A few positive words about UA's international C
May 26, 2014, 3:48 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Potomac MD
Programs: UA MP 1K
Posts: 7,182
A few positive words about UA's international C
I read a lot about how poorly UA's BF is compared to that of other carriers.
With nothing to compare, I have just wondered. Well, on Sunday 5/25 I got my chance to compare LH with UA. UA wins hands down.
I had the dreaded paper upgrade certificate but since it was Memorial Day weekend, the load on LH 416 was light. I had to take this flight since UA 988 would get me to IAD too late to go to a wedding. I was initially very excited when the upgrade cleared easily. But then...
First, my carry-on couldn’t go on this airbus (though it made it fine on the outbound flight on UA’s 777). Then, as I got on the plane, one disappointment after another marked the flight.
Second, I was anxious to get some sleep. But the LH seat was both shorter than UA’s, had less room overall, and was hard as a rock. You couldn’t adjust it as readily as you could UA’s C seat. And I couldn’t sleep at all on this seat (or bench).
Third, the drinks cart came around. No Courvoisier. Not on their list. I asked for Glenfidditch, which was on the menu. They didn’t have that either. UA far better.
Fourth, dinner was served. I chose the veal medallion with boiled potatoes and asparagus. OK, I don’t like asparagus, but I figured I could just put the spears aside. But the main course (which was served on a tray wrapped in aluminum foil, as in coach) was largely asparagus with a small piece of veal about the size of a single potato. The veal was very tough and tasteless. I was also served a single piece of bread and a salad 1/3 the size of a UA salad in C. Dessert was a decent rice pudding, serving size about the same as the veal (the size of a small potato). No ice cream, much less a sundae. UA meals are far better in C and almost as good in Y as LH's business class.
Fifth, no sleep meant that I wanted some entertainment. The movie options were sparse, about 25 in all. The remote control was difficult to operate. If you selected a movie category and wanted to change it, you had to go all the way back to the home screen. I couldn’t figure out how to pause a film and neither could a FA–though after he stopped my movie 5 times, he accidentally hit a key on the remote that allowed him (and me) to pause the film. UA has a much better selection of movies and TV shows and a remote control easier to use (even the onscreen choice in coach).
Sixth, I wanted to read the magazines I brought on board if I couldn’t sleep. The two lights (overhead and in the seat) barely provided enough light to read on a dark plane. Another advantage to UA.
Seventh, the crew was not as good as a good UA crew. They chatted loudly in the galley and would not keep quiet. UA crews used to talk a lot, but they now have more respect for the passengers. Overall, service was perfunctory on this flight.
Where did LH outscore UA? On coffee.
UA has many problems, but it certainly outscores LH in both the hard product and the soft product in C (except that LH's seat wins hands-down on "hardness").
With nothing to compare, I have just wondered. Well, on Sunday 5/25 I got my chance to compare LH with UA. UA wins hands down.
I had the dreaded paper upgrade certificate but since it was Memorial Day weekend, the load on LH 416 was light. I had to take this flight since UA 988 would get me to IAD too late to go to a wedding. I was initially very excited when the upgrade cleared easily. But then...
First, my carry-on couldn’t go on this airbus (though it made it fine on the outbound flight on UA’s 777). Then, as I got on the plane, one disappointment after another marked the flight.
Second, I was anxious to get some sleep. But the LH seat was both shorter than UA’s, had less room overall, and was hard as a rock. You couldn’t adjust it as readily as you could UA’s C seat. And I couldn’t sleep at all on this seat (or bench).
Third, the drinks cart came around. No Courvoisier. Not on their list. I asked for Glenfidditch, which was on the menu. They didn’t have that either. UA far better.
Fourth, dinner was served. I chose the veal medallion with boiled potatoes and asparagus. OK, I don’t like asparagus, but I figured I could just put the spears aside. But the main course (which was served on a tray wrapped in aluminum foil, as in coach) was largely asparagus with a small piece of veal about the size of a single potato. The veal was very tough and tasteless. I was also served a single piece of bread and a salad 1/3 the size of a UA salad in C. Dessert was a decent rice pudding, serving size about the same as the veal (the size of a small potato). No ice cream, much less a sundae. UA meals are far better in C and almost as good in Y as LH's business class.
