AF vs BA Business
Feb 12, 2013, 9:26 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Location: BRU
Posts: 63
AF vs BA Business
I have been going crazy trying to make my mind up and, in desperation, am turning to the learned FlyerTalk community for help! 
I am planning on going to California for two weeks this summer with better half, the idea being to fly from BRU to SFO and back from LAX to BRU. British Airways and Air France both have competitive (i.e. really dirt cheap) fares in business, but I just cannot figure out which one would be better. I have taken several long-hauls with AF and have always loved the food and service (I realize that this makes me weird) and have never taken BA in business. I have looked around but have not found a definitive BA vs AF showdown thread.
As far as I can see, very generally speaking, the pros and cons are as follows:
AF
Easier trip from Brussels because of train (via TGV), crappier connection because of CDG.
Better food.
Good service, but aided by fact that I speak French.
A380 on the way back from LAX.
Have status so miles don't hurt.
Seats not ideal, but I tend to get "locked" into position because am very tall.
BA
Crappier trip from Brussels as one must take plane to LHR, better connection because of Terminal 5.
True flat-bed seats.
Questionable food.
No seat selection due to lack of status, becomes issue if middle seats not available as traveling with partner.
Have to change time zone twice during trip (CET->GMT->PST) instead of once (CET->PST).
Would anyone with more experience be able to provide some input please? Thank you!
I am planning on going to California for two weeks this summer with better half, the idea being to fly from BRU to SFO and back from LAX to BRU. British Airways and Air France both have competitive (i.e. really dirt cheap) fares in business, but I just cannot figure out which one would be better. I have taken several long-hauls with AF and have always loved the food and service (I realize that this makes me weird) and have never taken BA in business. I have looked around but have not found a definitive BA vs AF showdown thread.
As far as I can see, very generally speaking, the pros and cons are as follows:
AF
Easier trip from Brussels because of train (via TGV), crappier connection because of CDG.
Better food.
Good service, but aided by fact that I speak French.
A380 on the way back from LAX.
Have status so miles don't hurt.
Seats not ideal, but I tend to get "locked" into position because am very tall.
BA
Crappier trip from Brussels as one must take plane to LHR, better connection because of Terminal 5.
True flat-bed seats.
Questionable food.
No seat selection due to lack of status, becomes issue if middle seats not available as traveling with partner.
Have to change time zone twice during trip (CET->GMT->PST) instead of once (CET->PST).
Would anyone with more experience be able to provide some input please? Thank you!
Feb 12, 2013, 2:23 pm
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,719
In general, I consider that BA has a better J product, but I'll admit that your scenario is one where I would seriously hesitate.
PRO BA:
The one thing on which BA wins hands down is the comfort of their seat in sleeping position (and therefore sleeping on the return trip). In my view, there is no comparison between the fully flat BA seat and the 'sloppy' AF one.
Another BA positive is that BA have got multiple flights from LAX while AF only has the one A380 most days, which happens to leave too early to make it easy to sleep in my view.
It's always fun to experiment a new airline.
In my view, even the BA club lounges at T5 are nicer than the CDG lounges, and the OW lounges at LAX are much better than the ones AF use (even for the A380).
PRO AF:
This being said, in my view, there are quite a lot of reasons to prefer AF on your specific itinerary:
I like BA because I can get upper deck windows but I would hate to be stuck in a middle seat downstairs. Fully flat or not, I'd prefer an AF window any day over that. Granted, you can pay extra and book the seat of your choice on BA but I wouldn't blame you for 'philosophically' refusing to pay extra to choose a seat when travelling in J.
I really like the TGV connection of AF from/to BRU. The first class AF carriages are very nice, leaving from Gare du Midi is much nicer than having to go to horrid shopping-centre-of-an-airport Zaventem when you spend your time going up and down and after a long return flight it is nice to be on a train where you can stretch your legs and walk around.
Food is generally better on AF, but on the trip you are doing it will be MUCH better on AF. BA treats all of its North American flights including California and Mexico as 'second class citizens' food wise. It means that in J you get one hot meal and a poor afternoon tea outbound and a hot meal and a nasty breakfast with a ghastly bacon roll return. By contrast, on AF, these are considered extra long flights so you will get two full hot meals outbound and hot meal and hot breakfast return.
I prefer the entertainment selection on AF to than on BA (some people disagree) because you have more original/artsy/foreign films which I like while BA tends to focus on big Hollywood blockbusters only.
It would be a shame to do a trip like this and 'waste it' as a miles/status operation.
The A380 is a lovely plane to fly - especially if you haven't yet. Personally, I find its silent quality a big plus especially compared to the old and noisy 747s (upper deck slightly less bad but you are unlikely to get it without status and/or without paying)
Even though it is a minimal chance, there is always the very small chance of an upgrade on AF with your status, almost no chance on BA with no status.
