UA vs. LH - Biz vs. First
Jul 29, 2012, 8:54 pm
#31
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
Agreed, but we are comparing LH to UA not to EK or SQ in this thread.
My thoughts -
Hard product
New LH F > UA F > Old LH F > UA Biz > New LH Biz > Old LH Biz >old UA Biz.
Soft Product
LH F (either version, big time) > UA F (barely beats LH C) > LH Biz > UA Biz
Various Comments:
Old LH F hard product - I found the bed perfectly comfortable, better than the UA bed which I found narrower, because of the sloping sides. I have never encountered the problem which ijgordon refers to of staring into someone else's face. As to the seat not going fully flat, this slight incline, counteracts the angle at which the plane is flying. Inflight entertainment has never meant that much to me, so old LH F smaller screen wasn't a big problem.
New LH C Hard product. In the angled version, there isn't a problem with the foot separator being effective. It may appear flimsy, but it isn't. My problem is that the space that is left for the feet, is just a bit too narrow. it is ok as a food rest, but not good for sleeping.
Soft Product -
Unlike, some, I find UA's food mediocre and their wines are the basic plonk which are served in chain restaurants, no matter what the class of service. Occasionally, I feel that way about LH C, but am, more often than not satisfied.
Service levels on LH are consistently better than UA. Very rarely, you will get a great UA F crew, but most are just going through the motions. In LH it is the reverse - very rarely you will get an LH crew that is going through the motions, but most of the time, they are really on top of their game.
My thoughts -
Hard product
New LH F > UA F > Old LH F > UA Biz > New LH Biz > Old LH Biz >old UA Biz.
Soft Product
LH F (either version, big time) > UA F (barely beats LH C) > LH Biz > UA Biz
Various Comments:
Old LH F hard product - I found the bed perfectly comfortable, better than the UA bed which I found narrower, because of the sloping sides. I have never encountered the problem which ijgordon refers to of staring into someone else's face. As to the seat not going fully flat, this slight incline, counteracts the angle at which the plane is flying. Inflight entertainment has never meant that much to me, so old LH F smaller screen wasn't a big problem.
New LH C Hard product. In the angled version, there isn't a problem with the foot separator being effective. It may appear flimsy, but it isn't. My problem is that the space that is left for the feet, is just a bit too narrow. it is ok as a food rest, but not good for sleeping.
Soft Product -
Unlike, some, I find UA's food mediocre and their wines are the basic plonk which are served in chain restaurants, no matter what the class of service. Occasionally, I feel that way about LH C, but am, more often than not satisfied.
Service levels on LH are consistently better than UA. Very rarely, you will get a great UA F crew, but most are just going through the motions. In LH it is the reverse - very rarely you will get an LH crew that is going through the motions, but most of the time, they are really on top of their game.
Jul 29, 2012, 9:34 pm
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,238
The other thing worth mentioning about the old LH F seat is that it bounces a lot in turbulence when fully reclined. The seat back, in "full" recline (if you should be so lucky -- the poor chap in my picture above clearly isn't just slightly inclined to counter the nose-up attitude of the aircraft) isn't resting on anything. The newer "suite" style seats on almost all airlines are a lot more solid.
Jul 29, 2012, 9:47 pm
#33
Join Date: Jun 2007
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 386
I said "practically on top of your seatmate" which is different from "literally" on top of your seatmte. "On top of" is also an American idiom that in common usage means, simply, "really close." Ugh.
The other thing worth mentioning about the old LH F seat is that it bounces a lot in turbulence when fully reclined. The seat back, in "full" recline (if you should be so lucky -- the poor chap in my picture above clearly isn't just slightly inclined to counter the nose-up attitude of the aircraft) isn't resting on anything. The newer "suite" style seats on almost all airlines are a lot more solid.
The other thing worth mentioning about the old LH F seat is that it bounces a lot in turbulence when fully reclined. The seat back, in "full" recline (if you should be so lucky -- the poor chap in my picture above clearly isn't just slightly inclined to counter the nose-up attitude of the aircraft) isn't resting on anything. The newer "suite" style seats on almost all airlines are a lot more solid.
My thoughts -
Hard product
New LH F > UA F > Old LH F > UA Biz > New LH Biz > Old LH Biz >old UA Biz.
Soft Product
LH F (either version, big time) > UA F (barely beats LH C) > LH Biz > UA Biz
Various Comments:
Old LH F hard product - I found the bed perfectly comfortable, better than the UA bed which I found narrower, because of the sloping sides. I have never encountered the problem which ijgordon refers to of staring into someone else's face. As to the seat not going fully flat, this slight incline, counteracts the angle at which the plane is flying. Inflight entertainment has never meant that much to me, so old LH F smaller screen wasn't a big problem.
