TPAC UA vs. NH Economy
Looking at some TPAC fares ex-LAX/SFO early next year in economy. Is NH economy worth flying over UA E(+)?
Price, aircraft (77W?), and fare class (K) appear to be the same for both routes. I mainly credit discount economy to SQ, so I'd earn ~14k miles if flying UA, and apparently zero on NH. Approaching 41k on SQ this year so this flight would qualify me for *G through next August-ish. Currently leaning towards UA since it's one less customs stop, *G qualifying flight, and will have access to E+ from Premier Silver. I've never flown ANA before. The schedule is better and my parents gush about the service, though I've heard the seat referred to as a "knee crusher" before. Is the ANA experience really worth giving up 14k miles ... ? |
Originally Posted by Polytonic
(Post 28841361)
Looking at some TPAC fares ex-LAX/SFO early next year in economy. Is NH economy worth flying over UA E(+)?
Price, aircraft (77W?), and fare class (K) appear to be the same for both routes. I mainly credit discount economy to SQ, so I'd earn ~14k miles if flying UA, and apparently zero on NH. Approaching 41k on SQ this year so this flight would qualify me for *G through next August-ish. Currently leaning towards UA since it's one less customs stop, *G qualifying flight, and will have access to E+ from Premier Silver. I've never flown ANA before. The schedule is better and my parents gush about the service, though I've heard the seat referred to as a "knee crusher" before. Is the ANA experience really worth giving up 14k miles ... ? ANA service is much better than United (on average), but on a long haul in economy, seat comfort is the overwhelmingly important metric for me. |
United's 10 abreast is going to very unpleasant even in E+ whereas ANA is 9 abreast. Not sure where the knee-crusher reference came from, they have a well above average 34 inch pitch
It's worth 14k miles to avoid United |
Originally Posted by Polytonic
(Post 28841361)
Looking at some TPAC fares ex-LAX/SFO early next year in economy. Is NH economy worth flying over UA E(+)?
Price, aircraft (77W?), and fare class (K) appear to be the same for both routes. I mainly credit discount economy to SQ, so I'd earn ~14k miles if flying UA, and apparently zero on NH. Approaching 41k on SQ this year so this flight would qualify me for *G through next August-ish. Currently leaning towards UA since it's one less customs stop, *G qualifying flight, and will have access to E+ from Premier Silver. I've never flown ANA before. The schedule is better and my parents gush about the service, though I've heard the seat referred to as a "knee crusher" before. Is the ANA experience really worth giving up 14k miles ... ?
Originally Posted by goodeats21
(Post 28841433)
United's 77W is 3x4x3 in economy, which I avoid. If ANA is 3x3x3, it would be my choice.
ANA service is much better than United (on average), but on a long haul in economy, seat comfort is the overwhelmingly important metric for me.
Originally Posted by ajeleonard
(Post 28841465)
United's 10 abreast is going to very unpleasant even in E+ whereas ANA is 9 abreast. Not sure where the knee-crusher reference came from, they have a well above average 34 inch pitch
It's worth 14k miles to avoid United However it looks like the UA SFO-HND is switching back to the sUA 772 (3-3-3) in January/February (and then back to the 789 in March) so if that works with your dates/fares that might be an option as well. Also the NH knee-crushers are I believe their intra-Asia 763s, but the 2-4-3 77Ws also have the fixed-shell seats (i.e. when you recline the seat slides forward but not back), which get pretty mixed reviews. Their 3-4-3 77Ws have the normal seats that actually recline. Overall though — NH will have significantly better food and service, UA has wifi and much better IFE selection, seat will be a wash unless you're on LAX-HND, but getting *G and E+ on UA might swing it for me (especially if you can get SFO-HND on the 772)... |
IME - NH Y food is as bad as UA Y food (if not worse, I posted photos in the past), but there is also less of it.
NH FAs will be traditionally polite. However, fixed shell seats and no E+ mean that I would opt for UA. Now, in J there is no comparison. |
I thought that the fixed shell seats were removed years ago....
