findark

I would take the LX choice for the better soft product on a westbound TATL and hopping into Zurich for a few hours sounds infinitely better than connecting in EWR.

Kacee

I don't find LX service consistent at all. I've had great crews, horrible crews, and mediocre crews. It's very similar to UA in that respect.

My last LX long-haul flight (LX38 in December) the crew was awful and the food inedible. LX39 several days before the crew was outstanding and the food very good.

escapefromphl

I've done west coast to JNB/CPT many times. I've found an extended daytime layover in Europe spent actively walking around getting daylight exposure goes a ways to reducing jetlag on arrival. I can usually get some good sleep on onward flight to JNB/CPT and be functional as soon as I land. This and avoiding EWR and a poor domestic transcon experience means I select transiting in Europe most times. Coming back it's more of a toss up.

dkc192

Thanks all. I am doing LAX-EWR-CPT on the way out, as I strongly prefer arriving in South Africa in the evening, rather than in the morning as I would if flying via Europe. No concern for MM status or GS spend that would require flying on UA metal on the return.

I am leaning towards LX over UA at this time, mainly to get a break from UA and Polaris (three Polaris flights in the next month). I think EWR customs and PL won't be too bad in the early morning when the JNB flight arrives.

LH is the wildcard with ability to upgrade to F--their J product ranks a distant third behind UA/LX, so I'd have to really weigh the possible upside of F against the definite downside of an extra connection in SFO and possible downside of footsie class on one or two segments.

fly747first

I would also take UA because of its superior hard product. Whilst I appreciate LX's more refined soft product, on such a long flight, I find UA's Polaris seats to be significantly more comfortable and plus, unlike LX, UA offers personal air vents which help me to sleep a lot better.

obscure2k

I flew LX J a few years ago from LAX en route to TLV. Had long layover in ZRH. I found the seats to be uncomfortable. Very narrow and I am not a big person. I vowed to never fly them again. The flight home was equally miserable with those same awful seats and mediocre service.

UA_Flyer

I absolutely hate sitting in the LX business seats. They are so uncomfortable and I have found it suffocating.

As much as I don’t like EWR, getting Polaris on both flights will do it for me.

I have never considered LX soft product is competitive. LH is slightly better and OS is much better in catering.

I have done JNB-SIN-SFO-LAX on SQ/UA before, but not sure how much it adds to your journey.

fly747first

Sorry but in what world is LH better than LX? Hard product-wise, LH can't even compete (except for the few frames they recently got from other airlines which feature a proper 1x2x1 all-aisle J seating) and in terms of soft product, LH J keeps getting worse and worse.

Cthunder86

I’ve flown Sin-ZRH-ORD and ORD-ZRH on Swiss this summer. I found the seats to be average while the catering was good to above average when flying from ZRH.

I was actually going switch my EWR-CPT flight to Swiss this October but decided to stick to United because I was able to select the bulkhead. Like yourself I want to land in the evening so I’m able to get a good meal and then head to sleep. On the way back I did decide to switch to Turkish so i could arrive home at 7pm instead of 8am.

When I flew on United this summer the on board catering wasn’t edible. I ended up getting very hungry towards the end of the flight which wasn’t a huge deal because it’s to Europe. I’ll def try to eat a bit more than usual at Polaris and pack some sandwiches on my flight to CPT

UA_Flyer

I don't think either LH and LX can compete.

At least LH seats are ok to sleep, but LX is so uncomfortable to sleep on long hual flights that I am dreading it when my employer/clients choose to ticket on LX.

Soft product wise, easily a toss up pending one's preference. Both are getting worse. I said LH is only slight better for its drinks and wine selections, which can be subjective. Either comes close to OS in the LH group.
LH and LX are not high on my list except for thier F products.

JimInOhio

I haven't been on LX in a while but I had no issues with the couple of A333s I was on.

findark

Upstairs on a 744

I do see an argument that the LH seats are more comfortable than LX, especially on layouts where they didn't do the stupid footsie thing. I don't hate the LX seat the way it seems some people do, but it's definitely not the most ergonomic design and can feel cramped. UA Polaris is a much better seat but the soft product is such a joke right now I think that knocks it back down on-par.

Kacee

LH seat is really bad for a solo traveler but much less so for a couple. Sort of like the Diamond. The LX seat is particularly bad for sleeping; I find the air cushion doesn't work so well.

nw6338

Also used to do West Coast to JNB/CPT often, arriving into JNB late afternoon (usually went LAX-ATL-JNB), staying at JNB Intercontinental and keeping myself up until 9pm or so, then flying out to CPT first thing next morning was the best for jet lag and use of time.

Sykes

I despise the air cushion on the LX seat. I try really hard to book away from LX if it's a flight where I intend to sleep. The LH layout is terrible but at least I can get passable sleep in the seat, and I really don't mind the layout if I'm traveling with my wife. I vastly prefer the UA Polaris seat to both and will happily choke down terrible food and wine if it means I'll get some decent sleep.