Aa or ba for 1st class
 

I'm heading to AUH via LHR from ORD, I'll be in 1st using miles. Currently im on AA to LHR and then BA to AUH and the same coming back, I may be able to get BA the whole route vs AA, does anyone have any thoughts on if that experience would be much better?

BA is much better in many ways:

- Lounges, particularly returning w CCR at T5
- Pre-Flight dining at ORD
- Pajamas and mattress for bed/sleep
- Thicker curtains and carpets to reduce noise from galley, etc, provide a quieter atmosphere
- Generally better menu, served a la carter when you want
- Better wines
- More consistent inflight service compared to AA

The only thing AA has going for it are:

- Flagship Suites are a bit more spacious
- AA doesn't have a fuel surcharge, so it will be cheaper

If I were you, I'd rethink taking either BA or AA in First, and would choose RJ in Business. The connections in AMM are excellent (and therefore the overall travel time is considerably shorter) and the RJ service is superb. You'll save lots of $$$ of YQ (fuel fines), some AA miles, and most importantly, loads of potential grief at LHR. To the extent that LHR is avoidable, you should strongly consider avoiding it. Taking BA or AA has you on a 2:35 am flight from AUH, with an unpleasantly lengthy stop at LHR (i.e. from 6:25 am to 11:40 am), whereas RJ leaves AUH at 8:00 am (but arrives in ORD just an hour or so later than either the AA or BA connections). To me, the RJ flight times are vastly superior.

I checked the rj ord amm flight and They just show business not first class sleepers, have you flown it where they have sleepers?

I don't quite understand why so many people hate LHR with such a passion. I find it normally pleasant. As for F in BA or AA: most people here probably would go for BA ('handsdown'). I find AA service and cabin perfectly acceptable in the premium cabins with better food at least. Sleeping is a bit better on BA though.

While I don't personally hate LHR with a passion, I find the fact that you have to go through a (badly run and always understaffed) "security" screening on connecting flights a complete hassle and one where your oneworld status is not recognized, and the additional "conformance" check and associated lines an absolute head scratcher customer dissatisfying bureaucratic hurdle. Don't get me started if you're arriving and departing from T5B: they train you to T5A so you can line up twice for "conformance" and "security" and then train you back to T5B. And if it snows 5cm, then all hell breaks loose.

Personally, I think LHR as a shopping mall rather than a connecting hub. As a mall, it's very pleasant indeed, but as a tool for facilitating travel, not very. Would rather connect through AMS or ZRH every day, or any of the US hubs.

RJ is actually a good suggestion. They have no F class so J is their top class. Their A340s have full flat bed seats and the service is excellent. I don't think they have powerports however. The lounge in AMM is quite good.

Agreed, though the RJ idea is a good one. I don't know much about it; if you're looking for a truly F experience, then you might want to stick with BA.

It sounds like the AVOD on BA and AA is better than on RJ (from the descriptions provided on websites).

I don't understand this, are you travelling in Y class?

Otherwise, BA to BA in premium cabins, you'll get a fastrack card and be thru immigration in 5 minutes and then into the fastrack security lane, which in my experience is another 10 minutes. Then you have some very nice lounges, especially if you are in F.

I have nonstops to AMS, FRA, CDG and LHR from my home airport, and since I've started favoring BA/LHR I have been very happy. I avoided LHR like the plague until T5 was finished, since then it is up there at the top, the need for a (quick) immigration and security checks notwithstanding. Don't even get me started on the US airports (which AA, DL and UA try to route me thru)... JFK preferable to LHR?? Certainly not for me...

A few years ago, my trans-atlantic flight was on BA to LHR and on AA from LHR. In addition to better first class service on BA, the overall condition of the cabin was also better.

Since the new AA/BA/IB partnership didn't exist at that time, I flew to YYZ in order to fly on BA using my miles.

^^ Plus a chance at new F on BA, though even BA old F beats AA F.

BA by a long shot, better Service and equipment.

I know most FTers will rant and moan about AA while raving and exclaiming about BA, but my experience has been more mixed. BA has sleep pads and PJs, and overall better food, but the old (haven't flown new yet) BA F is not near as nice as the old AA F (Flagship Suites) which are more spacious and swivel to provide more flexibility. While the BA F lounges are overall nicer than the AA Flagship Lounges, the food is nowhere near as good as people say. I suspect people let their expectations color their judgement.

So, BA F or AA F? Why not fly one outbound and the other return and see for yourself? Then you'll get to try both for yourself.

What're T5A and T5B? I've done the dreaded T3-T5 and T5=T3 shuffle, which are both very annoying, but I thought that when connecting within T5 it would be fast and easy. I happen to have an upcoming trip with only about an hour for this, which is legal.

So then you admit that airside connections at LHR - even in the same terminal - are so cumbersome and badly organised that it is better to clear immigration and re-enter the terminal? ;) (Which could be a problem for those who need a visa to enter the UK.)

Not sure why you didn't mention CCR on the outbound as well. Means a nice sit down breakfast.

Also BA all the way avoids the terminal changes at LHR described by anabolism.

^