new UA C vs new AC C vs OZ C
 

Hi everyone,

Will be doing a LAX-HKG trip in late May. Have the option of going with any of these *A carriers. If you have to pay out of your own pocket, which would you choose and why? (SQ is out of my reach!)

The pros and cons that I can come up with so far:
UA:
Pros: Never tried their new C products; lie flat seat
Cons: worst schedule for me among the three; UA's "signature" food and service
AC:
Pros: Schedule works best for me; new lie flat seat
Cons: 2.5-3 hrs on a regional jet (LAX-YVR)
OZ:
Pros: Great service and food
Cons: The possiblity of flying in old C (kind of like UA domestic F) for LAX-ICN or ICN-LAX if there is a equiment swap; even new C is not 180 lie flat

Any help is appreciated.

Is this a UA RJ or a AC RJ? The latter's are very nicely configured EMB-190s. A big difference-If it is the latter, I would go AC imo

I'd go with AC C. United's new C is nice but its still United and you could end up having to play the "I'm trapped by the window" game.

As much as I'd say AC for it, that layover and the leg on a regional would preclude me from booking it.

I'd take the non-stopper on UA's '47 without pause.

AC LAX to YVR is pretty decent compared to the CR7s UA flies. I like AC lie flat seats too, but service is as hit and miss as UA. Pretty much a toss up between UA and AC, if the AC schedule is still better with the 2.5h regional connection, I would go with that. Otherwise, take the UA flight.

Cross-posted in the OZ forum ,which is a no-no.

iluv2fly
Moderator, UA