Business Class IAD-FCO - UA or BA?
Jul 23, 2014, 8:45 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 244
Business Class IAD-FCO - UA or BA?
I need to fly to Rome next month, and am trying to figure out the best business class option. The UA and BA flights are only about $70 apart in price. I like BA C but the UA flights are direct, which would normally be my preference. However, I just flew UA last week IAD-SAN-IAD and was kind of shocked at how badly the domestic F experience has degraded over the past few years, so that has me a little leery. I have not flown UA internationally since the "Business First" thing and refurbished(?) C seats were unveiled and am wondering how it compares to the BA product. Any input would be appreciated!
Jul 23, 2014, 8:56 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,167
UA domestic F is now pretty abysmal, but int'l BF is fine...not award winning by any means but serviceable. Not sure if BA is worth the add'l connection.
Depends too if you have UA and/or AA status (for bonus mileage collection, caring about status earning, etc.)
Depends too if you have UA and/or AA status (for bonus mileage collection, caring about status earning, etc.)
Jul 23, 2014, 9:09 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast
Programs: AA CONCIERGE KEY & 1MM, HILTON DIAMOND
Posts: 11,970
I need to fly to Rome next month, and am trying to figure out the best business class option. The UA and BA flights are only about $70 apart in price. I like BA C but the UA flights are direct, which would normally be my preference. However, I just flew UA last week IAD-SAN-IAD and was kind of shocked at how badly the domestic F experience has degraded over the past few years, so that has me a little leery. I have not flown UA internationally since the "Business First" thing and refurbished(?) C seats were unveiled and am wondering how it compares to the BA product. Any input would be appreciated!
However, in terms of cabin crew service, both BA and UA are hit or miss.
Jul 23, 2014, 9:36 pm
#4
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
The one respect in which UA is better is that its IFE is better than that of the older BA seats in terms of selection and screen size and quality. Still, I'd fly BA over UA, even given having to connect on BA.
Jul 23, 2014, 9:44 pm
#5
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between SFO & SJC
Programs: UA 1MM (and no longer flying much)
Posts: 777
In contrast to thunderroad, there's no way I'd consider taking a connecting flight (which implies both more travel time and a risk of misconnects) to get a somewhat-better experience in J. As long as I can work, sleep, or watch movies in my seat I'm fine, and UA accomplishes that.
Also, the current state of domestic F isn't relevant, because that's a completely different product.
Also, the current state of domestic F isn't relevant, because that's a completely different product.
Jul 23, 2014, 10:25 pm
#7
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: near to SFO and LHR
Programs: BA Gold, B6 Mosiac, VS, AA, DL (and a legacy UA 2MM)
Posts: 2,274
I believe that the UA BF seat is roughly equivalent to the BA Club seat as far as comfort. The BA window seats offer more privacy for sure, when the partition is up. The BA aisle seats, however, have a more open feel than UA's and for me that was a negative. The IFE on UA is superior in picture quality.
I certainly would not opt for an extra connection so that I could fly one over the other - the risk of a misconnect trumps everything else.
I certainly would not opt for an extra connection so that I could fly one over the other - the risk of a misconnect trumps everything else.
Jul 23, 2014, 11:22 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 15,014
Jul 24, 2014, 3:21 am
#10
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Programs: United 1k
Posts: 133
BA tatl is better than United, and with less risk of the inedible food and garbage wine now such a feature of Smisek Air, but:
changing planes at Heathrow, what 4 hours additional journey time?, that is assuming nothing goes wrong; and then
flying BA Europe from Heathrow to Rome; think United domestic first five years.
There is just no contest. Unless you are a One World ff slave, fly non stop to Rome on UAL.
Have dinner before you get on the plane; ITNOG make sure you do not stuck in one of middle seats in J and slowly drink (spirits, not the wine) until you fal asleep.
changing planes at Heathrow, what 4 hours additional journey time?, that is assuming nothing goes wrong; and then
flying BA Europe from Heathrow to Rome; think United domestic first five years.
There is just no contest. Unless you are a One World ff slave, fly non stop to Rome on UAL.
Have dinner before you get on the plane; ITNOG make sure you do not stuck in one of middle seats in J and slowly drink (spirits, not the wine) until you fal asleep.
Jul 24, 2014, 5:36 am
#13
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NYC, FLL
Programs: UA PP 1MM, Marriott Bonvoy LTTE, BA Gold
Posts: 6,318
Jul 24, 2014, 5:47 am
#14
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Bucks County
Programs: UAL GS & Million Miler; Delta Lifetime Gold; Hilton Diamond; Marriott Platinum; Legion Etrangere
Posts: 1,609
Three class plane or two? If pmCO BF, seat is better and IFE as well. If three class plane, BA better but LHR connection is for the birds
Jul 24, 2014, 5:48 am
#15
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Suburban Philadelphia
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG Gold
Posts: 3,392
BA business class would have to be something special, a la SQ on the A380, for me to tolerate the LHR connection. It's not, so do the non stop and don't look back.