Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

LAX-SYD 789 (nonstop) or 773 (SFO stop) Polaris

LAX-SYD 789 (nonstop) or 773 (SFO stop) Polaris

Old Dec 29, 19, 2:38 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Plat , MVP Gold and Whatever Amex Plat gives me lol
Posts: 415
LAX-SYD 789 (nonstop) or 773 (SFO stop) Polaris or NH F/J (HND stop)

which would you prefer? the non stop flight or the quick layover to SFO to be comfy in the better polaris product? or I can fly ANA F to HND and J to SYD with a fun 16 hour layover to eat amazing sushi lol.

edit: updated title since my last choice is apparently becoming the topic of discussion

Last edited by Amil; Dec 29, 19 at 5:01 pm
Amil is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 2:56 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, VX Gold, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by Amil View Post
which would you prefer? the non stop flight or the quick layover to SFO to be comfy in the better polaris product? or I can fly ANA F to HND and J to SYD with a fun 16 hour layover to eat amazing sushi lol.
If these are reward options, just do the direct. Seat is not as nice, but you would need a relatively long lay-over in SF given weather delays and flow control being a risk. Just not worth it. ANA option would be fun, if you can stay a few days in Tokyo, always fun.

If paying for a ticket, I would just go DL or Qantas or Virgin direct LAX-SYD.
spin88 is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 3:07 am
  #3  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Plat , MVP Gold and Whatever Amex Plat gives me lol
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by spin88 View Post
If these are reward options, just do the direct. Seat is not as nice, but you would need a relatively long lay-over in SF given weather delays and flow control being a risk. Just not worth it. ANA option would be fun, if you can stay a few days in Tokyo, always fun.

If paying for a ticket, I would just go DL or Qantas or Virgin direct LAX-SYD.

its an award ticket so thats why im sticking with Star Alliance options. Would 1 hour 45 minutes be a tight layover? grr didnt think about the weather delay but the past week all shows on time.
Amil is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 3:10 am
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS/EAP
Programs: UA 1K, MR LTT, HH Gold, Amex Plat
Posts: 24,869
NH in F, no question
MTan and benewr like this.
cfischer is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 3:23 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,297
Originally Posted by Amil View Post
its an award ticket so thats why im sticking with Star Alliance options. Would 1 hour 45 minutes be a tight layover? grr didnt think about the weather delay but the past week all shows on time.
"Past is no indicator of the future" or something on those lines
malgudi is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 3:30 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, VX Gold, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by Amil View Post
its an award ticket so thats why im sticking with Star Alliance options. Would 1 hour 45 minutes be a tight layover? grr didnt think about the weather delay but the past week all shows on time.
I fly out of SFO, and it is not unusual to have the fly control planes (and LAX-SFO is one of the first routes that is subject to flow control) be 2-3 hours late. The SFO-SDY will likely go out on time, but that does not help you if you are not in SFO due to a delay ex-LAX. Certainly in the winter I would not want less than a 2.5 hour SFO connection. Shorter is probably ok in the late spring/fall when there is less risk of weather.

Bottom line, SFO is a delay prone airport, and not one that I would want to connect in, particularly if doing so added 4+ hours to the trip just to get a better seat, but the same old sucky UA service.

Put another way, if it was a Polaris plane (direct aisle) vs. ex-CO bird with the last gen seats, I would always go with the Polaris seats, but the length of delay you would need to be sure nothing bad happened (2-3 hours min) would make it not worthwhile in my book.

As others have said, if you want the "travel experience" then take the ANA option in F, they have great lounge in Japan. If you have not done that, do that for hte experience. Nothing about UA is an "experience" (in a good way that it is) at best UA is reasonably comfortable transportation in J.
SFO_LOW_CLOUDS likes this.
spin88 is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 3:32 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SEA, WAS, PEK
Programs: UA 3K UGS 3MM
Posts: 2,171
Originally Posted by Amil View Post
its an award ticket so thats why im sticking with Star Alliance options. Would 1 hour 45 minutes be a tight layover? grr didnt think about the weather delay but the past week all shows on time.
Having just come off 1A on the 789 SFO-MEL and knowing my seat mate, I would take the connection. The 789 CO seats are miserable for a flight that long.

If you canít get a bulkhead on the 789 that would further reinforce the 773.

