Air Canada International Economy vs United Airlines International Economy
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 153
Air Canada International Economy vs United Airlines International Economy
If there is a strong desire to fly only Star Alliance airlines, and on that international route there are only two choices, Air Canada or United Airlines, which will be "better" in coach?
#2
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,455
Depending on where you're starting/ending, there's also the issue of transiting another country. It's an added hassle, especially if you're Canada based, because the US transfer is a pita (Canada no picnic either).
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 153
Depends on the aircraft, as they have different seating configurations. In general, AC has high-densified most of its long-haul fleet, whereas UA has only partially done that.
Depending on where you're starting/ending, there's also the issue of transiting another country. It's an added hassle, especially if you're Canada based, because the US transfer is a pita (Canada no picnic either).
Depending on where you're starting/ending, there's also the issue of transiting another country. It's an added hassle, especially if you're Canada based, because the US transfer is a pita (Canada no picnic either).
787-9 on United Airlines
#4
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,455
At least it's not either carrier's 77W (777-300ER). Those are to be avoided at all costs in economy.
Both of these cabins have been densified, though. The United aircraft will perhaps be slightly less bad, with a slightly wider seat and slightly more average pitch. The 789 has the higher cabin pressure (more oxygen, more humidity), which may make it a little more comfortable for a long flight.
Neither carrier is known for warm friendly service in economy. You're probably less likely to get an outright rude crew on AC.
To me avoiding an extra transit in either the US or Canada would make up for any minor difference in aircraft comfort.
Both of these cabins have been densified, though. The United aircraft will perhaps be slightly less bad, with a slightly wider seat and slightly more average pitch. The 789 has the higher cabin pressure (more oxygen, more humidity), which may make it a little more comfortable for a long flight.
Neither carrier is known for warm friendly service in economy. You're probably less likely to get an outright rude crew on AC.
To me avoiding an extra transit in either the US or Canada would make up for any minor difference in aircraft comfort.
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 153
At least it's not either carrier's 77W (777-300ER). Those are to be avoided at all costs in economy.
Both of these cabins have been densified, though. The United aircraft will perhaps be slightly less bad, with a slightly wider seat and slightly more average pitch. The 789 has the higher cabin pressure (more oxygen, more humidity), which may make it a little more comfortable for a long flight.
Neither carrier is known for warm friendly service in economy. You're probably less likely to get an outright rude crew on AC.
To me avoiding an extra transit in either the US or Canada would make up for any minor difference in aircraft comfort.
Both of these cabins have been densified, though. The United aircraft will perhaps be slightly less bad, with a slightly wider seat and slightly more average pitch. The 789 has the higher cabin pressure (more oxygen, more humidity), which may make it a little more comfortable for a long flight.
Neither carrier is known for warm friendly service in economy. You're probably less likely to get an outright rude crew on AC.
To me avoiding an extra transit in either the US or Canada would make up for any minor difference in aircraft comfort.
#6
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,455
#7
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: SFO/SJC/OAK
Programs: OZ Diamond (*G), KQ Asante Gold (ST+), Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,511
Both are horrible! No way around it.
United catering has been historically horrendous, but its improved a lot over the past few years.
AC catering is mediocre.
I'd say they are equal.
Overall though, those are 2 crappy options. Choose whichever gets you there quicker or costs less.
United catering has been historically horrendous, but its improved a lot over the past few years.
AC catering is mediocre.
I'd say they are equal.
Overall though, those are 2 crappy options. Choose whichever gets you there quicker or costs less.
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 153
Planning to head to Vancouver and Seattle from Sydney. ex-SYD to either will be fine as I will probably either drive or fly domestic between the two. Unlikely to buy open jaw as I don't think is worth it. Would preferably like to accumulate KF miles. An alternative will be to fly Air New Zealand via Auckland. Do not have any status.
#11
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles, VA
Programs: UA Life Gold, Marriott Life Titanium
Posts: 2,757
Red, you can take Amtrak (train) between Seattle and Vancouver. Crossing the Canadian border to the US in a rental car can be a real pain in the butt, and while it is a short flight, the train ride is about 4 hours, and that's from downtown Vancouver to downtown Seattle. Getting through US preclearance in Vancouver airport adds an hour or so to your day, so it's probably a wash between flying and train.
Fro the flight, Air Canada does have a non-stop to Vancouver. No one has a non-stop to Seattle from Sydney, so you would need to connect in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Not a huge deal, but price each option out. Do not connect in the US to fly to Vancouver, since then you have to go through US Immigration and Customs, then do it again in Canada.
Fro the flight, Air Canada does have a non-stop to Vancouver. No one has a non-stop to Seattle from Sydney, so you would need to connect in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Not a huge deal, but price each option out. Do not connect in the US to fly to Vancouver, since then you have to go through US Immigration and Customs, then do it again in Canada.
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 153
Red, you can take Amtrak (train) between Seattle and Vancouver. Crossing the Canadian border to the US in a rental car can be a real pain in the butt, and while it is a short flight, the train ride is about 4 hours, and that's from downtown Vancouver to downtown Seattle. Getting through US preclearance in Vancouver airport adds an hour or so to your day, so it's probably a wash between flying and train.
Fro the flight, Air Canada does have a non-stop to Vancouver. No one has a non-stop to Seattle from Sydney, so you would need to connect in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Not a huge deal, but price each option out. Do not connect in the US to fly to Vancouver, since then you have to go through US Immigration and Customs, then do it again in Canada.
Fro the flight, Air Canada does have a non-stop to Vancouver. No one has a non-stop to Seattle from Sydney, so you would need to connect in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Not a huge deal, but price each option out. Do not connect in the US to fly to Vancouver, since then you have to go through US Immigration and Customs, then do it again in Canada.
#14
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,140
I've never had any issue in either direction, though it may be different for an Aussie citizen.