Fifth, no sleep meant that I wanted some entertainment. The movie options were sparse, about 25 in all. The remote control was difficult to operate. If you selected a movie category and wanted to change it, you had to go all the way back to the home screen. I couldn’t figure out how to pause a film and neither could a FA–though after he stopped my movie 5 times, he accidentally hit a key on the remote that allowed him (and me) to pause the film. UA has a much better selection of movies and TV shows and a remote control easier to use (even the onscreen choice in coach).
Sixth, I wanted to read the magazines I brought on board if I couldn’t sleep. The two lights (overhead and in the seat) barely provided enough light to read on a dark plane. Another advantage to UA.
Seventh, the crew was not as good as a good UA crew. They chatted loudly in the galley and would not keep quiet. UA crews used to talk a lot, but they now have more respect for the passengers. Overall, service was perfunctory on this flight.
Where did LH outscore UA? On coffee.
UA has many problems, but it certainly outscores LH in both the hard product and the soft product in C (except that LH's seat wins hands-down on "hardness").
May 26, 2014, 3:54 pm
#2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SJC/SFO
Programs: UA lifetime gold; Hilton Gold; Marriott/SPG Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 2,954
I think lots of people will agree with you that Business UA is much better than LH.
I think LH is better in coach (except no E+ for *A gold) and better in First class but definitely lacks in Business.
I have not tried the new Business class seats but word is that they are much better than the old seats.
In general I think UA provides reasonably good service in business both transcon and international. I do prefer First UA though in international.
I think LH is better in coach (except no E+ for *A gold) and better in First class but definitely lacks in Business.
I have not tried the new Business class seats but word is that they are much better than the old seats.
In general I think UA provides reasonably good service in business both transcon and international. I do prefer First UA though in international.
May 26, 2014, 4:04 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,166
No one will argue it's inferior to UA hard-product wise...I'll still take LH's soft product every day of the week over UA though.
May 26, 2014, 4:09 pm
#5
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: TPA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 341
Looks like your plane was the older seat version. I'll be on the updated A333 soon, so I'll be curious about how it compares.
Ironic you should mention the Cognac. It's due to my LH flights serving Cognac after the meal in Y that has made it a ritual for me ever since.
Ironic you should mention the Cognac. It's due to my LH flights serving Cognac after the meal in Y that has made it a ritual for me ever since.
May 26, 2014, 4:32 pm
#6
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SUV
Programs: UA *G MM
Posts: 7,017
This time of year in Germany asparagus is a highly prized delicacy, so you should expect it to be the focus of a dish.
I am sure they had cognac Lheaurd VSOP, which is by far superior to Courvoisier. And I wouldn't be surprised if UA serves VS. This is a pretty ignorant criticism. What else? Complain that they don't have Budweiser?
There are nearly 100 seats on the A380 in C. It is not that difficult to get a peaceful seat. I usually fly in the rear of the aircraft and pick the exit row when available. Very private and quiet unlike the claustrophobic UA 777 cabin.
I am sure they had cognac Lheaurd VSOP, which is by far superior to Courvoisier. And I wouldn't be surprised if UA serves VS. This is a pretty ignorant criticism. What else? Complain that they don't have Budweiser?
There are nearly 100 seats on the A380 in C. It is not that difficult to get a peaceful seat. I usually fly in the rear of the aircraft and pick the exit row when available. Very private and quiet unlike the claustrophobic UA 777 cabin.
May 26, 2014, 4:36 pm
#7
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle WA, USA
Programs: UA MP 1K 2MM
Posts: 527
it all depends
On a recent trip SEA-FCO via FRA, we experienced LC C in a 747 (YVR-FRA, due to mx on SEA-FRA) and 330 returning. I think I agree that the seats on those two planes were less comfortable that UA C, not only because of not going to 180 degrees, but also because of a more limited number of options for adjusting the seat. In my experience the lighting was adequate on both flights; the carry-on issue was a concern, but the overhead center bins were adequate although much smaller than UA. (We had cut down on carry-on having twice been inconvenienced by LH's 8 Kg limit enforcement; although on neither of these flights was it enforced.)
