First Class Comparison: OZ VS ANA
 

So I have two possible routings JFK--->NRT that I am considering, and was hoping for some input from the OZ FFs.

Option 1:
OZ JFK-ICN in F (it looks as though it scheduled for a 747 on my date and not a 777)
1hr 20m layover
OZ ICN-NRT in Business (A320)

Option 2:
United JFK-ORD in F (737)
2.5 hr layover
ANA ORD-NRT in F (777 w/ new seats)

I've never flown with OZ but have always been intrigued by the consistent reports of excellent service. The ANA routing gets me to Tokyo a few hours earlier, but the OZ flights let me avoid ORD in February (although the weather looks OK according to early forecasts).

Any guidance or advice would be tremendously appreciated!

I haven't flown on Asiana, yet i too have read about the incredible service. Their hard product, unless you are on the new first cabin (which I believe is out of ORD), simply doesn't pass the test for me.

I flew on ANA to Japan last year from ORD. Not even the First Square...still, the seats were wonderful. Extremely wide and comfortable. The service and food were amazing...I can't say enough about it. I flew Singapore this year in first, and as much as I enjoyed it, the ANA experience was even more special.

I vote you take the chance on Chicago and get BOTH great food/service and a wonderful hard product.

New F vs. Old F on NH is a red herring - I just don't think there is a meaningful difference in anything between the old and new except for screen size.

New F suite on OZ is of course miles ahead of their old F offering, but the old F is still decent in the overall context of the soft product and service.

Still, between your choices, I would personally go for Option 2 unless ORD is going to be a big problem.

Thanks ymmot73 and stargold.

+1 on NH through ORD. If there is space on OZ F from ORD-ICN then I would say that.

Doesn't look like OZ flies ORD-ICN on my date of travel, so I think OZ new F product is off the table for this trip.

Sorry to bump up an old thread but I'd love to hear what you decided and how it went and any other comments. I have the exact same dilemma in reverse:

Option 1:
OZ JFK-ICN in F (which by the time I fly will have the 77W and therefore the new OZ F Suite)
1hr 20m layover
OZ ICN-NRT in Business (A321)

Option 2:
United JFK-ORD in F (737)
2.5 hr layover
ANA ORD-NRT in F (777 w/ old first class seats barring a switch to a 77W before my departure date -- they do have a 77W on this route but the timing doesn't work for me as I need an afternoon departure)

The airlines are different in their own ways, but roughly comparable.

What I don't understand is why the OP didn't just fly the non-stop NH flights between JFK and NRT.

In my case I'm going on award travel and unfortunately ANA is only open in Y, obviously as I get closer to departure date if ANA opens up a direct in F from JFK - NRT I'll spring for it in a second, but for now I want to at least ensure I have F in something for the long-haul

OZ F would be much preferable, especially given new seat and overall quality of journey.

NH Old F is perfectly fine, but OZ New F is better. Comparable quality (but different) soft product and F&B.

OZ new F is only running between JFK and ICN starting in July.

NH is running new F on that route now.

Flew OZ up front last week. Way better than UA, but not even remotely on the same level as NH in terms of sophistication. On the ground, in the air or in the galley. The wines however were comparable, the food was mediocre at best.

Didn't the person asking say that it will be the OZ suites by the time he flies?

Yes, that's correct, it will be OZ suites by the time I fly. The OP did not have that option, however my routing choices were the exact same as the OP with just flip in the available equipment (Suite on JFK - ICN, no suite on ORD - NRT) so that's why I tacked my question onto this thread and wanted to see where he landed.

Thanks to all for the feedback on both, it sounds like in either case I'll be much happier than taking United and at this point I'm just splitting hairs and should just pick one and move on to planning the other parts of the trip!

That has not been my experience. NH, to me, provides more of a Japanese experience and OZ, not surprisingly, more of a Korean experience.

The champagnes are superior on OZ. The NH seats and suites are better than the older OZ seats in F. I haven't tried the new OZ suites yet.

I found everything else perhaps somewhat different, but I wouldn't point to one as significantly better than the other.

Typing faster than reading!

I agree. There's not much of a difference in F class between Asian carriers unless one's nitpicking. I don't even know how much sophistication one needs anyway.
And even the new OZ suite is not substantially better than the old F.
The bottom line is that flying still sucks and personally I would choose the flight with the shortest time with optimal departure / arrival time.

OZ champagnes are not superior per se, I think the NH offering is on a par with OZ. If you want great champagne go LX :)

The still wine offerings though are very comparable.

