First Class: LH 340-300 vs. UA 767-300?

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jul 16, 2011, 9:11 pm

#46

ryan182

Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: SNA

Programs: AA EXP, UA 1K (until it expires then never again), *wood Plat, Marriott Gold

Posts: 9,239

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFO777

Sorry to burst your UA rah-rah bubble, but LH First pax have access to UA IFLs in the US, while UA First pax are relegated to *A lounges at FRA/MUC and have no access to the LH FCT/FCLs.

His point was at LAX LH goes out of TBIT, which has only the *A lounge, and UA uses T6,7,8 with the IFL in T7 (all airside accessible) and that the UA LAX IFL is superior to the *A lounge in TBIT.

Quote:

Yeah, who cares about service and meals?

And our LH seats and bed were so uncomfortable last week.

Damn the new LH F seats look NICE! Thanks for the pics, I hadn't seen what their new F looked like.

Jul 17, 2011, 6:42 am

#47

tuolumne

Join Date: Jul 2005

Posts: 2,324

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFO777

Sorry to burst your UA rah-rah bubble, but LH First pax have access to UA IFLs in the US, while UA First pax are relegated to *A lounges at FRA/MUC and have no access to the LH FCT/FCLs.

Yeah, who cares about service and meals?

And our LH seats and bed were so uncomfortable last week.

on a sidenote, i find it funny how much backlash UA gets for their F suite being "open" and having no "privacy", yet...

The new LH seat (i've sat it at the a380 press preview) is extraordinarily comfortable - yet at the same time, you have zero privacy. This isn't a suite of any sort. To lamment about how poor the UA hard product is, and about how both the old and new LH F seat is so much better is a little disingenuous IMO. Yes, the new LH seat has more tasteful design detailing, but the UA f suite, IMO, also gains points for the sophistication of being a sideways facing full "shell" suite design. It's not a bad product, and extremely comfortable.

Jul 21, 2011, 4:52 pm

#48

eponymous_coward

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Aug 2007

Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot

Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite

Posts: 20,397

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenshev

Just to confirm, this is a sample set of one on LH? Not calling you out, just saying let's see if you still feel that way after having flown both a number of times. LH first has a huge novelty factor, which UA's definitely doesn't. But for me, at least, in the long-term I've preferred UA.

And while I note your point about non-stop vs. connection, that doesn't really address any of the issues of which is better. Of course non-stop takes the cake, but if you're flying a route where they compete (ORD, IAD, etc.), I hold that UA is materially more comfortable - nothing more.

I doubt I will be flying UA or LH intercontinental F more than once or twice a year, if that. That likely makes a difference in terms of novelty factor as well as the "familiarity breeds contempt" factor... as well as making it likely that within 5 trips or so the point will be mooted once LH and UA finish their conversions.

It still doesn't change what I feel- which is the couple of things I think UA is clearly better on don't matter as much to me as the things LH is better on. I do not watch a lot of television and movies, personally (so IFE is a novelty no matter who is providing it), and I simply don't care about privacy in the cabin for sleeping and eating, and the LH seat was "good enough" for sleep. That being said, this is entirely subjective.

One other factor that will help inform you about my perspective- I've done my share of travel in intercontinental Y... including LH. This helps me keep grounded when I am sitting here going "well, I like LH F better than UA F", though it definitely marks me as a plebeian.