The food was about the same mediocre quality as UA; since I avoid alcohol on long-haul flights, I can't comment on the drinks cart.
Entertainment options were a bit more limited, but once I had figured out how the LH controls worked, they options were no more difficult than on
UA.
So, it all depends.
Flyer 420
in Seattle
The food was about the same mediocre quality as UA; since I avoid alcohol on long-haul flights, I can't comment on the drinks cart.
Entertainment options were a bit more limited, but once I had figured out how the LH controls worked, they options were no more difficult than on
UA.
So, it all depends.
Flyer 420
in Seattle
May 26, 2014, 4:37 pm
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Potomac MD
Programs: UA MP 1K
Posts: 7,182
This time of year in Germany asparagus is a highly prized delicacy, so you should expect it to be the focus of a dish.
I am sure they had cognac Lheaurd VSOP, which is by far superior to Courvoisier. And I wouldn't be surprised if UA serves VS. This is a pretty ignorant criticism. What else? Complain that they don't have Budweiser?
There are nearly 100 seats on the A380 in C. It is not that difficult to get a peaceful seat. I usually fly in the rear of the aircraft and pick the exit row when available. Very private and quiet unlike the claustrophobic UA 777 cabin.
I am sure they had cognac Lheaurd VSOP, which is by far superior to Courvoisier. And I wouldn't be surprised if UA serves VS. This is a pretty ignorant criticism. What else? Complain that they don't have Budweiser?
There are nearly 100 seats on the A380 in C. It is not that difficult to get a peaceful seat. I usually fly in the rear of the aircraft and pick the exit row when available. Very private and quiet unlike the claustrophobic UA 777 cabin.
And the meal advertized was veal with asparagus, not asparagus with veal.
May 26, 2014, 5:05 pm
#9
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SUV
Programs: UA *G MM
Posts: 7,017
They had Lheaurd VSOP but I prefer Courvoisier. If that makes me less worthy in your eyes, so be it. Sorry I am ignorant in your world view. There were not 100 C seats on this plane. And it wouldn't have mattered. The seats were hard as a rock. I don't at all feel claustrophobic on the UA 777. The seats are comfortable and excellent for sleeping.
And the meal advertized was veal with asparagus, not asparagus with veal.
And the meal advertized was veal with asparagus, not asparagus with veal.
If you didn't like the food then I am sure they could bring you something else. Unlike UA they cater an abundance of main courses.
May 26, 2014, 5:05 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles / Basel
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA EXP, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 26,910
LH F, though, continues to just blow UA out of the water. There is no comparison, IMO.
May 26, 2014, 5:15 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,166
Food on my UA EWR-FRA I'm on right now is nothing I haven't seen for 2-4 years now. Same old stuff. And I'm sure none of the wines on the menu will be catered.
I'll take some pics tomorrow on LH and will report back.
May 26, 2014, 6:08 pm
#12
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NYC / TYO / Up in the Air
Programs: UA 1k (12 year fallen GS) 1.7MM, AA 2.1MM, EK, BA, SQ, CX, Marriot LT, Accor P
Posts: 6,254
I fly LH often from Tokyo to Frankfurt and I agree with OP here - LH is not as good - at least on this plane (747) and this route. I do think a better title for this thread however would be "Hey - at least UA isnt dead last...."
May 26, 2014, 6:17 pm
#13
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,732
What many here tend to skip over, while UA may not be the best in the premium cabin, it is far better than many.
May 26, 2014, 7:49 pm
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS/EAP
Programs: UA 1K, MR LTT, HH Dia, Amex Plat
Posts: 31,952
better than LH but we are still talking about bottom of the barral. Delta is much better so is Swiss. Even AZ is better. The hard product sCO is fine, the sUA product is horrible. LH's hard product is poor, even the 748i is not that great IMO but the soft product is much better IMO.
May 26, 2014, 7:56 pm
#15
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,116
