UA_Flyer

krispykrme

FlyerTalker70

N.B. I was in HKG around mid-June (unsure how recent the remodel was done).

Agreed about the NH lounge! I had a few connections at NRT and found the NH lounge had a well stocked and squeaky clean shower, an excellent ramen, food and drinks bar and a sleeping lounge (with black out curtains). As someone who primarily flies Y, especially for long haul, this *Gold lounge is a real diamond in the rough! As for UCs, the DOM ones aren't great. I was peeved (to say the least) after coming off a 13+ hour flight from NRT only to find that the UC at EWR no longer has showers! The only redeeming quality to the UC is that the breakfast spread is decent. I think HNL holds the record for worst UC in my book - who considers having only edamame to be consider respectable food spread in a lounge?

Safe Travels,

James

Lbs890213

if u on your way to 1k then no choice to choose UA
otherwise no single reason , i will suggest UA

adampenrith

All of the SQ lounges I have been into have been outstanding. Yes over all those years - almost 50 since I first flew on SQ I have had a couple of staff who were having a bad day or past their use by date, a couple of food offerings have been the same, that happens. One swallow does not make a summer. Sad that you had a bad experience once but its not the standard

drvannostren

The answer is SQ at every turn.

I agree with some of the other posters, if you're looking for PQD or GS, then sure UA should be in consideration. If you're looking to save money, UA is also probably the way to go, just in general I've never really found SQ to be cheaper than almost anyone else.

Yes, the seats are a little odd. This weird diagonal setup, honestly, I dunno what consultant thought this was a good idea, but they went with. They aren't uncomfortable, they're just weird imo. They're also private. If you were getting the true new polaris seats, I'd maybe give UA the nod, based on the other factors plus the seat. But trying to sleep 2-2-2 and the other inconveniences that come with it, have never appealed to me. I don't find the UA seats offer much privacy either. There's a small partition but even the middle seats in SQ IIRC have a pretty good sized divider. The window seats are very private. Add that to the service/standards of SQ, I'd much rather fly with them than with UA.

AndyInSaigon

I'm the odd man out here. I do not care for SQ as their silly rules such as not being able to hold a video controller during taxi/take off/landing or economy seat back pockets must be flat annoy me to no end. And I find their FAs as inflexible as their rules. I cannot fault their robotic service or meals too much though. But I'll take UA any time (& will several more times this year).

djjaguar64

This is a NO BRAINER!

tuolumne

United.

The Singapore seats are terrible. I’m 6’2” and 190lbs and have never liked them, old or new. The A350 variant are somehow worse than before. Short, cramped, sleep angle, flip down the backrest.

No thanks SQ. You have better food and underpaid cabin crew terrified of making any mistake that may get them disciplined. Always feels like gulf coast light in that way to me. Forget about laughing with any cabin crew.

Austin787

I'd pick the airline offering the better price and/or schedule. If you want to earn EQD, pick United. Keep in mind United does not give EQD when flying partner airlines, unless ticketed on 016 stock which can cost much more if it's even possible to book SQ flights on 016.

I have flown both SQ and UA. Both have their pros and cons, which others have posted. In my experience, I find SQ is not as good as hyped (I consider SQ the most overrated airline), while UA is better than people give them credit for (I consider UA the most underrated airline).

PiperAtGatesofDawn

Unless you're chasing status and/or really tall but not wide it's always SQ. It's like comparing apples and umm... a Rolls-Royce.

Sure people here will nitpick on certain things like how many sq cm the footrest is and 1-2-1 vs 2-2-2. And this is an experts forum so yes that should be expected but at the end of the day they are a million miles apart even on SQ's worst day & UA's best.

artvandalay

No 310?

spin88

We have had this discussion about the UA seats before, and a LOT of it has to do with a person's size. I flew the 789 once on UA, and will not do it again. The seat is just too short for me at 6'2" I seem to recall you are 5'7" or so. Big difference. I understand that the first row has a bigger foot-well, but no way that I am going to be in the first row with the usually loud and discordant UA crews you tend to get, and I am not so hip on a window seat where I have to crawl over someone or be crawled over on.

The Polaris windows are tight in the shoulder for me, but doable. The 789, not really.

The SQ seat is wide, which is great for my wide shoulders (its 28" wide on the A350 v 22" on the UA 789) and while the bed conversion is a PITA, I would take the bigger seat and direct aisle access (and being able to see out the window vs looking at the aisle) any day of the week.

I got to HKG several times a year. The SQ lounge is not great, but has much better booze and food than the UC. UC has frat party booze and the food is not so hot. Best *A option ex-HKG is the TG lounge. Best option is the Centurion Lounge (although note it only has one shower, so is a line at times) if you are not flying CX.

I think you provided the two key points. I the UA seats on the 789 are fine if you are not of larger build. My best guess is that anyone up to about 5'9" to 5'10" and about 170 lbs can fit comfortably in the 789 seat. Beyond that it gets tight. Also I don't mind a harder seat, which the SQ seats are. But then I can sleep on a futon on a tatami mat in Japan just fine.

I have learned that people's views of seats are heavily influenced by (1) their size, (2) hardness/softness, and (3) how important direct aisle access is to them.

Kacee

I don't like the UA 789s. No privacy, very little usable storage space.

But if you get a bulkhead, the seat length isn't bad. In non-bulkheads, the footwells are very restrictive.

nanyang

Intriguing discussion - I had UA 1K status previously. Have had SQ PPS for 6 years.

Someone above said SQ is "the most overrated airline". Not sure how big the sample size was there, as I would argue that one needs to do a reasonable amount of flying to appreciate some of the positive aspects: consistency, check-in experience (incl. outstations), gate locations, lounge arrangements etc. SQ are the best airline I've flown with - have sampled 250+ airlines over the years.

Flew UA LAX-SIN a few months ago - some thoughts:
- Check in experience is less professional vs. SQ anywhere (have come across some unhappy agents with UA over the years, but can't recall negative experiences with SQ)
- I found the seat on UA quite comfortable, but obviously privacy is not there; definitely good enough to get some sleep though - not a concern (would prefer SQ A350 / 77W / A380 in any case)
- IFE content on UA is also good
- Meal options on UA are good - I don't like anything 'strange', and US majors are pretty good at offering decent basic meal options (then again, have never had issues with SQ - quite often skip the seafood starter but that's it)
- Cabin service on UA tends to be a bit of a weakness; no complaints re this flight, but recall a couple of the crew members were quite miserable (SQ are obviously excellent on this front)

Fully appreciate that the FFP is a key reason for many people to choose UA.

I don't mind the SQ A350 J seat - perfectly fine with me.