Soft Product -
Unlike, some, I find UA's food mediocre and their wines are the basic plonk which are served in chain restaurants, no matter what the class of service. Occasionally, I feel that way about LH C, but am, more often than not satisfied.
Service levels on LH are consistently better than UA.
Hard product
New LH F > UA F > Old LH F > UA Biz > New LH Biz > Old LH Biz >old UA Biz.
Soft Product
LH F (either version, big time) > UA F (barely beats LH C) > LH Biz > UA Biz
Various Comments:
Old LH F hard product - I found the bed perfectly comfortable, better than the UA bed which I found narrower, because of the sloping sides. I have never encountered the problem which ijgordon refers to of staring into someone else's face. As to the seat not going fully flat, this slight incline, counteracts the angle at which the plane is flying. Inflight entertainment has never meant that much to me, so old LH F smaller screen wasn't a big problem.
Soft Product -
Unlike, some, I find UA's food mediocre and their wines are the basic plonk which are served in chain restaurants, no matter what the class of service. Occasionally, I feel that way about LH C, but am, more often than not satisfied.
Service levels on LH are consistently better than UA.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jul 29, 2012 at 10:29 pm Reason: merge
Jul 30, 2012, 12:54 am
#34
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: JAX
Programs: UA Plat MM, AA Gold MM, Marriott LTT, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,770
I did not see the new C cabin.
IAD-LHR is one of the shortest TATL flights, so F may not be worth it. However, I would fly IAD-FRA-LHR on the new LH F for the in flight and FRA FCT experiences.
Jul 30, 2012, 10:01 am
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,238
Could not agree more, +1
Jul 30, 2012, 10:20 am
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Benicia, California, USA
Programs: AA PLT,AS,UA PP,J6,FB,EY,LH,SQ,HH Dmd,Hyatt Glbl,Marriott Plat,IHG Plat,Accor Gold
Posts: 10,820
So, I have a related question - am looking to fly NYC - CPH, currently I have two options.
UA F through BRU, or LH C (748i) through IAD and FRA.
I'm torn - UA is only one stop, in F, overnight, bigger seats etc. LH is new C, which is fun, but longer trip, is the soft product that much better on LH?
Thanks
UA F through BRU, or LH C (748i) through IAD and FRA.
I'm torn - UA is only one stop, in F, overnight, bigger seats etc. LH is new C, which is fun, but longer trip, is the soft product that much better on LH?
Thanks
Avoiding a 2nd stop-over, esp IAD, should be a priority! (and FRA's not fun either) Given these choices, there's really no contest: UA F, meaning the new UA F (not the old F still out there on some 777's), is great! The seat is huge and comfortable, lots of storage space and privacy. The service is generally good, occasionally great, and once in a blue-moon poor. They have improved the food a lot in my opinion, since June 1.
Plus, as noted, one connection beats two, and those connections are especially lousy transit points, especially FRA.
Agreed, but we are comparing LH to UA not to EK or SQ in this thread.
My thoughts -
Hard product
New LH F > UA F > Old LH F > UA Biz > New LH Biz > Old LH Biz >old UA Biz.
Soft Product
LH F (either version, big time) > UA F (barely beats LH C) > LH Biz > UA Biz
Various Comments:
Old LH F hard product - I found the bed perfectly comfortable, better than the UA bed which I found narrower, because of the sloping sides. I have never encountered the problem which ijgordon refers to of staring into someone else's face. As to the seat not going fully flat, this slight incline, counteracts the angle at which the plane is flying. Inflight entertainment has never meant that much to me, so old LH F smaller screen wasn't a big problem.
New LH C Hard product. In the angled version, there isn't a problem with the foot separator being effective. It may appear flimsy, but it isn't. My problem is that the space that is left for the feet, is just a bit too narrow. it is ok as a food rest, but not good for sleeping.
Soft Product -
Unlike, some, I find UA's food mediocre and their wines are the basic plonk which are served in chain restaurants, no matter what the class of service. Occasionally, I feel that way about LH C, but am, more often than not satisfied.
Service levels on LH are consistently better than UA. Very rarely, you will get a great UA F crew, but most are just going through the motions. In LH it is the reverse - very rarely you will get an LH crew that is going through the motions, but most of the time, they are really on top of their game.
My thoughts -
Hard product
New LH F > UA F > Old LH F > UA Biz > New LH Biz > Old LH Biz >old UA Biz.