Keep your eye on SFO weather and SDC to an earlier flight if SFO is getting hit with delays. Itís not typically something that will come as a surprise by late in the day.
Kacee and Amil like this.
kevanyalowitz is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 3:35 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SEA, WAS, PEK
Programs: UA 3K UGS 3MM
Posts: 2,171
Originally Posted by spin88 View Post
UA is reasonably comfortable transportation in J.
15+ hours on the 789 wonít qualify as super comfortable for anyone that has flown more current J products or any F product. Itís better than Y, but thatís not a high hurdle to clear.
kevanyalowitz is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 3:51 am
  #9  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; AS 75K; Marriott Ambassador; Hilton Diamond (Aspire); Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 43,457
How do you feel about a 16 hour TYO layover? NH is so much better.
Amil likes this.
Kacee is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 6:42 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: nyc, bne
Programs: UA 1K MM, VA Plat, EY Gold
Posts: 219
I am likely the dissenting opinion in this high court, but i actually prefer the “old” 789 seats than the new polaris on the 77W doing the 863/870 rotation this past month, especially row 1 or row 6 seats. I find them far more comfortable than the polaris coffins.
jsloan, UA_Flyer, benewr and 1 others like this.
jumpingenes is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 7:38 am
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DCA/IAD/MIA/FLL/PBI
Programs: UA Lifetime GS, SQ*PPS
Posts: 10,568
Originally Posted by Amil View Post
which would you prefer? the non stop flight or the quick layover to SFO to be comfy in the better polaris product? or I can fly ANA F to HND and J to SYD with a fun 16 hour layover to eat amazing sushi lol.
It seems this is a vacation trip. It all depends on what is more important to you. I love going to Australia, so my personal preference is get to Australia as quick as I can and start my vacation with minimum risk of getting delayed and start my vacation as soon as I land.

If enjoy flying is the priority and eating sushi is more important than having fun at Sydney take NH F to HND and J to SYD. Personally I am not a fan of NH seats and usually stay away from flying NH, but I go with majority of opinions of FTers and NH inflight service and catering are excellent.

If sleeping is more important (consider the departure time of the flights), I prefer the 789 and the direct flight. Have a meal at the Polaris Lounge and skip the less than mediocre food on the plane, and have a double shots of Bourbon or single malts before turn in for the night. I have found 787/A350 to be the best plane for sleeping due to better air humidity. Also, it feels more roomy in the 787 seats especially if you are in row 1 or 6.

I typically go for Polaris seating if I donít plan to sleep much and want to stay up to work or watch IFE. It is more private for that purpose. Some people sleep fine in the Polaris seats and less humid cabin.

IMHO, there are only two options: the direct UA flight vs NH.
I donít think the Polaris seating is worth the hassle of connecting to SFO. Either you go with the easiest and quickest way to SYD or enjoy a better airlines and sushi (btw, there are many other excellent food options in Tokyo other than sushi).
Amil likes this.
UA_Flyer is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 8:53 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Houston , TX
Programs: Citi AAdvantage
Posts: 73
I'm a big guy and find the 777-300 to be more spacious but the cabin pressure is better on the 787 so my preference is the 787 despite less comfort you arrive more refreshed.
D3KingAmerican is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 9:22 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CLE
Programs: UA GS+LT UC, AA LT PLT, Fairmont LT PLT, SPG PLT, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Diamond, Avis CHM.
Posts: 3,811
NH F is a no-brainer if you don't have serious time constraints.
ctownflyer is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 9:47 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: MFE
Programs: United 1K; Marriott Bonvoy Gold, Hilton Honors Silver
Posts: 78
NH F, then 773 Polaris if you've got ample connection time, then 789. Beyond the seat, the service is more attentive.
cfischer likes this.
crfgon is offline  
Old Dec 29, 19, 12:35 pm
  #15  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Plat , MVP Gold and Whatever Amex Plat gives me lol
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by UA_Flyer View Post
It seems this is a vacation trip. It all depends on what is more important to you. I love going to Australia, so my personal preference is get to Australia as quick as I can and start my vacation with minimum risk of getting delayed and start my vacation as soon as I land.

If enjoy flying is the priority and eating sushi is more important than having fun at Sydney take NH F to HND and J to SYD. Personally I am not a fan of NH seats and usually stay away from flying NH, but I go with majority of opinions of FTers and NH inflight service and catering are excellent.

If sleeping is more important (consider the departure time of the flights), I prefer the 789 and the direct flight. Have a meal at the Polaris Lounge and skip the less than mediocre food on the plane, and have a double shots of Bourbon or single malts before turn in for the night. I have found 787/A350 to be the best plane for sleeping due to better air humidity. Also, it feels more roomy in the 787 seats especially if you are in row 1 or 6.

I typically go for Polaris seating if I don’t plan to sleep much and want to stay up to work or watch IFE. It is more private for that purpose. Some people sleep fine in the Polaris seats and less humid cabin.

IMHO, there are only two options: the direct UA flight vs NH.
I don’t think the Polaris seating is worth the hassle of connecting to SFO. Either you go with the easiest and quickest way to SYD or enjoy a better airlines and sushi (btw, there are many other excellent food options in Tokyo other than sushi).

I guess I am leaning towards the direct flight now, this is a vacation trip and I dont have time constraints but I can only imagine myself being extremely bored on both NH flights. I am fortunate enough to fly F in LH pretty regularly and even that gets tiresome and boring after a while. I am a big guy at 6'4 so my concern was the room and direct aisle access but I booked an aisle in row 6 so that should help I imagine. Lol yeah I know Tokyo has more then Sushi as a matter of fact everytime im in Japan I usually only have sushi once because im busy eating everything else.

Thank you everyone for helping me decide. maybe if it was the new 773 NH has I would have tried it but I dont think those are flying out of LAX yet...

Last edited by Amil; Dec 29, 19 at 12:47 pm
Amil is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: