when booking flights there are many other factors to consider. For instance OP may have preferred to land in EWR rather than JFK. Access to Polaris Lounges (which I don't believe are at JFK yet) whilst travelling to TYO may be another factor. Then of course there is cost for which UA does a pretty good job undercutting the Asian competition on.
-James