northsideguy

Hi, I have a suggestion. Why doesn't t he OP go to UA's website, > Travel Information >Baggage Information>Checked Baggage Service Charge? There the OP inputs his confirmation number and last name. Once inputed the OP can view the bag charges. No matter what we say, the final result is going to be what the computer shows to the check-in agent. Just a thought. Safe Travels.

cubachao

I checked, only one bag! UA sucks!!!! Hope I don't need a visa, my connection time only 90 mins, what if I don't make it((

uastarflyer

You definitely will not need a visa for transit

And yes UA is terrible in the baggage situation. They will grab your money but if the bag is lost after getting to NRT they will say NH owns it.

Scam pure and simple.

Postal007

I'm going to Shanghai on a business trip in the last week of August, and wanted advice on what product to try. I'll be flying in business class, and the price difference between options is not material. I want to fly *A, and particularly stay on either UA or ANA for the 150% PQM's I will need to get to Premier Gold this year (I'm currently Premier Platinum, but I don't foresee being able to keep that this year unless I book a ton of mileage runs). Here are the options I'm considering:

UA option 1: SFO-PVG direct flight - upper deck on the 747
UA option 2: SFO-LAX-PVG - try out the 787 from LAX to PVG
ANA option: SFO-NRT-PVG - try out ANA's IOJ J seat and service (never tried ANA before)

I'm considering whether or not I should take the hit of a layover with ANA (which adds about 3-4 hours onto each flight), or whether I should just stick to UA direct. I've taken the upper deck on the 747 once last year SFO-LHR, which I found to be quite a good seat, although the service and food left something to be desired. I've heard a lot of good things about ANA's new IOJ staggered business class, and their great service/food as well. As for the LAX routing, that would be to try out the new 787 direct flight UA 198 from LAX to PVG - I have not yet flown on the 787. I'm concerned about the UA 787 flight for two reasons - (1) higher percentage of a delay due to mechanical issues with the 787 for one reason or another which seem to happen at a higher rate; (2) something about sitting in a plane which is still working out its issues gives me a little bit of pause, although not a ton.

Right now I'm aiming toward the direct UA flight, but the ANA option is definitely tempting me. I'd like to see if anyone else has any opinions.

DBCme

If SJC is an option for you, I thought NH was flying the 787 to NRT.

ryan182

If the layover isnt a concern then you will get a better seat and FAR better service on ANA. I took their 787 in Jan and it was outstanding, though upon landing in NRT the TVs in the terminal were running stories about the JAL 787 that caught fire which was a bit disconcerting but as far as ANA vs UA in J unless the time is a big deal I'd go with ANA. On ANA you will get a real premium product, UA has a decent seat rather blah food, $7 wine and the possibility of getting a good crew that provides good service (though this is far from assured). If you go with UA see if you can upgrade to F, you'll get $15 wine and access to a lounge that is on-par with ANAs J lounge.

PHLyer82

I would go with ANA if the time was not an issue since I never have. As DBEme said if the 787 was flying out of SJC that day I would do that. Best of both worlds.

mduell

ANA if you're ok with a little hassle (connecting) to try a new product and receive better service, otherwise the 747 nonstop. Wouldn't bother with connecting for the 787.

mecabq

I have vowed never to take a short-haul UA flight out of SFO to connect elsewhere (e.g., SFO-LAX-PVG). Although the 787 is worth a try, the LAX flights are just too delay-prone to risk missing a once-per-day onward flight, unless of course you have lots of time and take an earlier flight out of SFO.

Doc Savage

UA direct flight.

Any connection is simply asking for delays, lost baggage, etc., in addition to the time lost.

moondog

I would go with NH. I've done UA857 way too many times (in all classes), and it just isn't a very nice flight.

Postal007

Thanks for the input from everyone. I'm going to end up booking NH I think, in J from SFO in the 77W. I live in SF so the 40 mile drive down to SJC just isn't worth it for me to get in the 787, although it would be nice. I'll be on an NH 787, except in Y, in October for a personal trip, so that will be my opportunity to fly it. I'll let you guys know how NH goes.

ORDnHKG

NH rarely have delays and NH rarely lost bags. These two things are more common and well known on UA compare to NH. Even though UA has all 744 base in SFO, it still suffer mechanical, only a little less than before. I had yet seen any NH planes go mechanical.

Time lost is irrelevant, if you take a look at at the nonstop and NH with the connection at NRT, nonstop arrives at 5:25pm, and one stop on NH arrive 8:15pm, so it is basically less than 3 hours differernce, is that really big about the time lost ?

mecabq

Yes, it is. I would rather arrive at my hotel in Shanghai at 7:30pm than at 10:15pm. I am not sure about traffic conditions at those hours, but with the 8:15pm arrival, you stand a slight risk of missing the last maglev (9:40) if immigration, baggage, and customs take a bit longer than normal, or of course if the flight is delayed.

uastarflyer

50% of my NH flights have had delayed baggage.

my only delay on a transpac in at least 20 RTs on UA, all with 747 segments, was due to that OZ 214 crash as I was about to take off. Others MMV i give you Dreamlemon. QED