CX vs. BA First Class
 

(Copy in BA forum) I have tried a few searches with little found. Who has flown in both CX and BA first class long haul, and generally what is the comparison. I will be traveling between HKG and LHR and am not sure who to choose. I flew CX first a few years ago and it was great, but didn't like the lack of power ports or a plug for your own headphones. Thanks!

CX food is great. BA seats are better. I am 6'6". The BA seats have the buddy seat which doubles as an ottoman and is also the end of the bed. Because it is solid, it does not flex like the CX seat. Having said that, both are nice and I am speaking as someone who has spent many 12 hour overnight flights on both airlines.

------------------
speedbird001

I agree.

With regards to the seat, I find BA's better in terms of comfort and 'stability'. Though there is a hump but I find it a gimmick and more or less uncomfortable.

BA's screen could do with some enlargement too.

Overall I rate Singapore Airlines' First Class as the best, and then BA and CX second. (CX has much better service. Food is more or less the same in terms of quality.)

Hope this helps

Not even close. CX wins hands down in every category, food, service, entertainment, lack of crowding, seats, ground service. Generally, CX believes in service, BA really couldn't be bothered. I have read conflicting reports on seats but I found that BA first left me feeling cramped and the cabin is far more crowded - I felt like a first class sardine. The only possible drawback to CX is that with the intense concern for your welfare you can almost start feeling like you are in hospital.

BA still has all plastic cutlery whereas CX only serves you a plastic knife - but a nice one at that !

Food - CX wins hands down. With recent cutbacks on BA, food and wine has suffered especially noticeable in the front cabin.

Personally I don't like the BA seats - I find them too hard. Plus cabin crew don't check on you like CX or SQ do when the lights go down. So many a times my glass of water does not get topped up until you ask for it.

HKG's THE WING wins hands down for preflight comfort too.

CX has 12 seats on their 747-400.

BA tries to cram in 14 seats on their 747-400 (the seats are slanted so they can fit into the cabin).

i prefer CX seat also.

and, needless to say, food/service/etc.

BA is better than any other airline, but signifiacntly behind CX. (perhaps SQ as well, which i havent tried)

Oh! Seems like I'm the odd one!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif i know a few people who prefer's BA's seat. the difference is small.
mainly, cx has 12 vs 14 for ba in the same area, and cx's has large side 'table' for 4A/4K, but not everybody like seat 4A/K.

digression, i am really interested in how you compare SQ's F with cx/ba

I took SQ's F on SIN-NRT last month. A few things that surprised me was that huge TV screen!, no duvet and the fruit plate they served was really cheap. It was a red eye so I didn't eat anything else.

I am impartial to SQ but that was a disappointment. Crew was great as usual, though.

But I admit this isn't really a long-haul flight. I am taking a return and probably do another return just to earn PPS sector counts.

I flew BA in first two days ago from London to Bangkok; SQ last month in F from LAX to Singapore and return; and UA frequently in F from LAX to Bangkok and Singapore. I'll be flying CX in F from Hong Kong to London in a few weeks so will then be able to compare the four with recent experience on all of them.

Right now, SQ wins hands down. Best seats, best service, and best food. Yes, they had duvets on the long hauls (but no cavier).

BA comes in second. The suites are sized like United's, but are more elegant. The service was professional and adequate. Food was good--not great, but I have no real complaints. The flight attendant told me the seats were recently redone with additional padding. BA was fine, but the suites are noticeably smaller than SQ's.

United is utilitarian. The 747 cabin is cramped with 14 suites (configured like BA's). They are a full inch narrower in the seat than those on the 777 (which is a spacious cabin). The suites are starting to show their wear and would never be described as elegant. The food is ok and the service perfunctary. The best feature is the large storage bin for all your goodies during the flight. SQ and BA lack those.

I rate these three in that order. I expect that CX will fit in between SQ and BA, but I'll give them a fair chance. It'll be an A340, so I'll probably complain about traffic through the cabin. We'll see.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Always Flyin:

Right now, SQ wins hands down. Best seats, best service, and best food. Yes, they had duvets on the long hauls (but no cavier).

I agree. Just took SQ from EWR-SIN-BKK on July 7. Each time I take SQ F it is consistent. I don't know what type of leather is used on CX and BA, but the supple leather used on the SQ chairs could not feel any finer!

We were served Caviar on the long haul. I'm surprised you weren't served it on your trip.

Hope to try CX in F in the next few months. I look forward to the comparison.

I've flown both CX and BA F on long hauls, and I'm not partial to either. The BA is more cramped with the two extra seats, but I felt like the BA cabin was more classy and sophisticated, while CX had more raw comfort.

You can't go wrong with either product, and a little change is fun from time to time. Try them both!

I disagree, SQ used to win hands-down, but for this year (2002) on my flights they rate well behind CX for in-flight service, and even further behind for ground service. SQ has cut spending a lot on food (maybe in half is my guess), and I have had a broken F seat for 5 flights in a row (and SQ thinks that is normal). It is a great seat when it is working, but too complicated to be reliable (CX seats have a manual over-ride, for example, so they still work even when broken -- but I've never had a broken CX seat yet).
In the past month I've taken 6 CX, 4 BA and 2 SQ long-haul F flights (over 7 hours; that seems to be the boundary for service level offered). In this sample, CX was a clear winner and had very consistent service. They were also able to handle a complicated ticketing change graciously (their F ground service is every bit as good as BA Special Services, for those who have discovered what that is). The food was of much higher quality than SQ (for the same route, HKG-SFO, so it is a fair comparison). The Kaiseki service (offered on a few Tokyo flights) is phenomenal for an airline, and better than the JAL F meal (in fact better than many Tokyo restaurants). The caviar is generously served and higher quality than SQ (or any other airline). Cabin service is good on all 3 but friendlier on CX; BA is a bit variable but can be very (very) good. SQ seems to have a morale problem this year.
It is a bit unfair to compare the airlines based on a few flights, as their equipment varies so much within type (for example, just on the 343s CX has 3 different F seat types, and 2 on the 744s).
BA (with a larger fleet) has even greater diversity in seat construction. The newer CX seats have (partially) fixed the problems of the older design, for example there is less flex in the newest CX seat. Also it has a movable armrest (a big advantage over the BA fixed design).
There has been a lot of change in F service this year, and SQ is fallilng, BA was falling but is now rebouding back, and CX is rising. I think it has a clear lead. I have the impression that CX does a lot of training for their staff and does a much better job of it than other airlines. They show a passion for their work, ingenuity in solving problems and grace in performance. And this behaviour is systemic -- something that I cannot say for many other airlines.

SQ does not serve caviar on "supper service" fligths but does serve it on dinner flights. This leads to very inconsistent service level, for example the (shorter) SIN-HKG flight has caviar (and a better meal) than the sans-caviar HKG-SFO sector of the same flight (which is about twice as long and twice the cost). But SQ serves "cheap" caviar now -- even LH has better quality! They should drop it if they don't have the budget. I agree that SQ is consistent, but it is just not as good as before or as good as CX.
The SQ seat is Connolly leather (same as Rolls-Royce uses) and is very nice. BA and CX have fabric seats (some people are allergic to leather, even Connolly, so this is a tricky choice for an airline).
SQ has Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee (only airline that does), but served only on request (I've never seen it offered); CX has better tea. They are both fine airlines, way above average, but the ranking this year is different from last year. SQ has to stop coasting upon its reputation.