TG's "Old" F Class Vs. UA's First Suite on a Trans-Pacific segment
TG's "Old" F Class Vs. UA's First Suite on a Trans-Pacific segment
Mar 6, 2005, 7:33 pm
#2
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tokyo, Khun Han (Thailand) & Brussels
Programs: SQ silver, NH, TG
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by Xplorer
Greetings!
Given my lack of experience with TG, I wanted to solicit the opinions of my fellow FT'ers who have flown F class both on TG and UA on transpacific routes. I am using an *A award for travel in F class from IAD to BKK.
Currently, I have the following Itinerary on hold:
Outbound:
Mar 23 08:00 AM UA 0383 Washington Dulles (IAD) to Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Mar 23 12:00 PM UA 0877 Chicago O'Hare (ORD) to Osaka Japan (KIX)
Mar 24 06:55 PM TG 0775 Osaka Japan (KIX) to Bangkok Thailand (BKK)
Return:
Mar 27 08:35 AM TG 0774 Bangkok Thailand (BKK) to Los Angeles (LAX) (via KIX)
Mar 27 01:15 PM UA 0120 Los Angeles (LAX) Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Mar 27 09:05 PM UA 1132 Chicago O'Hare (ORD) Washington Dulles (IAD)
The reason for the twisted routing on return is, of course, lack of availability. I do, however, still have the option of choosing between TG and UA from KIX (KIX to ORD on UA VS. KIX to LAX to ORD on TG).
I have flown, on a number of occasions, in F on UA. I do like their first class suite product. However, their service and meals, while quite adequate, were not in the same league as some of the Asian carriers. I have never flown TG (in any class). Given that all the TG parts of the itinerary above will be on the "old" F class configuration (18 F seats or the "744"), my question is if it would be a wise move to fly UA between KIX and ORD instead.
Thanks for the feedback. I plan to make a similar post on the UA board as well.
Xplorer
Given my lack of experience with TG, I wanted to solicit the opinions of my fellow FT'ers who have flown F class both on TG and UA on transpacific routes. I am using an *A award for travel in F class from IAD to BKK.
Currently, I have the following Itinerary on hold:
Outbound:
Mar 23 08:00 AM UA 0383 Washington Dulles (IAD) to Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Mar 23 12:00 PM UA 0877 Chicago O'Hare (ORD) to Osaka Japan (KIX)
Mar 24 06:55 PM TG 0775 Osaka Japan (KIX) to Bangkok Thailand (BKK)
Return:
Mar 27 08:35 AM TG 0774 Bangkok Thailand (BKK) to Los Angeles (LAX) (via KIX)
Mar 27 01:15 PM UA 0120 Los Angeles (LAX) Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Mar 27 09:05 PM UA 1132 Chicago O'Hare (ORD) Washington Dulles (IAD)
The reason for the twisted routing on return is, of course, lack of availability. I do, however, still have the option of choosing between TG and UA from KIX (KIX to ORD on UA VS. KIX to LAX to ORD on TG).
I have flown, on a number of occasions, in F on UA. I do like their first class suite product. However, their service and meals, while quite adequate, were not in the same league as some of the Asian carriers. I have never flown TG (in any class). Given that all the TG parts of the itinerary above will be on the "old" F class configuration (18 F seats or the "744"), my question is if it would be a wise move to fly UA between KIX and ORD instead.
Thanks for the feedback. I plan to make a similar post on the UA board as well.
Xplorer
Mar 6, 2005, 7:49 pm
#3
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Programs: TG*G
Posts: 1,369
I would take TG because I don't watch movie on airplane. The seat comfort is acceptable for a small guy (172cm) like myself. The service and food is way better than UA. You'll definitely feel the differences.
Mar 7, 2005, 12:56 am
#4
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6
Having flown in both UA F and TG F product.
I'd pick TG. UA seat is more comfortable and provides more privacy if you're flying alone. However, TG service and food are more than make up for it.
As a bonus, Flying out of BKK, TG F ground service is very good.
A couple weeks ago, I flew out of BKK on TG606 in F to HKG with my wife and kid. We were to connect to SQ.2 in HKG for HKG-SFO leg. I was impressed with their new improved ground service both in Bangkok and HKG.
They called a couple days ahead to schedule a limo pickup and ask for any special meal order/seat assignment. On the dept day, they sent a car to our hotel (bkk mandarin), drove us to the airport where they have curbside greeter and helper. There were dedicated checkin counter for their F and C pax.
