FlyerTalker70

I have not flown NH in J but have flown them in Y on regional routes (i.e. NRT > SIN, TYO <> HKG) on their 767 and agree with the above - the service provided onboard is great. Friendly, prompt service along with a decent (albeit dated) hard product with ample leg room means there's not much to complain about here. Their lounge in NRT is amongst the best I've been to so far, and I've been to quite a few airports with * lounges (SIN, NRT, HKG, FRA, ZRH, DTW, IAD, EWR, LAX, etc.). The made to order sushi bar at 5 PM coupled with the ramen bar, massage chairs with blackout curtians, squeaky clean showers, proper business centre make it very difficult indeed to beat.

One thing to consider if you're using your own money to pay for it is the possibility of using an instrument to process the upgrades. My understanding (and FTers correct me if I'm off base here) is that it's much easier to secure an upgrade on an NH flight as a UA elite than on a OZ flight. In particular, I believe GPUs can be applied directly to a NH flight whereas they cannot be applied for a OZ. Depending on your flexibility in routing it might be easier to secure upgrade space than you may think. Consider the fact that NH operates non-stops from SJC to NRT which I suspect don't have the same load factors as their flagship flights out of SFO or ORD. Could someone comment on whether instant upgrades are possible and how to game NH flights to secure valuable upgrade space? I suspect an upgrade from Y to J on NH (via GPU or MUA) will be much cheaper than paying any of these fares in J.

In terms of lounge access stateside flying either OZ or NH means you'll be able to access the Polaris lounges on departure only from the UA hubs which OZ/NH fly from which would be SFO & LAX for OZ and for NH ORD, LAX, SFO so NH has the slight advantage on the lounge side (both OZ and NH depart from JFK out of NYC).

Hope that provides some guidance.

Safe Travels,

James

WineCountryUA

Correct but the only on the highest economy fare classes Fully discussed in https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...w-used-nh.html

Same restrictions for UA mileage upgrades on NH
How to upgrade with UA miles on Star Alliance carriers

So in reality a costly approach.

FlyerTalker70

One other thing to consider, if you care about RDM and PQM is that NH will earn a fair chunk more than OZ. Per UA's website, OZ flights booked in the business cabin will earn anywhere from 100%-125% RDM/PQM depending on booking code. Meanwhile for flights operated by NH you'll get anywhere from 150% to 300% RDM/PQM depending on booking code. Hence, conservatively you'll stand to earn at least 25% more PQM/RDM on NH (in addition to the routing "efficiencies" by choosing NH over OZ). While it may not matter for lifetime status, depending on where you are on the status games (i.e. 1K) it may make a difference. Also, the extra RDMs won't hurt either!

Safe Travels,

James

cfischer

FlyerTalker70

Hopefully not a dumb question but how does NH J compare to NH F both in the air (hard/soft product) and on the ground? Is it as good as LH? Do NH F passengers get a special lounge at TYO?

-James

elitefreak

Perfect! I will be there from 3-7:30.

Sweet! Thanks.

FlyerTalker70

One other thing to consider is who will ticket the flight for you? If UA then you'll earn PQDs (albeit potentially fewer RDMs) which may be valuable if you are a US resident and need to hit however many PQDs it is now to hit 1K. I believe it is easier to get UA to book flights with NH segments than OZ segments due to plating restrictions. In other words, you have a better chance of UA ticketing your NH flight at the normal price than the OZ flight. I'll let the more senior UA flyers comment on this one as I primarily fly in K(ettle) class

-James

spin88

Yes, its only 10 minutes on the train (I actually think its more like 6 minutes) my point is that getting from your gate, through customs, and then walking to the train, and then waiting for a train is not always so easy. It is not like say HKG (or my home airport SFO at the G gates) where you just walk out of the airport and bamb, the train is right there. It can take a while to get to the train and then the train Kesei lineonly runs every 15-20 minutes or so (you can also take the JR which is slightly less frequent, but if you don't know the setting I would not want to run up and try to figure out "the next train to Narita".

Given the possibility of a line at customs (I've waited 20+ minutes at NRT), I would not want to risk leaving the airport at NRT in a 2.5 or even 3 hour connection. The risk of getting jammed on your return is not insignificant.

