mhron

Hi i can take ci flight 8 from tpe lax or mh 94 on the same route, in first class, both are the same price. which one should i pick, food is not important to me, however seat comfort and sleep is.
the other issue is that i continue on to jfk, with ci i got united ps 1st, while on mh i get aa in 1st.
which would you pick?

Hawk Circle

MH in 1st is almost as good as it gets, and I'd pick AA over UA.

party_boy

Normally I am a CI fan for my transpacs as I am from No. Cal, but MH is as almost as good as it gets.

Never flown AA F or PS F (only J). Can't help you out there.

EWANMEBABE

you will not be dissapointed with CI having flown both I favour CI

mhron

how are both ci and mh lounges in tpe, do they both have showers, anything special one has over the other?

TerryK

They are the same. MH doesn't have a lounge in TPE and contract to use CI lounge.

mhron

is there a shower in the lounge?

also with mh my connection from lax to jfk is on aa in 1st while with ci i get ua ps in 1st should the ua ps win and make me go with ci over mh?

B-HQC

Take MH all the way. Service is exemplary, pretty much up to CX standards and the cabins are still on the new side. With CI you are not even guaranteed the new pod type seats I believe, not to mention their abysmal safety record.

I would not fly CI even if it was free in any class for this reason alone - CI has caused the deaths of over 800 people, and the reason is always flight crew negligence or improper maintenance. Simply put, no other airline in the world crashes their planes at this alarming frequency. As I am sure some someone will mention they have not had an accident since 2002 - while this is true this fact does not convince me that they have improved their safety standards. We'll have to wait and see.

AA 762 transcon is IMHO, every bit as good as UA 757 ps in F. Go for the single seat in the middle if you're traveling alone. The seats are extremely comfortable, and the recline is generous enough. While the seats are old, as least they are not of the slopey bed type.

EWANMEBABE

says it all really !!!! how can anyone with half a brain compare any american premium cabin and service with that of CI or MH ? CI has a superb fleet and their maintainance is now without doubt the best,

krazykat

I would definitely take MH over CI. They have better planes & service too

mario33

Not that I am a fan of MH, but I will never fly CI no matter how cheap the fares are. And yes I do fly UA which qualifies me for only half a brain.

party_boy

You are right that you're not guaranteed configuration type. CI subs more than any other airline I've been on.


Unsafe? Please. You're being way too harsh. So by that measure I should be dead. Look at CI's safety record. So, when was their last crash? 2002? They have upgraded their training, crew, and fleet over the past few years and I feel just as safe as flying anyone else. In fact, I feel more unsafe flying many American carriers because of THEIR safety records. As a sidenote, all of CI's crashes are from shorthaul flights, not one is from longhaul.

EWANMEBABE

I flew 240000 miles on CI last year and a whole load more on other airlines. I simply refuse to get on the dirty,tatty worn out planes that most US airlines use and knowing people who work for both UA and Delta on maintainance they both speak very highly of the service levels at CI.

For service the walk all over any european or US airline and having flown both CI and MH in 1st and biz - A LOT - I can say MH are not as consistant as CI, but what do I know ?

To say MH have better planes than CI is BS, CI have the youngest fleet of 747's in the world and I reckon if they actually got round to wasjhing a MH plane they would save a fortune in fuel alone

jimbo99

It always surprises me people are so worried about aviation safety that they would take it into account in choosing not to fly with an airline such as CI, despite transporting millions of pax safely 5 years.

I trust they make similar enquiries as to the driving record of the taxi driver they use to get themselves to the airport. Or the bus company. Oh and don't smoke either, never cross the road after a beer or two etc.

You can meet many foreigners in Saigon who would never fly with Vietnam Airlines (or any other "3rd world airline", especially "commie" ones) but think its cool to cruise around on motorbikes late at night - and don't even think about wearing a helmet.

If they have half-a-brain, its easy to see when its "not in gear".

mario33

If an airline is considered "safe" based on no crashes for 5 years, its not a safe airline to begin with. How many crashes did they have over 10 years ?

Just because there is no crashes over the last 5 years doesnt put my "half-brain" mind at ease. The frequency of crashes before that (something like twice a year) will stick in my mind for a long time. The way the Taiwanese absolve themselves of any responsibility over the SQ incident doesnt reflect very well on them (alright CI is a separate entity but we see a similarity in culture here).

Whether CI is a safe airline or not is open to debate, however there are many other safer "options" available to us and many of us choose not to fly with them. If you feel safe to take advantage of the cheaper fares, good for you; but then it doesnt mean you have more than half a brain either.