All in all, I think that in your case I would actually choose AF over BA but the two have very different advantages/attractions.
PRO BA:
The one thing on which BA wins hands down is the comfort of their seat in sleeping position (and therefore sleeping on the return trip). In my view, there is no comparison between the fully flat BA seat and the 'sloppy' AF one.
Another BA positive is that BA have got multiple flights from LAX while AF only has the one A380 most days, which happens to leave too early to make it easy to sleep in my view.
It's always fun to experiment a new airline.
In my view, even the BA club lounges at T5 are nicer than the CDG lounges, and the OW lounges at LAX are much better than the ones AF use (even for the A380).
PRO AF:
This being said, in my view, there are quite a lot of reasons to prefer AF on your specific itinerary:
I like BA because I can get upper deck windows but I would hate to be stuck in a middle seat downstairs. Fully flat or not, I'd prefer an AF window any day over that. Granted, you can pay extra and book the seat of your choice on BA but I wouldn't blame you for 'philosophically' refusing to pay extra to choose a seat when travelling in J.
I really like the TGV connection of AF from/to BRU. The first class AF carriages are very nice, leaving from Gare du Midi is much nicer than having to go to horrid shopping-centre-of-an-airport Zaventem when you spend your time going up and down and after a long return flight it is nice to be on a train where you can stretch your legs and walk around.
Food is generally better on AF, but on the trip you are doing it will be MUCH better on AF. BA treats all of its North American flights including California and Mexico as 'second class citizens' food wise. It means that in J you get one hot meal and a poor afternoon tea outbound and a hot meal and a nasty breakfast with a ghastly bacon roll return. By contrast, on AF, these are considered extra long flights so you will get two full hot meals outbound and hot meal and hot breakfast return.
I prefer the entertainment selection on AF to than on BA (some people disagree) because you have more original/artsy/foreign films which I like while BA tends to focus on big Hollywood blockbusters only.
It would be a shame to do a trip like this and 'waste it' as a miles/status operation.
The A380 is a lovely plane to fly - especially if you haven't yet. Personally, I find its silent quality a big plus especially compared to the old and noisy 747s (upper deck slightly less bad but you are unlikely to get it without status and/or without paying)
Even though it is a minimal chance, there is always the very small chance of an upgrade on AF with your status, almost no chance on BA with no status.
All in all, I think that in your case I would actually choose AF over BA but the two have very different advantages/attractions.
Feb 13, 2013, 1:40 am
#7
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CDG/AMS
Programs: FB Plat for life, FB PC, M&M FT, Hertz President (+ many low tier cards)
Posts: 2,777
Btw, but this is more personal. I find the BA seats a bit claustrofobic, and also too short, but I'm 6'8". "coffin" is what has been going through my head whilst trying to catch some sleep....
Feb 13, 2013, 3:03 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hong Kong, France
Programs: FB , BA Gold
Posts: 15,647
BA has improved its food in J and I would rate food equivalent.
Service equivalent, although you can occasionally get an unmotivated crew on AF.
T5 at LHR is very nice with better lounge than CDG.
If 747 I very strongly advise you to buy an upper deck seat and choose a window seat, fabulous. Then it is a no-brainer. I do not share the philosophical view that it is bad that you have to pay a little extra for that. That is just part of the total cost. As a BA Gold, I am not in favor of allowing non-status guys to book an UD, but if that is you are non-status jump on the opportunity.
In a 10+hr flight, I always take a long 5h nap, so the bed is very important to me. And if you get a 777 with the old NEV2 seat in pairs or trio, you will be miserable (not that the NEV3 A380 seat is good).
Of course, connection times are important too. But BA has several flights to LAX.
Service equivalent, although you can occasionally get an unmotivated crew on AF.
T5 at LHR is very nice with better lounge than CDG.
If 747 I very strongly advise you to buy an upper deck seat and choose a window seat, fabulous. Then it is a no-brainer. I do not share the philosophical view that it is bad that you have to pay a little extra for that. That is just part of the total cost. As a BA Gold, I am not in favor of allowing non-status guys to book an UD, but if that is you are non-status jump on the opportunity.
In a 10+hr flight, I always take a long 5h nap, so the bed is very important to me. And if you get a 777 with the old NEV2 seat in pairs or trio, you will be miserable (not that the NEV3 A380 seat is good).
Of course, connection times are important too. But BA has several flights to LAX.
