BA or CX in F
 

I was almost ready to book my AONE3 and then had a slight doubt. Which airline is better in First Class LHR-HKG? I was thinking CX, but then I thought that BA might be better. I will have a long segment in BA's First (YVR-LHR) and a long segment in CX's First (HKG-JFK). So, which do you think is better and why?

Thanks,

I've flown both CX and BA on LHR-HKG, most recently BA last week, and once upon a time the two were comparable with BA having a slight edge due to having better ground facilities at LHR (most notably the Concorde room and the MB spa). Now they are no longer comparable, CX is significantly better for onboard service in all respects. BA is still quite good, but CX is soooo much better. And those 2 extra seats squeezed into the BA F cabin make it seem much more crowded. I regret having chosen BA last week and won't make that mistake again. Too bad in a way, as BA started all the improvements in F service, but now they are more interested in selling J than F (perhaps a reality of the market).

Also, the practicalities of where you are coming from should influence your decision. A couple weeks back I did BOS-LHR-HKG, in one shot. I chose the AA-CX combo (arriving into T3, leaving from T3), as opposed to the BA-BA combo (arrive and leave from T4). I was on the ground for 90 minutes, just enough to take a shower and a short break in the nothing-special FL in T3.

Has the Concorde Room disappeared? I read about it in earlier posts, but have not seen anything about it in more recent posts. I think it is sad that first class is becoming less available (many AA routes) or gets downgraded. It takes away some of the fun of flying.

Yep the Concorde Room is still alive at both LHR and JFK.

Real first class (as opposed to U.S. carriers' marketing of the front half of a two-class airplane as 'first class' - their international code-shares sell the same seat as biz) is likewise endangered. I suppose it will persist in a few markets, but in most places it's disappearing. Take some pictures to show the kids - otherwise they'll think dad is making up stories.

I just finished AONE4 RTW. Flew LHR-HKG in CX and LHR-DXB-LHR in BA all in FC. Strongly recommend CX. CX is better in every aspect - service, IFE, seat/bed comfort, food. On BA, seat was broken, lousy headsets and service was non existant on DXB-LHR leg.

I am sorry to hear about the service on the DXB-LHR segment as I am planning to go LHR-DXB-LHR. Would your experience be typical for BA's First?

I might add service on LHR-DXB leg was excellent at par with CX.

CX excels in food - both quantity and quality.

One must remember that BA does not serve caviar anymore where CX still do on all long haul interntional sectors.

"Almost all" to be strictly accurate. For example, they don't serve it on the CX889 YVR-HKG (because they already served it on the JFK-HKG sector).

You don't say which DXB-LHR flight, but one of the 2 daily services leaves DXB after midnight and arrives at LHR before 6 am ... most pax just want to get as much sleep as possible and skip dinner and breakfast ... thus the service tries to be as abrupt and invisible as possible. Is this what you mean by "non-existant"? If so it is excellent service (if only more flights did that).

It was BA 108 departing DXB around 10:30AM. To give an idea about non-existent service - I had to press call button twice and I received the response atleast 15 minutes thereafter. What really surprised me was the fact that service was excellent on LHR-DXB leg and just disappeared on the way back...

Remember BA - LHR/HKG now goes from Terminal One so no more Concorde Room not sure if new First Lounge at terminal One has MB Spa.

I don't see it
 

I must strongly disagree with those who assert that CX has a better seat in F than BA does. BA's seat is preferable in every way, IMO. Not only can you have a guest join you for dinner with the 'second' seat, it's also makes a more comfortable bed, not to mention the extra privacy the layout of the BA cabin gives you.

Service is definitely amazing on CX, but I would still give BA the edge.

Yes, it does

oops duplicate reply

BA F vs CX F
 

There are several good reasons for choosing CX over BA in F except for teh champagne

year and a half ago years ago BA severly downgraded there Film/Video selection in F

If you sit by the window in teh back row and recline your chair to teh sleeping position your head will be in a more secluded and much wider area then on teh rest of the seats in first and certanly compared to Ba

CX has caviar

But!!! (Important) BA seves Krug 1988 Grand cuve wich is 130 Euros per bottle so you can if your good drink up your moneys worth

Also some of teh Concorde wines can now be found in BA F

Have you flown CX since they added the suites in F (several years ago)? It is a very similar suite to BA except a newer generation of the seat (from the same manufacturer) and with some extra features such as the arm rest that retracts. And CX has 12 seats in the same space as BA has 14 ... which do you think has more privacy? CX also has the 2nd (guest) seat, and a larger dinner table than BA; so this is hardly a distinguishing factor. Once upon a time BA had good wine and food, but that has greatly diminished in the past year while CX continues to improve and now has better western and chinese food, not to mention wine that is 3 times as good as BA offers. Sadly I fly BA more often than CX so I am all too familiar with these differences. On most 744s the CX seat is markedly better than the BA seat (and there are 3 different F seats on BA and 4 different ones on CX, for those who care about those minor differences).

As one who cares about these minor differences, what are the differences between the 3 BA and/or the 4 CX seats?

Er... since when? None of the CX aircraft I've ever been on have this feature.

Not having flown BA F myself, I can't really give a comparison but from pictures of the cabin the CX F cabin with 12 seats looks sooooo much more spacious than the BA cabin (which, like the QF cabin, seems awfully cramped).

