IAHflyer

I need your advice on an upcoming trip IAH-PER.

My employer won't pay for C but will pay for a premium economy product, so I'm currently down to two main options:

1. SQ
LAX-SIN in Exec. Econ.
SIN-PER in Econ.

2. TG
LAX-BKK in Prem. Econ.
BKK-PER in Econ.

On both SQ and TG I could go through EWR or JFK respectively but I'm leaning towards an LAX connection as I'm travelling in February and the weather should be less of a factor in LAX...

Both SQ and TG fly A345 on the long-haul segment with 2-3-2 seating, and from seatguru:
-SQ's seat pitch/width: 37"/20"
-TG's seat pitch/width: 42"/18"
(how can the TG seat be narrower with the same 2-3-2 on the same aircraft? All armrest?)

On the "short haul" to PER SQ use a 772 (w/ 3-3-3 seating) and TG use an A333 (w/ 2-4-2), and from seatguru:
-SQ's seat pitch/width: 32"/17.5"
-TG's seat pitch/width: 32"/17"

Both airlines offer decent connections in SIN/BKK and both should give me UA miles which is where I'll be crediting the flights. (currently UA non-P)

So which way would you go?


Some factors I'm thinking might come into play:

• The flight to/from PER is a little shorter on SQ (~1.5hrs), so less time in Y.

• How is the SQ vs. TG check in facilities in LAX and PER?

• How is SIN vs. BKK as transfer airports (no *G status)

• Difference in inflight service, food, AVOD? (both on long- and short haul segments)

• On SQ's A345 you are one of 117 exec. econ. on a 2-class aircraft, vs. on TG you are on of 64 in prem. econ. on a 3-class aircraft. Any difference?

Kiwi Flyer

You also have NZ premium economy LAX-AKL then regular economy AKL-PER (no different to TG & SQ which only regular economy from their hubs). Distance is considerably shorter than going via Asia.

NZ premium economy has had some recent service improvements (biz food and drink), has very good IFE. AKL-PER is okay but not as nice seat or IFE - eg mainscreen, food & drink are good for economy. Service on NZ generally excellent.

Downside is the return flight doesn't connect well (unless you want to spend a day in Auckland in which case it is brilliant), with arrival from PER early morning and departure to LAX in the evening.

AKL airport quite okay for transits (much more pleasant than LAX for example). SIN is excellent (plenty of free internet, tvs, couches, even a free movie and swimming pool and free city tours).

harryhv

The quickest simplest way in either direction is UA-> SYD and SYD-PER on QF.

IAH-DEN-LAX-SYD on UA then SYD-PER on QF.

Or use a CO sector instead of IAH-DEN-LAX :

[KVS Availability Tool 2.5.0/Platinum - Sabre: ITN/US-AXC1]
After all, you really only need the E+ (or upgrade to C) for that long LAX SYD flight.

Kiwi Flyer

Unlike via BKK, SIN or AKL, that routing involves a messy change of terminals at SYD (due to the way the airport is set up and arriving at a busy time of day that will chew up 60-90+ minutes).

Oh and UA's E+ doesnt compare to the premium economy products of TG, SQ and NZ (UA just being a slightly bigger pitch vs various extras given in premium economy, heck NZ regular economy beats UA E+).

harryhv

Agreed, NZ is a great choice with the 8 hours in AKL.

BUT if you're in a hurry or just want to minimize the actual time cooped up in the plane (oops sorry what am I saying, FT heresy)...

NZ via AKL: dep LAX 19.45 (SFO 19.30) arr PER 17.55 with 8 hours in AKL
SQ via SIN: dep LAX 20.00 arr PER 15.40 but SQ37 is sold out weeks ahead
UA via SYD: dep LAX 21.00 arr PER 11.30

TG via BKK: longer still and note BKK-PER only once a day, a red-eye except Tuesdays (=Sunday departure from LAX)

IAHflyer

Kiwi Flyer and harryhv thanks for your input so far.

I actually did LAX-AKL with NZ in PE last summer and then onwards to MEL (still in PE!) with a final QF leg MEL-PER (I had business in both MEL and PER). I know that NZ has since upgraded their PE with better food/drink, but same hardware.

NZ's PE product was fine, no major complaints at all exept maybe the check-in zoo at LAX. But from most of the things I've read here on FT it seems that both SQ's exec.econ. and TG's prem.econ. as products are considered superior to NZ PE.

Don't know how much of a consensus there is on this subject?

As far as UA and their E+ on the trans pac, based on everything I've read it doesn't even come close to SQ, TG or NZ's alternatives so I'm not even considering it for this trip.

I realize that LAX-AKL-PER will give me shorter flight segments, but any which I cut it, this is a loooong trip from IAH so I'm looking to make it as comfortable a trip as I can within the limitations I have to work with.

F.ex. I could have gone IAH-NRT-PER a 1-stop itinerary with CO and QF (the only 1-stop I can think of), but these are two very long flights both in regular Y, so I'm passing it up. Even though it would give me some nice CO EQM's!

So, is it worth to "suffer" an arguably better Y+ product with SQ or TG for 17-18hrs or go with NZ for 13hrs. (with the regular Y segment still to go)

And if so, the original question is still:

• Y+ : Better in SQ or TG ???

JetCity

I'm living in Bangkok and fly both airlines regularly to USA and Australia. Honestly, your choice should be SQ because....

1. Service is more consistent. Some TG flights can have poor service sometimes great service. SQ is consistently good.
2. SQ IFE has better programming.
3. I find LAX-SIN tends to be full less often than TG LAX-BKK.
4. Onward flight to PER will certainly be better on SQ. TG's can stick you with an non-IFE regional aircraft.
5. Food is better quality on SQ but also more boring.
6. SIN is a much better transit airport. BKK's new airport is not user friendly like SIN.

- Jet

IAHflyer

JetCity, thanks !! ^