The food on OZ is far below NH. Offering a national dish I understand, but when it permeates the entire cabin with its smell it may need to be reconsidered as a closed environment offering. The NH offerings are far better in terms of presentation, quality, and comfort of others.

The English at OZ, both on the ground as early as check-in through to gate staff and then in the air is shocking.

For visual impressions the cheesy satin apron the OZ FAs wore made me think I was in a bad restaurant.

Overall I think it is a fair product, better than UA but not even in the same league as NH. That is not a cultural difference that is a summation of quantifiable differences.

Some of us would totally challenge that. I love flying. Often choose the long way around if possible and it doesn't cost any or much extra. Been known to do transpacs with an immediate turnaround. 48 hours of continuous flying with just minimal time on the ground between connecting flights is my idea of a great weekend. This is FlyerTalk and some of us are just a bit crazy about flying.

It would appear, at least to me, that your geographic base in Tokyo is unfairly skewing your opinion in favor of the Japanese offering on NH.

I have flown them both repeatedly and I find them comparable overall.

As a Korean airline, it is not surprising that OZ serves Korean food. Korean food can have a strong aroma. If it didn't, it wouldn't really be authentic Korean food and I suspect OZ would receive a lot of complaints if they were to serve it blanded down.

I have encountered English language "issues" on both carriers, but it has never impeded my ability to get my meaning across on either. I recognize that I am not flying a native English language carrier.

I don't personally care for the color of the OZ uniforms or pajamas, but that is such a minor issue I don't think it all that important. The flight attendants on both carriers are professional, well groomed, and attentive.

As to the champagne, I must disagree with you. Swiss serves Laurent-Perrrier Grand Siècle these days, which retails for about US$110.00. OZ serves Taittinger Comtes de Champagne (about $120 a bottle) and Pol Roger Cuvee Sir Winston Churchill (almost $200 a bottle). I appreciate that higher prices do not necessarily correspond to higher quality, but it is usually a good benchmark. I find both of those champagnes to be quite good (as is Dom).

I find the caviar service on OZ the best I have ever had on an airline and the remainder of the food very good for airplane food.

Frankly, you would have to come up with some more specific examples of where NH is superior to OZ other than they are allegedly more "professional". I stand by my position that they are comparable.

I appreciate that others may disagree with me.

I'm trying to book an award next year with OZ F in one direction and NH F in the other; I appreciate everyone's insights!

My geographic base in Tokyo has nothing to with the fact that NH is more sophisticated. NRT is staffed by people trained to show greater sophistication and the manners and presentation on NH are simply far more polished than that found on OZ or at ICN. Not something that has anything to with where I live, just an observation of fact. At least by western and Japanese standards. I suppose an argument could be made for OZ being more sophisticated by a standard found only in ICN but on the world stage, no, it just does not measure up I am afraid.

There will be variances in taste with Champagne. I accept you prefer the Pol Roger or the Taittinger. I have drunk at least the Pol Roger with the winemaker there and have an affinity for it too, the Taittinger I have only had on the ground at a restaurant. But hands down Grand Siècle is a better bottle. At least from a purely objective based on the merits of the wine. I am more of a still wine fan anyway, but that Grand Siècle, oh yum. Price is never an indicator of quality. If it were Opus One would taste better and Screaming Eagle would be worth the money. Neither is the case though. ;)

The caviar service is one I cannot get into. Neither uses the right bread product. I just cannot get started on either although this is a comparable point I will agree. Perhaps ANA is even worse here. The broad beans put me off entirely.

There is nothing alleged about the professionalism of ANA. It is no great mystery that Japan's service level is considered by the vast majority the model to which others aspire.

I love NH, and have my 20,000-word TR to prove it, but one thing I categorically cannot accept is the contention that OZ is "a fair product, better than UA but not even in the same league as NH." If that were true, I must have been flying a completely different airline, either OZ only on really good days or NH on spectacularly bad days. Otherwise, no, the alleged chasm in quality simply isn't there.

I can't think of the last time I've seen anyone describe OZ F as being anything but top-notch, which can be verified in the TRs posted both on this board and elsewhere; TRs from people who are more than familiar with the top F products in the world such as JL, SQ, CX, etc.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I rather suspect it is not so much you having flown a different airline, but rather that you see OZ with somewhat rose tinted glasses? I know many who have preferred programs for one reason or another that do the same thing. it does not make for great impartiality, but certainly for lively discussion.