I don't think that we had to lift our luggages at all since the hotel room.
We were then personally escorted through the fasttrack immigration, to the F lounge, from F lounge to the bus (we were busing out to the A/C.). There was a dedicated F bus with just F pax, very nice touch.
The F lounge was very lavish and nice. My wife thought that it's a little stuffy. The food was very good and every thing was personally made and served.
The flight was pretty short though, just 2:30 hours to hongkong and it was older A/C, MD11. The seat was comfortable enough for this short flight. I'd prefer SQ sleeper for across the pond flight.
The really nice service that I really like was actually at HKG.
They sent a shuttle for each set of F pax and shuttle us to our connecting counters. In this case, it was a big helper as TG arrived on one side of terminal and SQ.2 was departing from the completely opposite side of terminal. If you haven't been to HKG, it was very very long walk or a trip up/down to a connecting train.
I've flown SQ F all the time, their ground service was not at
this same level as far as the personal escort and shuttle service. The checkin/curbside service in Changi is actually a bit better than TG, as they have a nice F/solitaire lounge. Outside of SIN though, there aren't a whole lot of extra ground service that SQ provided.
In the air though, SQ F product is head and shoulder above that of TG, or for that matter, ahead of every carriers that I've
flown. UA service is was worse than TG, IMO.
I'd pick TG. UA seat is more comfortable and provides more privacy if you're flying alone. However, TG service and food are more than make up for it.
As a bonus, Flying out of BKK, TG F ground service is very good.
A couple weeks ago, I flew out of BKK on TG606 in F to HKG with my wife and kid. We were to connect to SQ.2 in HKG for HKG-SFO leg. I was impressed with their new improved ground service both in Bangkok and HKG.
They called a couple days ahead to schedule a limo pickup and ask for any special meal order/seat assignment. On the dept day, they sent a car to our hotel (bkk mandarin), drove us to the airport where they have curbside greeter and helper. There were dedicated checkin counter for their F and C pax.
I don't think that we had to lift our luggages at all since the hotel room.
We were then personally escorted through the fasttrack immigration, to the F lounge, from F lounge to the bus (we were busing out to the A/C.). There was a dedicated F bus with just F pax, very nice touch.
The F lounge was very lavish and nice. My wife thought that it's a little stuffy. The food was very good and every thing was personally made and served.
The flight was pretty short though, just 2:30 hours to hongkong and it was older A/C, MD11. The seat was comfortable enough for this short flight. I'd prefer SQ sleeper for across the pond flight.
The really nice service that I really like was actually at HKG.
They sent a shuttle for each set of F pax and shuttle us to our connecting counters. In this case, it was a big helper as TG arrived on one side of terminal and SQ.2 was departing from the completely opposite side of terminal. If you haven't been to HKG, it was very very long walk or a trip up/down to a connecting train.
I've flown SQ F all the time, their ground service was not at
this same level as far as the personal escort and shuttle service. The checkin/curbside service in Changi is actually a bit better than TG, as they have a nice F/solitaire lounge. Outside of SIN though, there aren't a whole lot of extra ground service that SQ provided.
In the air though, SQ F product is head and shoulder above that of TG, or for that matter, ahead of every carriers that I've
flown. UA service is was worse than TG, IMO.
Mar 7, 2005, 3:08 am
#5
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bangkok, San Francisco
Posts: 721
Originally Posted by anawat
Having flown in both UA F and TG F product.
I'd pick TG.
I would too over UA. TG ground services on both ends was fantastic! The complimentary Benz service to the airport was a very nice touch! and the super fast golf cart on landing in HK which wisks you to immigration was great...they just slightly slow down at one checkpoint to point a lasergun to your forehead to check for SARS or something
The flight was pretty short though, just 2:30 hours to hongkong and it was older A/C, MD11. The seat was comfortable enough for this short flight. I'd prefer SQ sleeper for across the pond flight.
I took this route a few times in F but on the newer TG B747s...MUCH MUCH nicer than those very old first class seats on the MD11s (except that when I fly the MD11s on other routes like to Melbourne, I sometimes get the solitary middle two F seats to myself at the front of the MD11 with tons of space in front of me, so I feel like Captain Picard
)
I've flown SQ F all the time, their ground service was not at
this same level as far as the personal escort and shuttle service. The checkin/curbside service in Changi is actually a bit better than TG, as they have a nice F/solitaire lounge. Outside of SIN though, there aren't a whole lot of extra ground service that SQ provided.
