On my upcoming oneworld award, I have the choice of BA or QF from Bangkok to London. I have only flown on QF with old business class seats, but this route would have the Skybeds AFAIK. Never flown BA J but I get to try that on LHR-YYZ on the same trip.

I'd appreciate any comments about the seats and service on this particular flight. My understanding is that the QF seat is not fully flat like BA. Do both airlines serve a full dinner after takeoff or is it some kind of a lighter "supper" due to the late departure? I'm currently booked on BA 10.

Thanks in advance.

There are numerous comparisons between the BA/QF J seats. Some taller people prefer the QF seat as it is longer.

Given that you are trying BA NCW on LHR-YYZ, why not try QF BKK-LHR and then you can add your review of the comparison

From my very limited J trips on the Oz to LHR route, both BA and QF have similar meal standards, volumes, taste and timings. They are code-share partners as well so I would be pretty sure that management tries to make things pretty much the same. There will be subtle things like pre-ordering breakfast the night before (QF do, but don't think BA do *). FA attitude varies on both airlines - some are absolutely great and are a credit to their company, some just do their job - like any employee!

Of course the seats are different and so is the layout (see other threads on these).

For me, I'd go with the longer seat as I'm tall. I'd support alect's remark - try both!

* -- hey - is this a QF innovation?

I think QF's product is newer though BA's bed is really flat whereas QF's still at an angle.

QF might also offer better food offerings, AVOD on a larger screen than BA's..

Is this comparison still up to date?

QF vs. BA in J on the kangaroo route, which one ?

I'd say they are both pretty similar. I'm yet to try NGCW but QF vs NCW

QF wins on catering & lounging
BA wins on ability to sleep & privacy

If your over 6ft, go QF if not then go for BA IMO. Both use the same lounges, QF IFE is on a par with BA either old skool loop system or patchy AVOD.

Seeing as you are a regular on the BA Board Subhi, why not something different and go QF.

FWIW i'd fly BA where sleep is important as I have no problems sleeping from take-off to landing in NCW. QF for dayflights, without a second thought.

Apart from the flight timings and (possibly) the aircrafts mentioned in this thread, everything else applies to the LHR-BKK route.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=812144

Excellent ^^^
Many thanks to all the replies, this is what makes FT brilliant, knowledgeable people on every route

I don't know if this matters to you, but my January AAdvantage statement reveals an added "plus" to flying Qantas if you are a mileage hog.

Date.......Transaction..........................Mi leage Bonus Total

02/24/08 QANTAS AIRWAYS 4 J HNL SYD 5,067 6,334 11,401
03/02/08 BRITISH AIRWAYS 10 J SYD BKK 4,661 1,165 5,826

BA & JL don't give the elite bonus, just class of service bonus.

I think BA service is more consistent. I always think QF is kind of hit-or-miss for service.

subhi is crediting to BAEC not AAdvantage me thinks.

Shame that you missed the BA elite bonus cut off by 2 days.

Sadly BA is probably less consistent that QF these days. If you want consistency, route via HKG and fly CX.

Thanks to all those who replied, I am burning points on this trip. Going LHR-SIN-SYD(BA) back PER-(QF)NRT-(BA)LHR, so I think I'll be trying the best of both worlds

^^^

Would it be too late to urge you to try for QF on HKG/SIN/BKK-LHR vv? Those flights are crewed by the UK base and they're excellent, above the generally high standards of QF crews. ^ These are usually junior crew who want to try out long haul, and are pretty easy on the eye.

Agreed. London based crew are significantly better than Oz based crew than the old battleaxes who crew ex-Australia to Asia. My last couple of London crew based flights were even better than anything I would get out of CX and there are many threads on the QF forum discussing the very topic. ex-Australia crew however are very 'hit or miss' and more often than not 'miss'.

I think a large part of it has to do with the fact that out-station crews are always flying the same sectors, so LHR based crews are always flying LHR-BKK/SIN/HKG-LHR and get to see a lot of the same people all of the time. They are home within a few days of leaving, so they are always "refreshed", even on the homeward bound sector. The same goes with JetConnect crew, based in AKL (mostly, although one part of my argument is about to be shot down in flames).

One thing with LH cabin crew is the extraordinarily long time that they are away from home, anything up to 10 days or so, for Australian based crew. LON-based crew do not see this, so they are often far less "jaded" than their AU based colleagues.

You can often see this on Asian based carriers, SQ crew are based in SIN, CX crew are based in HKG, they do a straight out and return journey, away from home for three or four days at a time, no more. Both provide excellent service.

Translate this on to QF or BA, where due to the nature of the routing - two sectors, multiple stopovers, and so on and so forth - is it any wonder that the crew start to become a little bit jaded at the end of their 10 day trip?

Again, this is not meant to be an apologist post, just realistically stating why some people find some crews better than other crews.

Dave