A few observations based on my own recent AONE4-based RTW trip ...

CX seats are aligned with the sides of the aircraft, while BA's are angled. I found that the angled placement made BA's seat slightly more private in terms of visibility of other passengers.

On the other hand, a consequence of BA's angled layout is that your seat is
adjacent to the person behind's visitor's seat. If you are in 2A and 3A has a visitor, that person is very close indeed, albeit through a thin partition, and their every move is transmitted to your seat. CX seats, at least at the windows, are physically separated by what look like half-height bulkheads so whatever the neighbours get up to (so to speak) you won't feel it!

While I found the BA food and wines to be very good, I thought that the CX food and drink service was consistently superb ... just a whole new order of excellence. This applies to quality, quantity and presentation.

CX has a truly state-of-the-art IFE system, with an extensive library of audio and video entertainment available on demand via on-screen menus. No fiddling with tapes for movies or making do with radio-type presentations for music. And, of course, they supply good quality headphones. I would have preferred the screen to be closer, however.

Although I remain a staunch BA enthusiast, I would have to say in all honesty that, based on my recent experiences, I think CX has the stronger F product.

The screen is mounted on an arm and can be pulled away from the partition, bringing it a foot closer (this feature isn't easily seen and most people don't make use of this).

The footrest area doubles as a guest chair. It is intrinsic to the suite design so CX has had it since day 1. Not really a useful feature in my opinion, but it is exactly the same as the "guest seat" that BA boasts of having). As for the BA cabin layout, it is more cramped but the herringbone suite pattern does help quite a bit (while QF has 14 seats using the CX pattern, now that is crowded). Two years ago BA and CX F were close to equivalence, now CX is markedly better in almost every aspect.

You have to sit in them to see -- they are minor but significant refinements of the same design (probably stemming from the date of install of the seat in the particular plane). The CX seats suffered from too much flex and the last 2 designs have made the seat much more rigid (particularly with the legrest fully raised and in partial recline). The seat padding has become softer and more comfortable with better contouring. The latest BA seat change is one that I dislike -- the headrest has become larger and more obtrusive (better when upright, worse when sleeping unless you mask it with a pillow). You know you fly too much when you can tell the difference between the same seat design on different aircraft. The CX seat is quite good though and it is interesting to see how it has evolved in the last couple of years to become better (and different from the BA seat).

Yep - didn't spot it immediately, but I did get there eventually :) However I still thought it was just a little bit too distant. Just a small point overall, though.

I have the same problem with the screen. My problem is that, getting old, I wear contacts for short-sightedness. Sometimes after a long day the dryness in the cabin means that I have to take them out for comfort, but I don't even own a pair of glasses, so in this case I need to be able to bring the screen within a three feet or so.

Unfortunately, CX messed up their planning and they invited me to a focus group on future cabin design tomorrow night, at exactly the same time as they had separately invited me to dinner at the Peninsula. So I had to decline.

What footrest?

CX does not have the permanent/immobile stool that BA has. On CX, the seat itself forms the entirety of the bed; it, unlike BA, does not meet a stool to form the final foot or so of the bed.

As can be seen in these pictures, there is no stool on the CX seat, only empty space:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/263239/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/070149/L/

This picture shows to good effect how the CX seat reclines. As can be seen, there is no stool.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/070153/L/

I do agree that there is room for someone to sit and eat with you in the CX suites. The problem is that there is no seat for them!

Whoops! You are all correct, of course, there is no footrest on CX and there never has been (in fact it is partly why the seat is better). I confess to confusing CX with AA FS (and yes, I know there is absolutely nothing in common between them!). Too many flights on BA and not enough Krug, makes the mind go feeble. Sorry for the bad info, but I could even envision it as I typed (wondered why it looked like a b/w movie, all shades of gray).

The Pen is mightier than the focus group
 

Decline dinner at the Pen? Now that is dedication! Oh, that wasn't what you meant? How understandable. Diamonds really do have their privileges (somehow I can't see AA inviting their 60,000 EXPs for dinner at McDonalds ...). Hope CX takes the opportunity to do an impromptu wine tasting over dinner.

There's considerably much less than 60K EXPs this year. More like 40K, hense the auto-upgrades on any class fare on all domestic aircrafts for EXPs.

I choose CX F over BA F. I do want Don Perrigon in CX, however.

You know what's odd, though.


Go to http://www.cathaypacific.com/
Go to "During your flight" and "Travel Classes"
Click on the picture accompanying "Introducing The Best Seat In The House"
A popup will come up with some pictures. One seems to be of two people face to face having dinner. At first, I thought the taller one was a server but the seat in front of them seems to be facing opposite to the man who is clearly eating.

I agree with the others that I dont believe the seat can do guest dining but the photo seems a bit odd.

Good observation, Darren. That guy is definately sitting on the opposite side of the seat (his back is to the T.V. screen) and he is definately eating. That said, there still is no such seat on CX. Perhaps when CX created that photo, they planned on havign that function, but, for some reason, it went by the wayside. BTW, the A340-300 and the A333 do not have the stool as well. Cannot comment on the A340-600 as I have not been on one yet (that will change in July).

The A346 F seat is essentially the same as the seat fitted on all the other aircraft save for a few cosmetic differences - most notably a more increased use of grey leather trimming.