No.
I've been in TPE a few months and my perception of BR/CI hasn't changed...
(I would not take them as my first carrier due to bad earning rates and a mediocre J product. I WOULD take them over any US carrier, and even CI J is worse than DL J on hard product but much better in service and soft product.)

Or how about:

<redacted>

See, it goes both ways. But I'm also going with Always Flyin in this case - on a matter where subjective opinion counts for so much, it's highly unlikely we'll agree. This, naturally, does not affect the fact that we are all entitled to our respective opinions.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I assume that the posters who are trying to choose between JFK and ORD aren't doing this in the winter, when you want to avoid connecting in ORD at all costs.

Having taken both the new OZ F Suites and the new NH F First Square, I would have to say the NH product places attention to detail (excluding their panel covering the windows). The Japanese food on NH was better as it was equal to some of the good japanese restaurants in the ground. But in OZ the Korean food was sub-par to what one can get in the ground.

For caviar, OZ does it better, though for beverages including champagne, OZ and NH are more or less equal, OZ has 2 choices for champagne though I prefer the Pol Roger, while NH has Krug like CX. For specialty drinks, NH serves aromatic kabosu (a citrus beverage) while OZ serves ginseng tea with honey.

Seat wise, OZ suites have a wider seat and bed, along with bigger TV screens. Entertainment wise, both are fairly standard. But flights on OZ would always be longer due to the need to circumvent N. Korean airspace. Overall I liked NH First Square slightly more, but if I am heading to Korea and connecting, the OZ F Suites is my choice. ICN seems better for connecting than NRT. If old OZ F, I would take NH F (old or new).

And the positioning of ICN doesn't make it very easy to do so.

How so?

OZ F (old product) vs. NH F (Cube)
 

Long time lurker, first time poster. I know I may get biased responses since I am posting this in the OZ rather than NH forum, but this one seems to get more traffic and I am well aware of how the moderators hate cross posting.

I've searched and read numerous trip reports for both the old OZ F product as well as the NH Cube. I am currently booked on an award with OZ but see availability on NH for around the same time. I've flown NH F in the past in the older suite and enjoyed it. However, I've never flown OZ and reviews on the service are good but the food seems to be hit or miss.

On the one hand, it would be nice to experience a new carrier, especially since I've moved all my travel away from *A to OW and will likely never have the chance to fly with OZ in a premium long-haul cabin. On the other, NHs consistency in the air and the lure of a new hard product is making it a much tougher decision than I originally anticipated.

I would discuss this with my collegues or friends, but they think I'm crazy (I'm sure many of you are in the same boat) when I mention these matters during casual conversation. I was hoping that someone on the forums could give an objective assessment to help me make a decison. Either way, I know the flight should be quite enjoyable.

Thanks!

For those that have flown both how does the IFE compare between OZ and NH? I was quite impressed with NH (old first seating) on a recent flight with the exception of the IFE.

I can only speak for Y, as that's all I've flown on NH, but assuming the selection is essentially the same between classes, it should be quite similar (I didn't notice a difference with OZ between Y and C, don't know about NH). On both OZ and NH I had a reasonable selection of recent movies, a few international ones (read: not Hollywood) and then some special Korean programing. There wasn't much by way of TV shows or shorter shows though. As I recall, NH had quite a similar selection, though obviously switch the Korean programing for Japanese.

For a single flight, I personally don't find either half bad, though of course IFE is one of the few things US airlines are really good at, and SQ also has more on offer. While improving the selection would be appreciated, my main gripe with OZ' IFE (no idea whether this also applies to NH) is that they don't change the content often enough. So if you travel at all frequently with OZ, chances are you will have several flights on which you've already seen everything of interest to you.

I like NH IFE better just for the anime.

When I flew on NH in 2011, I found the IFE to be pretty good both in technical quality and content. Certainly it was not Hollywood orientated and to me that was a further plus.

When the flight is leaving from the US, the food can be hit or miss. But that's with every airline because the catering in the US is not so good (as with everything else related to air travel). If you're flying from NRT on ANA, I'd go with ANA. The Japanese food is excellent, and the first square (don't think it's called cube) is great.

TK, possibly one of the more praised airlines if just based on catering, uses the same Do & Co. caterer they use at IST.

You may believe that it is fair to say that, but citing various magazine’s surveys of airline quality is akin to looking to Robert Parker or Wine Spectator to judge a wine. Very much an opinion, and you know what they say about those I assume? ;) Worldwide opinion? I certainly would not claim to how every person around the world feels about OZ vs. NH. I suspect discussing that would cause the conversation to devolve into something in which I would not want to take part.

