CX 77W or QF 388 in F?
Dec 16, 2013, 12:46 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Southern California
Programs: Alaska MVPG; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 223
CX 77W or QF 388 in F?
Trying to get feedback from those who have flown both products recently and can give a good comparison, as both seem to be very popular with FT members and generally considered the top flight options in OW.
Ignoring mileage cost and time, which product would you prefer, a CX 77W from LAX to HKG, or QF 388 from LAX to SYD. Ultimately, I am going to end up in Sydney, either by direct routing (QF) or with a short hop through HKG (CX), connecting in J on a CX redeye in the new Cirrus seat.
Based on what I've read and heard, CX seems to win on service, as there are only 6 pax max per flight and QF seems to win on food, while both products are pretty similar in terms of seat/hard product comfort.
The novelty of flying the 388 in F is tough to ignore, especially for 15 hours. However, I do like caviar and Krug.
Thoughts?
Ignoring mileage cost and time, which product would you prefer, a CX 77W from LAX to HKG, or QF 388 from LAX to SYD. Ultimately, I am going to end up in Sydney, either by direct routing (QF) or with a short hop through HKG (CX), connecting in J on a CX redeye in the new Cirrus seat.
Based on what I've read and heard, CX seems to win on service, as there are only 6 pax max per flight and QF seems to win on food, while both products are pretty similar in terms of seat/hard product comfort.
The novelty of flying the 388 in F is tough to ignore, especially for 15 hours. However, I do like caviar and Krug.
Thoughts?
Dec 16, 2013, 2:10 pm
#2
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SAN
Programs: Lots of faux metal
Posts: 6,427
Trying to get feedback from those who have flown both products recently and can give a good comparison, as both seem to be very popular with FT members and generally considered the top flight options in OW.
Ignoring mileage cost and time, which product would you prefer, a CX 77W from LAX to HKG, or QF 388 from LAX to SYD. Ultimately, I am going to end up in Sydney, either by direct routing (QF) or with a short hop through HKG (CX), connecting in J on a CX redeye in the new Cirrus seat.
Based on what I've read and heard, CX seems to win on service, as there are only 6 pax max per flight and QF seems to win on food, while both products are pretty similar in terms of seat/hard product comfort.
The novelty of flying the 388 in F is tough to ignore, especially for 15 hours. However, I do like caviar and Krug.
Thoughts?
Ignoring mileage cost and time, which product would you prefer, a CX 77W from LAX to HKG, or QF 388 from LAX to SYD. Ultimately, I am going to end up in Sydney, either by direct routing (QF) or with a short hop through HKG (CX), connecting in J on a CX redeye in the new Cirrus seat.
Based on what I've read and heard, CX seems to win on service, as there are only 6 pax max per flight and QF seems to win on food, while both products are pretty similar in terms of seat/hard product comfort.
The novelty of flying the 388 in F is tough to ignore, especially for 15 hours. However, I do like caviar and Krug.
Thoughts?
Are you buying the tickets or using miles?
Answered my own question:
Code:
QF 128 0 HKG 02/01/14 7:45 PM SYD 02/02/14 8:10 AM 388 Daily 85% / 12m
Dec 16, 2013, 4:01 pm
#3
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Programs: BA NON flyer, LH Frequent Traveller, V/A Gold, HGP Diamond, HHonnors Diamond, GHA Black
Posts: 605
CX 77W or QF 388 in F?
The qf hard product is much better imho. But yes service is a tad better on cx.
I like to be left alone so would choose qf in a heartbeat but if you like to be pampered perhaps cx could be better.
Forget avout caviar. Its poor sevruga and not worth more than 50 usd
I like to be left alone so would choose qf in a heartbeat but if you like to be pampered perhaps cx could be better.
Forget avout caviar. Its poor sevruga and not worth more than 50 usd
Dec 16, 2013, 5:30 pm
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Southern California
Programs: Alaska MVPG; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 223
Ideally I'm taking an 388 from HKG to SYD (making this thread moot, I suppose), but no award availability. Actually, Ideally I'm taking an 388 from SYD/MEL back home to LAX. If that happens, I guess this becomes more of a trip report *fingers crossed*
Dec 16, 2013, 5:32 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Southern California
Programs: Alaska MVPG; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 223
I always figured he caviar couldn't be that great. You can easily run up a caviar bill that exceeds the cost of a revenue F ticket. I hear the steak sandwich on QF is pretty good. I love to eat, so I'd like to try as much food onboard as I can.
Dec 16, 2013, 6:24 pm
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
No brainer: I find the 388 a better ride as I am noticeably more productive/refreshed upon landing than the same route on a 777-variant.
I think the significantly quieter cabin, the higher oxygen content (lower pressure altitude) and higher humidity all contribute to make a noticeable difference.
I think the significantly quieter cabin, the higher oxygen content (lower pressure altitude) and higher humidity all contribute to make a noticeable difference.
Dec 16, 2013, 11:37 pm
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Southern California
Programs: Alaska MVPG; Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 223
No brainer: I find the 388 a better ride as I am noticeably more productive/refreshed upon landing than the same route on a 777-variant.
I think the significantly quieter cabin, the higher oxygen content (lower pressure altitude) and higher humidity all contribute to make a noticeable difference.
I think the significantly quieter cabin, the higher oxygen content (lower pressure altitude) and higher humidity all contribute to make a noticeable difference.
If thats the case with the 388, I might just sleep the entire flight and miss everything.
Dec 18, 2013, 8:45 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP/LTG | UA P
Posts: 13,535
The 777 is a noisy aircraft. I reckon cabin crew will eventually have industrial deafness from working this aircraft. In comparison, the 380 is whisper quiet. Choose accordingly !