nycflyer

I've stopped flying UA longhaul for these reasons, just came back from Asia in AC C. Courteous and friendly staff who had no problem delaying my meal by 5hrs so I could sleep. The hard product is better than UA, and transit via YYZ is not worse than via ORD or IAD. If they were more frank they would advertise their product in the US as the anti-United:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...RDS=air+canada

BearX220

From bonus and credit card opportunities to partner opportunities to award calendar usability, there are tons of reasons why you'd make use of the FF program of an airline you don't fly very much.

For example, the Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan gives you a way to accrue miles on SkyTeam (DL, KE) and redeem them on OneWorld (CX, QF). Lots of people use it as a conversion engine without flying AS much.

rankourabu

Maybe because you value some of the features of the plan, one-way Star awards? free changes for top elites? An occasional domestic upgrade?

I was BD Gold for a couple years without ever setting a foot on an BMI plane, and many here collect BD miles, because of the value they have, flexibility in redemptions, and of course up to 625% mileage earning on premium fares.

Tons of people use AC to credit, because it only requires 35K for Gold, so much so, that AC introduced a rule that 5 segments/10000 miles must be flown on AC metal.

People even credit to Aegean because its only 20k? to Star Gold!

dccvii

This hits the nail on the head.

We've flown SFO-ICN-SFO in C a couple of times in the last few months. We turned with the crew both times -- the first group was outstanding, and they were even more incredible on the return once they recognized us.

The second trip, I'm certain we had the same crew as the OP. We've had our share of less-than-stellar FAs before, but this one took the cake. It just became downright comical, even once she recognized us and we got the third degree for why we were in Korea for such a short time.

Knowing we'd get the same group on the return, though, we were prepared -- or tried to be. More annoying was the gate police carry-on checkers who wouldn't allow us to bring bottles of water picked up in the lounge (I realize, of course, this is not something UA controls). Even the purser had never heard of that one before.

BearX220

Only a small percentage of Ford Pintos exploded and burned their owners to death, but that was enough to kill the Pinto brand.

It doesn't matter how many my-flight-was-great stories get filed here. I think UA TPAC, I think: appalling inflight service from horrible people. Just like I think Pinto, I think fireball.

SFO777

Sad but true. Sorry, but as long as CX, SQ and NH fly to/from SFO/LAX, I have no sympathy for anyone that actually pays real money to buy a UA First Class TPAC ticket, and then complains about the service.

weero

Not do I ... but UA C can be good value, especially as with UA you can at least exactly plan what kind of hardware you will get. And the new C seats are good Z-fare material. I like the food and don't care about service .. and I get the MP benefits, so why not?

On SQ you never know if you actually get the best C seat in the sky or some antique commuter they dug out somewhere (this happened to me twice). And the fake smiles of the Singa crews don't help me to overcome that.

DrPSB

After a recent trip to Australia where even the high end wines are now going screw top I must admit my wine snobbery about cork is a bit less.

Regarding the thread, as somebody living and working abroad with folks who are impovershed and seem pretty happy even with green fish, my thoughts go to the words of a famous philospher who once said, 'it's a hard knock life'.

born sleepy

Eh, if you think AA is any better, think again. JFK-BUD last month in 2-class 763 in C, JFK-based FAs were about as reclusive and not-hostile-but-not-friendly as any I've encountered in UA F/C.

Nice seat, though, decent food and wine, but not a compelling experience.

BearX220

Not really a ringing defense of UA. (There was a thread in the AA forum challenging people to think of an international F product AA's is better than. It was hard.) The point is, why is such awful service tolerated? By management or passengers?

Bear96

It is tolerated by passengers because they are addicted to miles.

It is tolerated by management because it is tolerated by passengers.

cerealmarketer

An FA once told me for intl the FRA and LHR based crews generally get significantly higher pax survey ratings than SFO -- on the order of 2x.

So there is apparently a documented disparity.

Thunderroad

+1. Though I do think the percentage of lousy and average crews on USA carriers is higher than on the better foreign airlines (where the curve trends more toward excellent), most crews I've flown with on UA and AA have been fine.

I'm under the vague impression that CO has paid more attention to FA quality than UA has in the past. So perhaps the new management will accordingly seek to improve this across the combined airline.

5R2

Although I have unfortunately had several experiences with UA similar to the OP, I do have a few flights that really stick out in my mind as excellent. In particular, a FRA-IAD flight in 2007 with a Paris based crew (Is the Paris crew base still open?). Between a cabin full of businessmen and a surprisingly all male crew, my wife was the only woman in the J cabin. The crew paid her ridiculous amounts of attention (which she loved), and then thanked me regularly for letting them do so. Overall, really excellent, professional crew. I wish they were all as motivated and service-oriented.

malgudi

Huh? Why should the FAs thank you? Is this similar to when the check is often presented to the guy (when there's a couple at the table)???