Well the F Solitaire lounge (for check-in) in Changi is nice but I actually prefer TG ground services...I think TG home base ground services wll also take a quantum leap up when the new Bangkok International airport opens in March 2006..
In the air though, SQ F product is head and shoulder above that of TG, or for that matter, ahead of every carriers that I've
flown. UA service is was worse than TG, IMO.
Yes, I agree, currently the F seats on SQ (and dont forget CX) are better than TG F class seats on any configuration, but I think the gap will greatly shrink (if not be eliminated) when TGs B747s and new A340-600 are reconfiged (starting this month) to 10 (or 8) flat F seats in the nose (as opposed to 12 flat seats on SQ B747s and I believe also on CX).
I'd pick TG.
I would too over UA. TG ground services on both ends was fantastic! The complimentary Benz service to the airport was a very nice touch! and the super fast golf cart on landing in HK which wisks you to immigration was great...they just slightly slow down at one checkpoint to point a lasergun to your forehead to check for SARS or something
The flight was pretty short though, just 2:30 hours to hongkong and it was older A/C, MD11. The seat was comfortable enough for this short flight. I'd prefer SQ sleeper for across the pond flight.
I took this route a few times in F but on the newer TG B747s...MUCH MUCH nicer than those very old first class seats on the MD11s (except that when I fly the MD11s on other routes like to Melbourne, I sometimes get the solitary middle two F seats to myself at the front of the MD11 with tons of space in front of me, so I feel like Captain Picard
)I've flown SQ F all the time, their ground service was not at
this same level as far as the personal escort and shuttle service. The checkin/curbside service in Changi is actually a bit better than TG, as they have a nice F/solitaire lounge. Outside of SIN though, there aren't a whole lot of extra ground service that SQ provided.
Well the F Solitaire lounge (for check-in) in Changi is nice but I actually prefer TG ground services...I think TG home base ground services wll also take a quantum leap up when the new Bangkok International airport opens in March 2006..
In the air though, SQ F product is head and shoulder above that of TG, or for that matter, ahead of every carriers that I've
flown. UA service is was worse than TG, IMO.
Yes, I agree, currently the F seats on SQ (and dont forget CX) are better than TG F class seats on any configuration, but I think the gap will greatly shrink (if not be eliminated) when TGs B747s and new A340-600 are reconfiged (starting this month) to 10 (or 8) flat F seats in the nose (as opposed to 12 flat seats on SQ B747s and I believe also on CX).
Last edited by Trajan; Mar 7, 2005 at 3:15 am
Mar 7, 2005, 8:26 am
#7
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 46
How about taking the new JFK to BKK flight which would save you a huge amount of time. They don't have first class but I'm sure the business class is as comfortable as the old first class and the service and food will be great. But most important, you'll save hours of flight and layover time.
Mar 7, 2005, 10:45 am
#9
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: W29
Programs: It's Complicated...
Posts: 6,832
Personally I think it comes down to what you value more. If you want a true F experience, not doubt TG out does UA. The limo is a great touch for arriving/departing in BKK also. Departing BKK on TG F is the best as you get not only the limo but the menu faxed to your hotel with a lot of choices and the baggage service at the airport makes check in etc a piece of cake. I was once the only F passenger on a NRT-LAX flight and the FA removed the center console so I could lounge across both seats. That is service!
Now, having said that. I am all about the seat. I rarely eat much on flights so whatever UA has I pick at it a bit and it is good enough. I don’t think the UA meals in F are bad at all though. My wife who is Thai is also a big fan of the seat and loves the obento meal also. I am not willing to say that UA's service is bad on Int'l route but I will definitely say it is not as consistent as TG's service.
I would say UA has TG beat in the IFE area but both carriers lag behind the other asian carrriers in this area.
To me it comes down to first class experience or a nice seat to sleep in. I prefer the suite to the lounge chair but you wont really go wrong with either as both have their strong points and as long as you are aware of the week points before you fly it helps.
Now, having said that. I am all about the seat. I rarely eat much on flights so whatever UA has I pick at it a bit and it is good enough. I don’t think the UA meals in F are bad at all though. My wife who is Thai is also a big fan of the seat and loves the obento meal also. I am not willing to say that UA's service is bad on Int'l route but I will definitely say it is not as consistent as TG's service.
I would say UA has TG beat in the IFE area but both carriers lag behind the other asian carrriers in this area.