OP, do you and your travel team have long legs? If not, NH is the winner. I love NH and that they always treat me well. I can no longer say that about UA. |
Originally Posted by truncated
(Post 28841729)
Be careful when booking NH from the west coast: LAX/SFO-NRT is operated by their 3-4-3 77Ws, only LAX-HND is 3-3-3 for now. Of course UA's SFO-NRT is the 10-across 77W and LAX-NRT is the 9-across 789, so they're as bad as NH if not worse, but this kinda reduces the difference between the two airlines, especially with E+.
In either case, OP will need to compare UA E+ 3-4-3 (or 3-3-3 on 787) with regular econ 3-4-3 or hardshell econ 2-4-3. |
Originally Posted by hirohito888
(Post 28842264)
NH has 2 configs on 77W: 2-4-3 features hardshell economy seats, and 3-4-3 features regular economy seats.
In either case, OP will need to compare UA E+ 3-4-3 (or 3-3-3 on 787) with regular econ 3-4-3 or hardshell econ 2-4-3. |
Based on the OP's reasons for wanting to go with UA for *G and E+, I'd say these reasons alone are enough to pick UA. I've done both NH/UA TPAC multiple times, and I've grown to appreciate flying UA more. You're right that the service generally tends to be better on NH, but in Economy, I don't really find that matters much anyway. Economy food is about equal, and UA has a superior beer selection if you appreciate that. Plus with E+ access, UA is the clear winner with space. I find the AVOD to be better on UA too. Oh, and I usually find the NH cabins uncomfortably hot and stuffy.
|
Originally Posted by pushmyredbutton
(Post 28842410)
Based on the OP's reasons for wanting to go with UA for *G and E+, I'd say these reasons alone are enough to pick UA. I've done both NH/UA TPAC multiple times, and I've grown to appreciate flying UA more. You're right that the service generally tends to be better on NH, but in Economy, I don't really find that matters much anyway. Economy food is about equal, and UA has a superior beer selection if you appreciate that. Plus with E+ access, UA is the clear winner with space. I find the AVOD to be better on UA too. Oh, and I usually find the NH cabins uncomfortably hot and stuffy.
|
Originally Posted by truncated
(Post 28841729)
Be careful when booking NH from the west coast: LAX/SFO-NRT is operated by their 3-4-3 77Ws, only LAX-HND is 9-across (2-4-3) for now. Of course UA's SFO-NRT is the 10-across 77W and LAX-NRT is the 9-across 789, so they're as bad as NH if not worse, but this kinda reduces the difference between the two airlines, especially with E+.
Overall though — NH will have significantly better food and service, UA has wifi and much better IFE selection, seat will be a wash unless you're on LAX-HND, but getting *G and E+ on UA might swing it for me (especially if you can get SFO-HND on the 772)... SeatGuru claims the 2-4-3 config is still 16.5" seat width though. Is that just a mislabeling from the 3-4-3 config?
Originally Posted by pushmyredbutton
(Post 28842410)
Based on the OP's reasons for wanting to go with UA for *G and E+, I'd say these reasons alone are enough to pick UA. I've done both NH/UA TPAC multiple times, and I've grown to appreciate flying UA more. You're right that the service generally tends to be better on NH, but in Economy, I don't really find that matters much anyway. Economy food is about equal, and UA has a superior beer selection if you appreciate that. Plus with E+ access, UA is the clear winner with space. I find the AVOD to be better on UA too. Oh, and I usually find the NH cabins uncomfortably hot and stuffy.
Seems like most people here are leaning UA, so I'll probably stick with that (or maybe put my parents on NH and fly UA myself?) |
Originally Posted by Polytonic
(Post 28842759)
Oh interesting. LAX-HND (NH105/6) is the flight I was looking at. The midnight departure is slightly better than LAX-NRT in terms of fighting traffic. I didn't realize they used different seat configurations.
