spin88

found it:


UA does a little better here.... Other than LH, I would agree with these rankings....

Somehow the link went away. Original article is here: https://www.jdpower.com/business/pre...sfaction-study

jazzhou

Allow me to add one more fish dish for the comparison.

EVA Air
Grilled Cod and Prawn in Lobster Sauce
VIE-BKK


Kind of, to each his own, I guess.

jazzhou

This is just an afterthought from one the Let's Eat threads, in which the appetizer served by UA simply looks pathetically paltry.
Now, these are appetizers which could pose as a light meal by each. Albeit, they are called hors d'oeuvre rather than appetizer.

EVA Air
Seared Tuna Tataki with Ginger, Corrander Dressing on Wakame Cabbage Salad
(Aren't those slices of jalapeńo? but it isn't mentioned on the menu.)
VIE-BKK


EVA Air
Squid stuffed with Chicken and Mushroom in Basil Pesto
BKK-TPE


Both are very much Oeuvres d'Amour.
Happy Valentine's!

dilanesp

FWIW the appetizer at issue was on a 5 hour p.s. flight.

It's worth remembering that United gives people far more food than anyone needs in 5 hours on those flights, plus includes the UC in the ticket meaning even more food is available.

In that context, yeah, it wasn't a good appetizer, but it wasn't the biggest deal in the world either.

lhrsfo

I think that this important statement makes two separate points.

First, given a set catering budget, UA goes for quantity over quality. On the short flights it would be perfectly acceptable to offer smaller quantities of higher quality food.

Second, the catering on TATL flights from the East Coast doesn't seem to be significantly different that that from the West Coast flights: a massive dinner followed by a large breakfast. Presumably the budget for both is the same, and so the formula is the same: why? A West Coast flight departing at, say, 6pm will have people on board who have not had dinner yet, whereas one departing the East Coast at 10pm will have people who will, by and large, have already eaten. A flight landing in Europe at 6am will have people on board who mostly just want to sleep to the bitter end and they can pick up breakfast on arrival, whereas one landing at noon will have people who need to have something to sustain them until they get into town for lunch.

The issue is that UA doesn't really think about passengers and customers when it plans its premium meals, and that's before you even go into the whole debate about what can feasibly be served from a galley, and what tastes good at 36,000 feet.

Lifetimenotelite

I’ve been eating Low GI /keto type diet for over 10 years.

UAs arrival breakfast on arrival for TPACs is one gianantic sugar rush if you eat it.

A bowl of acidic citrus fruit
Sweetened Greek yogurt
Pastries

The only thing I eat out of the entire breakfast is the egg based entree and maybe the sausage the rest just goes to waste.

Now I just typically skip the breakfast all together and while everyone is captive eating in their seats I get ahead of the pre arrival bathroom rush.

bocastephen

By whose standard?

dilanesp

Let me put it this way. If someone is regularly flying UA's p.s. flights, and eats at the UC's at both ends plus eats all the food available on the plane, I would give odds of 200 to 1 that the person has a weight issue. Because that totals more food than is healthy for one person to eat in that time period.
​​​​​

By the way, to lhrsfo's point, while UA does have Hot Bites on the longer flights, I suspect the reason you don't see a different amount of food on longer and shorter Polaris flights is laziness on the part of UA. It's easier to develop one protocol for Polaris flights rather than different meal services for shorter and longer ones.

BlooJoo

I think the post of this discussion is the quality (see thread title), which is highly lacking. We get it, UA meals are a lot of calories, and there is UC snacks available often at each end (although how many people really eat in the UC upon arrival...) But that's not really the point of this discussion.


FWIW, as someone about to sink a $50-$60K commitment into weekly/bi-weekly transcon J travel, my abysmal experience last month with UA's transcon food, combined with the revolting pictures I often see here, are a major consideration for me in the AA vs. UA debate. Not the only one, but a meaningful one. And while AA meals are by no means gourmet, they are lightyears ahead of UA's offerings. Even on a recent LGA-ORD r/t in domestic F, AA had very nice meals both directions.

dilanesp

My point is you evaluate food in light of how much is provided. If there's very little food, everything needs to be good. If there's a lot of food, one item being subpar is not a big deal.

​​​​​

BlooJoo

Yeah, that's not how I'd look at evaluating the quality of a meal, but to each their own I guess.

fumje

In my view, the quality has declined so far that often there are barely enough items worth eating. I think several others are expressing similar.

And given that this thread is dedicated to discussions of quality rather than quantity, that seems to be the most germaine point.

dilanesp

On quality, I have eaten very well on UA lately.

But as I said, quantity and quality are related When a ton of food is served, it is like a buffet. The point isn't to eat everything, and it's very unhealthy to do so. So if one thing is bad but the rest is good, just leave that item at the buffet table.

halls120

True, but UA has a long way to before all they have is one subpar food item to eliminate.

tryathlete

I would trade a McDonald’s Happy Meal ® for lunch or breakfast on almost any United flight.