I agree that the difference in experience is not material in any respect large enough to make a connection worth it (in contrast if OP was saying take UA direct vs. NH with a connection, I would stay take NH). However, if the goal is to try something new, well then have at it.

And I might add that IMHO it is better to take a long flight to a good connection point (NRT, HND, ICN) on ANA/OZ and then go to the (quality) lounge, take a quick show, have a bite to eat, and then arrive fresh at the destination vs getting off a ULR fight direct all rumpled and tired. I find (on flights to Asia at least) that the shower + stop over helps me to adjust to local time and I just feel better. YMMV.

moondog

Nonstop is better if you are over 30

Kacee

There's good reason to question whether OZ will be flying in 3 months. Add in their less than stellar safety record, I would not touch that airline right now.
Definitely not for 2.5 or 3 hours. Maybe at 5. I had an 8 hour connection earlier this year, and did an awesome 8 mile run along the river to the temple in Narita-san.

FlyerTalker70

Just chiming in with my data point having done something similar last year. Last year I was flying HKG to YOW via HND, NRT and EWR (I was 30 then). My flight out of HKG was at 1 AM arriving at HND at 6 AM with the connecting flight out of NRT at 5 PM so 11 hour layover. During that time, I managed to clear immigration and go into Tokyo proper (1 hour trip on Monorail). I ate fresh sushi at the fish market and explored a famous Mitsumine Temple. Afterwards, I took the connecting Narita Express train to Narita airport. I believe that took close to 2 hours to go from Tokyo central to the airport (including waiting for the infrequent train). Ended up getting at NRT 2 hours before departure and enjoyed the NH lounge there (including shower). If you want to try a new experience and enjoy the thrill of adventure travel this is certainly an option UA or NH can make available to you! All this travel and staying awake was a bit of a stress on my health. Would I do it again? In a heartbeat! It was a great journey and a nice free trip. My only regret was not getting a long enough layover to catch some NPB (baseball). Here are some highlights from the "layover":







Agree with you here. If you're going to want to explore Tokyo please give yourself a good 11 or 12 hours to explore. A rushed travel experience is no experience at all! That being said, for connections NRT is a breeze. Last year I had a flight to SIN (via NRT) with a 90 minute layover. The process was, follow signs to international connections, go thru the Gold track/VIP transfer security line (less than a minute) and be dumped back into the international departures area. From there I promptly went to the NH lounge, took a shower, had some sushi then ran to my gate!

Agree with you completely here. There's a huge difference in flying 14+ hours non-stop in J and being all dry and grimey versus flying 12 hours non-stop in J, taking a shower at a lounge to rehydrate and feel refreshed and then take the 2 hour regional flight down to ICN. It's also my understanding that OZ doesn't offer arrival lounge facilities for their J passengers (just departing). Is that true?

Safe Travels,

James

moondog

I was not aware that OZ was on the verge of collapse, but this fact does shape my opinion. That having been said, I still strongly favor nonstops these days. Sure, you can shower and booze in NRT, but you can do the same upon arrival in Korea in a proper hotel room.

Kacee

In the abstract absolutely.

Although from the avgeek perspective, there are times a stop make sense because you want to check out a particular carrier or because the product is considerably better. I've certainly done both.

cfischer

IME and IMO, but YMMV ... ground service for NH F is not significantly better than NH J. Sure, dedicated check-in/security/lounge which is a bit better, but nothing like LH FCT. On board I find NH F to be superb. My last flight had 2004 Krug and you'll find either Hibiki 17 or 21. The Japanese menu is outstanding, it is quite remarkable what NH can serve in the air. I find the on board food/beverage better than LH and I am a big fan of LH F! Ground service and overall service ... LH still wins, but taken together I'd say they are clearly in the same league and depending what is important to you one may be better than the other.

5khours

Depends on what's important to you. If you haven't been to Tokyo and have enough time to spend 4 or 5 hours in the city, it's worth going via Japan. If not, if it were me, I'd definitely take the non-stop. In terms of carrier, I travel quite a bit so seat/bed comfort is more important than service experience. In this regard, NH seats are a little tight especially if you are big or tall. I'd take Polaris or PMUA over NH.