interleukin

Hey, I am travelling to MUC in Y in Feb and I typically try to avoid LH and AC in Y when I can. Unfortunately these are my two options for work this time and I am looking for some advice.

I am travelling YYZ-MUC on AC 767 __OR__ YUL-MUC on LH's A340-300.

Wondering about any feedback. I haven't read too many positive things about LH's Y transatlantic service on 343's.

Thanks.

Leora

Honestly, I didn't think LH's 343 Y service was any different than any other TATL Y service I have experienced. An hour or so into the flight, you get some slop dumped on your plate, and then you get left alone unless you buzz over the FA. It's crowded and uncomfortable, yes.

Also, maybe it has just been my experience, but all my Lufthansa long haul flights have had significantly less families with small children on them compared with AC.... anyone else?

If you are SE, it could make more sense to book with AC since you might get an upgrade to a pod.

ACA321

The other thing to watch out for is mileage accrual, if it's important to you. Depending on which fare class your LH flight would be on, you may earn 50% or even 0 miles. I learned this the hard way a couple years ago on the LH flight from YYZ-DUS.

Can't say the service in Y is better or worse on either carrier. I've had hit and miss experiences on both.

Guy Betsy

I also think that LH's aircrafts have slightly less seat pitch than on AC's 767-300s.

nave888

I agree that there is little difference in Y. That being said, I'd pick AC because:

1- You're SE....might get an upgrade! Chances of that on LH is slim to none. Probably won't happen anyways, but it would be a nice surprise!

2- LH's carry on policy annoys me, and I don't like being made to feel like a criminal for carrying my normal bag on.

3- Stat miles! LH has some fares that only make 50% stat. miles on TATL flights, whereas AC is much clearer with this.

4- If there's a problem (ie. plane goes tech), you're much better off in YYZ. If the LH plane were to have issues in YUL, chances are you'd end up in YYZ before heading out to MUC anyways!

That being said, either is good! Its not as though one is far superior to the other, but I honestly don't see any big difference with LH over AC.

g46r

There's a particular version of AC's 763 that has 34-inch pitch in row 12, 13 and 14 - those can be pre-selected by E and SE.

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Air..._767-300_3.php

I know those are used on YVR-PVG. You can check the seatmap and see if they're being used on your route.

172pilot

I'd personally take AC. While living in Europe I flew both back and forth and found AC to be generally more comfortable. LH has an annoying habit of leaving the cabin lights on far too long (drinks, followed by dinner, followed by duty free) whereas AC seems to get it done a lot faster. Also you won't necessarily have access to the preferred seats on LH where on AC you do. This is huge when flying in Y. Another minor point - the 767 like other Boeing products has a faster cruise speed. In this case 567 mph vs. 537mph. Depending on winds and routing this can result in a reduced flight time of up to 30mins.

g46r

Not true for 767. It's designed to cruise at Mach 0.80, while A-340 is designed to cruise at Mach 0.82.

777 cruises a bit faster, at Mach 0.84.

WhiteYUL

Not much difference, IME, between a 763 and 343. 777 greater difference. 744 or AC's old 74E's across the pond made a noticeable difference. I recall, while on the 74E, overtaking a DL 764 over the Atlantic. TPAC 343 v. 744 was an even bigger difference.

jlisi984

Legroom is a big deal, as in LH's annoying carry on policy. I like AC's IFE more too. I'd take AC.

Jasper2009

I´d agree AC is the better choice:

- guaranteed 100% status miles in T+ on AC metal + 100% bonus miles as a SE (vs. 0%-100% status miles on LH + 25% bonus miles)
- you can select exit row / preferred seats free of charge on AC as a SE
- AC will take care of you as a SE in the unlikely event of irrops
- smaller plane (less pax = more comfortable IMO)

Hard product and service are pretty comparable on LH and AC. Food/drinks are slightly better on LH IMO. (though I may be biased as I despise the wrap thing and the "continental breakfast snack" aka brick stone muffin on AC which I both refuse to eat)

Mauricio23

If you are 5'9" or taller, LH's Y seats are straight out of the Spanish Inquisition. AC gives you at least an extra inch. Also, as SE, you get to reserve bulkheads on AC, not on LH. On a TATL, these things matter. Flying AC would be a no-brainer to me.

jlisi984

Indeed, I suffered a MUC-SFO LH flight in the back of the bus. To date it is my longest flight in duration...

Symmetre

Count mine as another vote for the AC 767, for all the reasons previously mentioned.

My only beef with the 767 is that the overhead bins are not exactly spacious - especially those provided for the three seats in the middle of the cabin. A standard 20-inch bag barely fits, while a 20-inch widebody bag doesn't fit at all.

The overheads for the twin seats down each side of the plane are a little bit larger, but not by much. They just barely eat a 20-inch widebody carry-on.

Otherwise, IMHO the AC 767 beats the LH 340 in every way.