To me it comes down to first class experience or a nice seat to sleep in. I prefer the suite to the lounge chair but you wont really go wrong with either as both have their strong points and as long as you are aware of the week points before you fly it helps.
Mar 8, 2005, 4:46 pm
#10
Join Date: Dec 2003
Programs: UA Silver
Posts: 2,262
Originally Posted by Xplorer
Greetings!
Given my lack of experience with TG, I wanted to solicit the opinions of my fellow FT'ers who have flown F class both on TG and UA on transpacific routes. I am using an *A award for travel in F class from IAD to BKK.
Currently, I have the following Itinerary on hold:
Outbound:
Mar 23 08:00 AM UA 0383 Washington Dulles (IAD) to Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Mar 23 12:00 PM UA 0877 Chicago O'Hare (ORD) to Osaka Japan (KIX)
Mar 24 06:55 PM TG 0775 Osaka Japan (KIX) to Bangkok Thailand (BKK)
Return:
Mar 27 08:35 AM TG 0774 Bangkok Thailand (BKK) to Los Angeles (LAX) (via KIX)
Mar 27 01:15 PM UA 0120 Los Angeles (LAX) Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Mar 27 09:05 PM UA 1132 Chicago O'Hare (ORD) Washington Dulles (IAD)
The reason for the twisted routing on return is, of course, lack of availability. I do, however, still have the option of choosing between TG and UA from KIX (KIX to ORD on UA VS. KIX to LAX to ORD on TG).
I have flown, on a number of occasions, in F on UA. I do like their first class suite product. However, their service and meals, while quite adequate, were not in the same league as some of the Asian carriers. I have never flown TG (in any class). Given that all the TG parts of the itinerary above will be on the "old" F class configuration (18 F seats or the "744"), my question is if it would be a wise move to fly UA between KIX and ORD instead.
Thanks for the feedback. I plan to make a similar post on the UA board as well.
Xplorer
Given my lack of experience with TG, I wanted to solicit the opinions of my fellow FT'ers who have flown F class both on TG and UA on transpacific routes. I am using an *A award for travel in F class from IAD to BKK.
Currently, I have the following Itinerary on hold:
Outbound:
Mar 23 08:00 AM UA 0383 Washington Dulles (IAD) to Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Mar 23 12:00 PM UA 0877 Chicago O'Hare (ORD) to Osaka Japan (KIX)
Mar 24 06:55 PM TG 0775 Osaka Japan (KIX) to Bangkok Thailand (BKK)
Return:
Mar 27 08:35 AM TG 0774 Bangkok Thailand (BKK) to Los Angeles (LAX) (via KIX)
Mar 27 01:15 PM UA 0120 Los Angeles (LAX) Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Mar 27 09:05 PM UA 1132 Chicago O'Hare (ORD) Washington Dulles (IAD)
The reason for the twisted routing on return is, of course, lack of availability. I do, however, still have the option of choosing between TG and UA from KIX (KIX to ORD on UA VS. KIX to LAX to ORD on TG).
I have flown, on a number of occasions, in F on UA. I do like their first class suite product. However, their service and meals, while quite adequate, were not in the same league as some of the Asian carriers. I have never flown TG (in any class). Given that all the TG parts of the itinerary above will be on the "old" F class configuration (18 F seats or the "744"), my question is if it would be a wise move to fly UA between KIX and ORD instead.
Thanks for the feedback. I plan to make a similar post on the UA board as well.
Xplorer
Don't even consider about paying money for TG's F.
That's completely a waste of money.
You've probably already seen many posts in UA forum.
So far I flew TG once and that was TG774 from KIX to LAX.
I was operationally upgraded from Y to C.
The aircraft was very outdated, and no aircraft could be more outdated than that aircraft.
The lounge in KIX was very small, and no lounge could be smaller than that.
I'm serious, and you'd be better to take my advice.
I would say that it's definitely a wise move to fly UA.
TG is crappy.
Last edited by N227UA; Mar 9, 2005 at 2:24 am
Mar 8, 2005, 7:19 pm
#11
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston, Tx /SE Asia
Programs: UA 1K 3MM
Posts: 266
TG's service in F is very fine. But I won't pick service & meals over comfort. I fly across the Pacific 7 ~ 9 times every year. It's never gotten any shorter so if I want a good meal & service I go to a good restaurant. If I want to fly in comfort I pick an airline with good seats. TG's old F class just doesn't measure up.