Sophistication is not related to time earned experience and knowledge? A curious although completely incorrect statement. I do not believe I suggested that sophistication in one area indicates sophistication across the board, although in general accepted English, sophistication is less about a certain field or topic but rather about a combined set of factors. It is this more generally accepted meaning to which I refer.

And finally, the collection of any item is in and of itself hardly an indicator of one’s sophistication. Your comment on mug collecting as an only barely hidden attempt to suggest I am unsophisticated is lacking in reason, and quite frankly is not germane to the topic. Or should I perhaps say, “anyways”? :D

I have flown both NH and OZ multiple times in F. They are more alike than different. They both do an excellent job in F and the major differences, to me, are the NH is more Japanese oriented and OZ in more Korean oriented. Not really a surprise.

I have seen the amorphous term "sophisticated" thrown around this thread repeatedly and can only say from the tone in which is it used that the word "arrogant" would seem more apt, which of course no one would accuse the Japanese of in regards to their Asian neighbors . . .

Attention moderators, cleanup on aisle OZ, we have a mess of half-cooked ramen. Just kidding, I don't mind the discussion even if it is going quite off-topic.

While I've had some strong disagreements with Ducati's point-of-view in other threads, I think he/she is pretty much spot on here, especially with regard to that point. If anyone thinks that OZ's main target market isn't Koreans, I think they're in la-la land. Well, there's been quite an increase in Chinese customers recently, but certainly not a lot of Westerners. Just fly them a few times and that becomes quite clear. Unlike places like Thailand, where a huge percent of the economy is derived from tourism, Korea isn't like that. Of course there's some tourists, and some business people, and quite a few transit passengers traveling to other countries, but the vast majority of OZ's customers are Koreans. And many (if not most) Koreans are quite finicky about wanting to eat Korean food, which includes Kimchi with about every meal. If OZ didn't offer Korean cuisine and no Kimchi, they'd end up alienating a large number of their customers - many more that they'd ever hope to gain from foreigners whose noses might find the smell of Korean food to be unattractive.

Anyways, unless I'm mistaken there was some deal at some point where some Japanese were trying to claim that Kimchi was invented in Japan...perhaps I'm mistaken, but that's what some people told me. Lots of Japanese like Kimchi and Korean food. A fair number of Chinese as well. If you take the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese customers, then you have even a much larger majority of passengers who either like, or probably tolerate the taste and/or smell of Korean food.

Not just OZ and KE, but there's even foreign airlines that serve Kimchi on routes to/from Korea. TG is one example. They frequently have bibimbap as a meal option and include Kimchi, red pepper paste, kim (dried seaweed), etc. I know I heard there was at least one other airline that does similar...perhaps CX, but I'm not certain. Now why would FOREIGN airlines be serving Kimchi and Korean food if foreigners found it so offensive? Because obviously they value the Korean customers on those routes, and it's not offensive to nearly the numbers as mjm seems to think. Afterall, if people are going to Korea or transiting in Korea, if they're offended so much by the smell of Korean food, they'll likely avoid Korea the next time, so no need to even be traveling OZ again.

So in my mind for OZ to even remotely consider the possibility of not serving Kimchi and other Korean food is absolutely asinine. And to suggest otherwise indicates to me that one has zero knowledge of Korea and OZ. Of course that's just my opinion. The same with mjm's opinion that OZ isn't as 'sophisticated'. That's just an opinion, and quite obviously many of us disagree, myself included. I think ANA is a fine airline, with great service. And being I fly OZ so frequently, if given the choice between the two, I'd probably choose ANA just for a bit of variety. But without that factor, given the choice between the two, I'd choose OZ. I really enjoy the personalities of the OZ FA's and they way service is carried out. I cannot think of any other airline that more closely matches what I expect service to be like. And if someone thinks that I or OZ FA's aren't quite sophisticated enough for their liking, then let them fly ANA. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but they should realize that opinions are very personal and don't expect others to necessarily agree.

Anyways, back to the ramen issue. I believe that INSTANT ramen was invented in Japan by a Japanese, and when someone uses the term 'ramen', that's typically what is meant. Not cooked noodles like you'd get in a typical noodle restaurant, but rather instant noodles. Anyways, I'm no expert on ramen...I enjoy the smell but don't care for the taste, so I'll try to stay out of further discussion of ramen.