grtdane

I had 2 colleagues on this flight - I thankfully was on the same flight 2 days later. They ended up rebooking on Quantas - which incidentally also was delayed and ended up landing unexpectedly in Hawaii on the way (passenger ill) - so they had quite a trip.

What really annoyed me, was that there was no notice earlier. As it was, they spent a large portion of the day in the airport - that could have been spent enjoying Sydney for another day....

mmack

Did United rebook them on Qantas? I was told there was no way we could get out on another flight to California that day.Staying in Business class that is.

Too much travel

It amazes me that people continue to knowingly opt for UA to Australia when there are so many better and more reliable options available (DL, QF, VA). Even if for some unknown reason someone only has a *A membership, then surely a slight detour on AC or NZ is a better option than the UA casino?

Col Ronson

A) UA is generally the cheapest and most convenient. More connection options in LAX and SFO. Connection options in LAX are extremely convenient too. You arrive in T7, and you transfer to your connecting flights in T7. With QF you have to travel from TBIT to the AA terminal, and same thing with VA and NZ.
B) the only exclusive carrier to SFO. LAX-SFO flights are a pain to take and adds an unnecessary extra 2 hours travel time (at least).
C) some people don't want to waste a few extra hours to fly on NZ and transfer in AKL. And a lot of discount NZ fares do not accure miles on other *A carriers. Same thing with AC, transitioning in YVR to US based flights is slightly inconvenient and you have lesser connection options than UA at LAX.
D) i fly UA to Aus about 5 times per year and i have never had any problems.
E) UA still has economy plus. if you're flying coach, then the extra 3 inches of legroom make up for mediocre food and lack of decent IFE. (Wifi was functional at least 75% of the time on the last 3 trips i took though)
F) the QF flight from DFW has had more than its fair share of fuel diversions in the past. QF is not infallible as some people would like to believe.

I would love to fly QF but the mileage accrual rates to my AA account are not 100% except for a few high-fare economy codes or premium economy. If i fly QF, it will be in paid business which i admit i will probably never dish out $7-8k for a flight i could get for $5k less.

grtdane

No - we chose to buy a one way faire on Quantas - rebooking in business on United meant they would have been stranded for several days, and they needed to get back to the US. The Quantas flight had already left for the day - so they were on the Sunday flight.

Our travel department will try and make up some of the cost for the rebooking, by getting credit for the cancelled flight - but it was expensive!

restlessinRNO

A valuable summary. I might add, as UA 1K, I get 100% premier bonus miles flying UA.

ani90

I am flying UA from JFK to SYD. Considering delays and cancellations, would my better choice be to transit via LAX or SFO. Matters more on outbound trip as if I am a day late in SYD will cause substantial problems

transportprof

If being a day late in SYD will cause substantial problems, my advice is to add one more day to your trip, and depart a day earlier.

debracey

Either way is a crap shoot. If you have status on UA, LAX is probably your better bet because if something goes wrong and they know about it in advance, you have a (slim) chance of being put on QF/DL/....

In SFO UA is all you got.

Note that if you're flying after March, you'll be on the 777 which will (hopefully) improve the reliability of this route.

ani90

1K on UA. Travel in two weeks time so 747.

transportprof

As Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry, "you’ve got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?...."

ani90

Surely it is not that bad - maybe asking "do I feel unlucky" would be more reasonable! So many people, indeed the majority, report no problems on most encounters on this route.

All I ask is in relative terms is either LAX or SFO more prone to problems or does either make it more difficult if problems do occur? Do you know the answer to that? (or maybe i should ask would you feel things are any less gloomy with one choice compared to the other?)

transportprof

When things go wrong on United these days, they go very wrong, especially on flights to Australia. And it doesn't matter where you get MX'd - LAX or SFO. By the time UA cancels your flight, you're >90% likely to be stranded for at least 20 hours. You might be able to rebook on DL or QF, but most likely the next day.

You're the one who wrote that you'd have serious consequences by not arriving SYD on schedule. If that's true, then you can't count on any chance of recovering from the occasional, but severe, MX cancellations that plague UA 747s to Australia,

I've flown the SYD flights twice in 2013, and have another trip in April, after the shift to 777. I always book an extra day in SYD - the Marriott at Circular Quay is a very nice place to spend an extra day down under.

ani90

Thanks. Would flying NZ through Auckland be a safer bet? Will still get me into Sydney in the morning at 8.30 so not much different. Is an extra stop and less PQMs but ANZ in C supposedly much better than UA so could be bearable.

antkleve

If you are a 1k just get a status match with AA and start flying Qantas. I made the switch after figuring the amount of my time and money UA Have wasted and never looked back. I'm just using the last of my points now and had 20 hours delay both times.