SeatGuru claims the 2-4-3 config is still 16.5" seat width though. Is that just a mislabeling from the 3-4-3 config? I flew UA1/2 last month and found the service and food decent enough. I liked the chicken and rice dish at least. Plus earning *G gets me into United Clubs; I fly through SFO enough that it probably beats sitting in front of Peet's for two hours each time. Seems like most people here are leaning UA, so I'll probably stick with that (or maybe put my parents on NH and fly UA myself?) -777 (at 9x) has 21.3"/seat -763 (at 7x) has 21.2”/seat -A320 (at 6x) has 21.2”/seat -A330/330neo (at 8x) has 20.8"/seat - A350 (at 9x) has 20.3”/seat -747 (at 10x) has 20.2”/seat -737/757 (at 6x) has 20”/seat -787 (at 9x) has 19.8"/seat -777 (at 10x, using 18” aisles as UA is, which is why they are so narrow) has 19.4”/seat The difference in seat width is nearly 2", which unless you are small enough to join the circus, is - on a flight like on UA where there are likely to be lots of larger sized Americans - material. I would give ANA the edge over UA (better food/service/booze offered for free/coffee) but I would buy strictly on seat comfort, and since ANA has 34" pitch so it is as good as UA is, that really is a question of the aircraft and its configuration. This means taking a flights with the ANA LAX-HND equipment 777 (at x9 ) >>>> UA 789 (at 9x) >>>>> UA 77w (at 10x). In your case the ANA flight LAX-HND will be vastly more comfortable than what UA is offering. P.s. You will earn PQM no matter who you fly as ANA miles count to *G. What you may not get is PQ$, unless - I think - bought from UA/ ANA. Unless you are buying from a third party consolidator, it is simply not an issue. The only loss in flying ANA is lifetime miles, which need to be on UA metal. |
Originally Posted by spin88
(Post 28842841)
I would give ANA the edge over UA (better food/service/booze offered for free/coffee) but I would buy strictly on seat comfort, and since ANA has 34" pitch so it is as good as UA is, that really is a question of the aircraft and its configuration.
This means taking a flights with the ANA LAX-HND equipment 777 (at x9 ) >>>> UA 789 (at 9x) >>>>> UA 77w (at 10x). In your case the ANA flight LAX-HND will be vastly more comfortable than what UA is offering. P.s. You will earn PQM no matter who you fly as ANA miles count to *G. What you may not get is PQ$, unless - I think - bought from UA/ ANA. Unless you are buying from a third party consolidator, it is simply not an issue. The only loss in flying ANA is lifetime miles, which need to be on UA metal. Also if OP's considering NH105/6 — meal service is abbreviated on these redeyes: snack after departure and breakfast (significantly more substantial than the UA breakfast though) before landing... plenty of snacks available in the galley though. Also if you're heading into Tokyo (usually) HND is way more convenient than NRT if that's a consideration as well. |
Originally Posted by spin88
(Post 28842841)
I would give ANA the edge over UA (better food/service/booze offered for free/coffee) but I would buy strictly on seat comfort, and since ANA has 34" pitch so it is as good as UA is, that really is a question of the aircraft and its configuration.
|
Originally Posted by pushmyredbutton
(Post 28843253)
Just asking, but have you actually flown the 2-4-3 77W that ANA flies on the LAX-HND route? I don't think anyone I've spoken with has ever associated those fixed-shell seats with 'comfort', regardless of width. And UA does in fact offer free booze, just limited to wine/beer, though.
https://flight-report.com/photos/5Vi75TsOb1/31.JPG I don't think there is any reasonable dispute that ANA's food/coffee (even with UA now doing Illy) and booze selection/quality is better than what UA serves. Absent getting a micro-brew on UA (sometimes they are gone...) everything UA offers for free is low quality, and ANA will give you hard ETOH as well, including a decent scotch. p.s. I should add that I have not flown ANA long haul in about two years (since they put 3-4-3 on the SFO-NRT flights) but I don't think anything has materially changed re their soft-product. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:35 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.