theblakefish

What would you suggest is the best way to proceed from IAH to AMS? I have flown several times direct on the 767, but has anyone flown the IAH-EWR-AMS on the 777? What about the IAH-AMS 747 on KLM? I flew KLM last year from AMS-MUC and was amazed at how crappy that airline was, and wondered if that was equal to their transatlantic service? Thanks.

MBM3

IMHO, I would take the direct flight. Yes, the 777 has nicer BF seats but why add another couple hours to your trip.

I have taken KLM from AMS to MUC as well and thought they were pretty decent all things considered (beyond the joke of business class).

If you look at the NWA or KLM forums you will find decent reviews of KLM transatlantic service.

steve100

Would you really want to make your trip 2 to 4 hours longer just to fly a 777 versus a 767??????

RobOnLI

Continental is about to add a second-daily EWR-AMS flight. For a few days the flights will operate with a 764 & 777 respsectively. Soon after, both flights will become a 767 (one -200 & -400).

So depending on when you're flying, you may not have the option of a 777 to Amsterdam anyway.

CO is also adding a second IAH-AMS flight, but that will also be a 767.

I'd take CO over KLM across the pond anyday. While CO inflight staff tend to be rude, KLM is much worse IMO. I never fly KL trans-atl anymore.

-RM

sic incognito

Don´t agree with the CO staff being rude, but fully concur with the rest of the above.

On a side note, #46 IAH-AMS is the last one to arrive, which is in my opinion better to avoid a jet-lag.

vincom

I Flew KLM across the pond to TXL, KLM across the pond is totally decent... no PTVIFE tough and the 767 they use from EWR is old... I would have flown Continental with a AMS connection, but the fare was just too much of a difference (KLM 400, CO 950). AMS-TXL was another story... HORRIBLE. IntraEurope flights these days tend to be icky even from carriers with establish good reputations...

-Vincent

COFF-Platinum

I've done all options and permutations quite a few times over the last 5 years: KL, co non-stop, co via EWR both J and Y, DL via ATL, even AF via CDG.

I've settled pretty much for the non-stop 46&47. 47 is the last flight in from europe and all the immigration queues are gone by then. KL is usually (one of) the first flight in, so that is a good option as well, although I find that the late arrival does help me get adjusted quicker jetlag wise. KL does leave too early (4PM) for me to be able to sleep on the way back, CO46 is much better for that.

In terms of service, it's a mixed bag. KL has free booze and the FA's tend to be younger, blonder and taller. They may not respond well to demands for service, but generally do responed well to a friendly flirt. CO has (much) better IFE in Y, although in J it's very comparable. The 747 flies faster than the 767, which is about 30-45 minutes less time spent in the air. That might be a good or a bad thing.

Overall, I'd say:

1) CO 46/47
2) KL 661/662
3) CO 50-70/71-?? via EWR
9) DL via ATL
999) AF via CDG

Renard

I would say go with CO out of IAH to AMS nonstop. I've flown KLM to ams out of houston ...it is okay...the only reason I flew them was because it was 100% EQM on a very good fare. (I think it is still 100% EQM on all KLM ticketed/KLM metal flights) As someone else said, the IFE on KLM is bad. Everything else was 'okay'.

tw747

I have been on both KLM and CO to AMS. If you are flying BF, then you want to fly CO. If you are flying coach, I find the seats on KLM 747 much more comfortable. The food is from CO's kitchens, and the low sodium meal is generally better than the run of the mill that is served. Drinks are free on the KLM flight, unlike CO. The drawback is no IFE, but if you plan on sleeping, take KLM.

theblakefish

You mean that KLM doesn't have IFE? An airline that only has like 3 domestic destinations, and thus about 98% of their flights are international, does not have IFE. Especially on the 747-400. True?

vincom

KLM is a little late in deploing PTV IFE. All KLM longhual flights have IFE on over head screen and etc, or even the classic main show projections in coach. WBC on KLM always has PTV, as well as all 777 flights (WBC and Coach) .

As KLM replaces thier fleet (or upgrades) they are adding PTV IFE. Since they plan on retiring such aircraft as the767-300 and MD11 the real cost benefit of installing IFE cant be realiezed. Infact the A330 replacements for the 767 will have PTV IFE for coach... and those are arrving soon....


-Vincent

senatorgirth

I, too, have done both and agree with the above: CO in J, KL in Y (not considering flight times, of course).

theblakefish

I wonder if UA will consider ever increasing the capacity IAH-AMS in the future. I mean, there has been a plane on this route since the early 1960's (I think), and methinks that, if UA doesn't move away from the 767 on this route, than KL might move the 747-combi out and use a 744, or perhaps reinstate the MD-11 service that they had way back when...since the move to *A, I really miss connecting in AMS...

bsmnsr

The KL 747 is an older aircraft but if you can get in the section of the front left of the aircraft opposite the galley, it doesn't feel like a winged bus.

If you're flying economy, that is.

Regardless of what class, my experience is FAs on KL will be more pleasant and professional than FAs on UA.