Last edited by brunos; Feb 13, 2013 at 3:34 am
Feb 13, 2013, 11:29 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,719
I don't really agree on that part. In my experience, the BA J food has not improved, it is just sometimes good sometimes not (including multiple experiences in 2013) but I would call it generally worse than AF, and much much worse for the second meal on those flights.
Service, I agree you sometimes get bad crew on AF but I have some on BA too, and AF has probably given me the occasional best crews in my life (when they are motivated they can be stunning). I would call the service side a tie by and large.
I do agree with you that the UD 744 windows are better than any seat one can get on AF by a distance so indeed if one pays for it, (and if indeed one flies on a 744 which is not the case of all flights to those destinations) it would give BA a clear edge on the hard product department.
I take Zembla's point on the M lounge which is indeed much nicer than the others, but otherwise I would prefer the BA lounges even without status, although that being said, also bear in mind that there is no lounge in pier C and as many long haul flights go from there and LHR is appalling at announcing delays, one can sometimes spent a long time outside of any lounges especially when The AF lounges win on only two aspects: showers (much less bad than BA's) and massage (much easier to get than on BA).
Service, I agree you sometimes get bad crew on AF but I have some on BA too, and AF has probably given me the occasional best crews in my life (when they are motivated they can be stunning). I would call the service side a tie by and large.
I do agree with you that the UD 744 windows are better than any seat one can get on AF by a distance so indeed if one pays for it, (and if indeed one flies on a 744 which is not the case of all flights to those destinations) it would give BA a clear edge on the hard product department.
I take Zembla's point on the M lounge which is indeed much nicer than the others, but otherwise I would prefer the BA lounges even without status, although that being said, also bear in mind that there is no lounge in pier C and as many long haul flights go from there and LHR is appalling at announcing delays, one can sometimes spent a long time outside of any lounges especially when The AF lounges win on only two aspects: showers (much less bad than BA's) and massage (much easier to get than on BA).
Feb 13, 2013, 9:12 pm
#11
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Barcelona, Catalunya
Posts: 2,109
Question is: are you actually going to sleep (a lot), i.e. are you going to enjoy BA's strongest selling point?
I assume you don't have any important meetings on arrival, so to me it seems that your trip is more about relaxing. From that point of view I think AF would be the better choice: you avoid BRU, enjoy the TGV in first class, get better food, better AVOD selection and you'll enjoy J in the A380.
And contrary to what some would like you to believe, the AF seats are not that bad that you will not get any sleep at all. (And maybe someone can confirm this, but traveling with a partner I think the seat layout in AF is actually nicer?)
Disclaimer: none of these airlines are my favourites, so I'm objective...
I assume you don't have any important meetings on arrival, so to me it seems that your trip is more about relaxing. From that point of view I think AF would be the better choice: you avoid BRU, enjoy the TGV in first class, get better food, better AVOD selection and you'll enjoy J in the A380.
And contrary to what some would like you to believe, the AF seats are not that bad that you will not get any sleep at all. (And maybe someone can confirm this, but traveling with a partner I think the seat layout in AF is actually nicer?)
Disclaimer: none of these airlines are my favourites, so I'm objective...
Feb 14, 2013, 1:48 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,719
The BA showers are clean too, but they are impractical and unpleasant in my view. The shower doors never shut properly which means that you either shower with a hand holding the door or water goes onto the floor. In fact, BA explicitly call these showers 'wet rooms' with reason. There is also no place to put your clothes, hand luggage, etc while AF have benches or tables for that (again depending on which lounge).
On travelling in duo, I don't really agree that the AF configuration is better than BA's. On BA, if you get a window/aisle pair you actually face each other and therefore see the other person which is rather pleasant (at least in my case considering my travelling companion!
).PS: Neither of those airlines are my favourite either so I am objective too
I would choose the new Alitalia, CX, NZ, or the best new DL configurations over either of those any day. The new AA looks very good too!
Feb 14, 2013, 3:16 am
#13
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CDG/AMS
Programs: FB Plat for life, FB PC, M&M FT, Hertz President (+ many low tier cards)
Posts: 2,777
Having said that: it's 2013 and spacious flat beds are the benchmark for me, not any of the above.
Feb 15, 2013, 5:04 am
#15
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Programs: FB
Posts: 125
In Business class you are paying for the seat.
BA are on their 2nd generation of flat bed.
- even 1000s of years ago cave men used flat beds to sleep.
But AF have yet to make their beds flat.
but I agree.. would you really want to fly into LHR?
However you are paying for the seat, so why pay all the money for a non-flat bed business seat?
BA are on their 2nd generation of flat bed.
- even 1000s of years ago cave men used flat beds to sleep.
But AF have yet to make their beds flat.
but I agree.. would you really want to fly into LHR?
However you are paying for the seat, so why pay all the money for a non-flat bed business seat?