Soft Product
LH F (either version, big time) > UA F (barely beats LH C) > LH Biz > UA Biz
Various Comments:
Old LH F hard product - I found the bed perfectly comfortable, better than the UA bed which I found narrower, because of the sloping sides. I have never encountered the problem which ijgordon refers to of staring into someone else's face. As to the seat not going fully flat, this slight incline, counteracts the angle at which the plane is flying. Inflight entertainment has never meant that much to me, so old LH F smaller screen wasn't a big problem.
New LH C Hard product. In the angled version, there isn't a problem with the foot separator being effective. It may appear flimsy, but it isn't. My problem is that the space that is left for the feet, is just a bit too narrow. it is ok as a food rest, but not good for sleeping.
Soft Product -
Unlike, some, I find UA's food mediocre and their wines are the basic plonk which are served in chain restaurants, no matter what the class of service. Occasionally, I feel that way about LH C, but am, more often than not satisfied.
Service levels on LH are consistently better than UA. Very rarely, you will get a great UA F crew, but most are just going through the motions. In LH it is the reverse - very rarely you will get an LH crew that is going through the motions, but most of the time, they are really on top of their game.
I'd differ in a couple of minor respects:
While LH C service is ok and more uniform than UA, IME it's nothing special.
For a couple in F, I'd even take old LH F over new UA F for the far superior service, better food and access to the great LH F lounges in Germany, even though the UA F hard product is better.
Jul 30, 2012, 11:23 am
#37
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,265
I have not been in the new LH C and hence have no idea where to sort it.
Jul 30, 2012, 7:55 pm
#38
Join Date: May 2004
Programs: BA blue, LH Senator, KQ (FB) gold
Posts: 8,215
I'd differ in a couple of minor respects:
While LH C service is ok and more uniform than UA, IME it's nothing special.
For a couple in F, I'd even take old LH F over new UA F for the far superior service, better food and access to the great LH F lounges in Germany, even though the UA F hard product is better.
While LH C service is ok and more uniform than UA, IME it's nothing special.
For a couple in F, I'd even take old LH F over new UA F for the far superior service, better food and access to the great LH F lounges in Germany, even though the UA F hard product is better.
I agree with you completely regarding LH F, and that is just considering the onboard product. when you add in the lounges in Munich and especially the Frankfurt First-Class Terminal with its oh-so easy security and top-quality food and drink, LH F is a no-brainer.
Aug 18, 2012, 8:39 pm
#39
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: IAH
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold, HH Gold, Hyatt Explorist, Hertz PC, Avis 1st
Posts: 313
UA GF 767 vs. LH F A330
I have an upcoming award flight from MSY to GVA, currently routed through UA in Global First: MSY-EWR-GVA with an almost 8hr layover in EWR. Found an option to go MSY-CLT-MUC-GVA with MSY-CLT on US and CLT-MUC in LH F on an A330. Having never experienced either International First products I could use the helpful advice of Flyertalkers. Thanks in advance.
It appears based on EF that it's the NEW LH First on CLT-MUC my flight date.
It appears based on EF that it's the NEW LH First on CLT-MUC my flight date.
Last edited by iahkid2014; Aug 18, 2012 at 9:09 pm Reason: ETA LH New First
Aug 18, 2012, 9:58 pm
#40
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NYC, LON
Programs: *
Posts: 2,774
Aug 19, 2012, 8:19 am
#41
Join Date: Oct 2006
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 163
Recently flew UA Biz (new product) 777 overnight and LH Biz (new product) 748 returning.
IMO service on LH was far superior, as was the food. I never expect the in-flight food to rival anything I will eat in a restaurant at my destination, but the LH 1st course was excellent. UAs salad was the best part of the meal for me, as usual. The LH main course was certainly not gourmet but more edible than UA's tough beef. I also prefer the option of a cheese course or other dessert to the ever-present UA ice cream. LH breads are excellent with a wide variety of choices. The German chocolate offered at the end of the flight was a nice gesture as well.
I think the new seats on the two airlines are comparable in C. I did not find the foot divider flimsy either and would admit the foot well space is a bit tight, but sleeping on my side it was not a problem. The narrow foot well was balanced by being able to drop the wall armrest to increase seat width, as well as the private feel of the 748 upper deck and the seat storage areas (where there is no seat storage around the new UA C seat).
The 748 also offers the option of not having to step over someone fully reclined at all if choosing to sit downstairs in the middle of the aircraft. Those seats also have larger footwell areas and larger divider space between them.
As for old LH C, I pretty much avoid it as the seats are no better than USAirways Envoy. The service does not make up for the hard product IMO.
In F, the new LH F hard product now matches their great service and food service. The movable ottoman is great for relaxing and provides a large space for storage. If going through FRA, the FCT almost makes old LH F worth it over any UA alternative.
I realize service can be hit or miss. However, I have never had a bad experience on LH C or F. I only occasionally find great service on UA (F or C). As an example, it took 4-5 requests over several hours on UA to address my IFE which froze up about 90 minutes into the flight. The first request was toward the end of meal service. I get it, bad timing to do anything. However, the next few hours were repeated trips to the galley (where the FAs were all chatting) to ask someone for help. They reset the system, mentioned the purser was aware, and that was it. Only with 2 hours left in the flight was I offered a different seat. In contrast, LH service staff have always taken ownership of a problem for me until it is fully-addressed either way. They also seem much more available, passing through the cabin throughout the flight rather than spending most of it chatting with their colleagues and non-revs.
IMO service on LH was far superior, as was the food. I never expect the in-flight food to rival anything I will eat in a restaurant at my destination, but the LH 1st course was excellent. UAs salad was the best part of the meal for me, as usual. The LH main course was certainly not gourmet but more edible than UA's tough beef. I also prefer the option of a cheese course or other dessert to the ever-present UA ice cream. LH breads are excellent with a wide variety of choices. The German chocolate offered at the end of the flight was a nice gesture as well.
I think the new seats on the two airlines are comparable in C. I did not find the foot divider flimsy either and would admit the foot well space is a bit tight, but sleeping on my side it was not a problem. The narrow foot well was balanced by being able to drop the wall armrest to increase seat width, as well as the private feel of the 748 upper deck and the seat storage areas (where there is no seat storage around the new UA C seat).
The 748 also offers the option of not having to step over someone fully reclined at all if choosing to sit downstairs in the middle of the aircraft. Those seats also have larger footwell areas and larger divider space between them.
As for old LH C, I pretty much avoid it as the seats are no better than USAirways Envoy. The service does not make up for the hard product IMO.
In F, the new LH F hard product now matches their great service and food service. The movable ottoman is great for relaxing and provides a large space for storage. If going through FRA, the FCT almost makes old LH F worth it over any UA alternative.
I realize service can be hit or miss. However, I have never had a bad experience on LH C or F. I only occasionally find great service on UA (F or C). As an example, it took 4-5 requests over several hours on UA to address my IFE which froze up about 90 minutes into the flight. The first request was toward the end of meal service. I get it, bad timing to do anything. However, the next few hours were repeated trips to the galley (where the FAs were all chatting) to ask someone for help. They reset the system, mentioned the purser was aware, and that was it. Only with 2 hours left in the flight was I offered a different seat. In contrast, LH service staff have always taken ownership of a problem for me until it is fully-addressed either way. They also seem much more available, passing through the cabin throughout the flight rather than spending most of it chatting with their colleagues and non-revs.
Aug 19, 2012, 1:03 pm
#42
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: IAH
Posts: 362
Or maybe I just happened to get a flight that had very good service from my perspective. The FA was very friendly without being overbearing, and always around when I needed something. Unless you were on the same flight, I don't see how you can disagree. I may not fly as much as other people, but I don't see how that invalidates my opinion.
Oct 5, 2012, 12:41 pm
#43
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 6km East of EPAYE
Programs: UA Silver, AA Platinum, AS & DL GM Marriott TE, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,582
Choosing LH products SAN-MXP
People are referring to old and new LH products.
Is the old LH F on everything BUT the A333, A380 and 748i? Are conversions happening?
Thank you,
M59
Is the old LH F on everything BUT the A333, A380 and 748i? Are conversions happening?
Thank you,
M59
Oct 5, 2012, 1:42 pm
#44
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: WAS
Programs: UA1K .455 MM, Hilton and Marriott Gold
Posts: 397
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/miles...it-thread.html
Oct 5, 2012, 2:12 pm
#45
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2012
Programs: US CP ; LH FTL ; *G
Posts: 1,630
C/J on LH A330 is horrid. The seat is slanted and doesn't even have the standard headphone jack - you are forced to use the crappy LH headphones (without noise cancellation) that come with the seat and that are covered with all the germs - and probably earwax - from all the pax who used them before you. Oh, and to make things worse, FAs don't know whether the seat has standard jacks and where the existing jacks are - you have to look for the concealed jacks and headphones yourself.
UA new BF is much much better.
UA new BF is much much better.