fly747first

Yes, thanks dino!

eponymous_coward

Of course, that particular seating arrangement is 747 only, and not on all of the 747s to boot, and there's only one 343 with a similar refreshed F product.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16622622-post627.html

Sort of like how the UA 777s are these days: airplane lotto.

I would say "assume the old product and be pleasantly surprised if new F shows up".

Thanks for the pictures, BTW. ^

mauiUAflyer

But only for a few minutes around take-off and landing. No need to wear the shoulder belt during flight.


I agree with some of the other posters in this thread. There is no one "right" answer for everyone. Both offer something of value, and how that comes out in a personal trade-study depends on what one's priorities are.

I've flown both UA and LH TATL in F. I do find the UA F suite very comfortable for sleeping. LH does a nicer meal service. Certainly the LH FC terminal is fantastic (much better than the tower lounge). If flying east, and upgrading, I would take UA with a confirmed-in-advance NF over a day-of-flight paper-SWU chance; if I don't get into F, the UA C flat-bed is more comfortable to me than the slip-n-slide on LH. But coming west, that might not be such an issue, and I would feel more inclined to chance 'em, to use the IFT. And certainly schedule and non-stop v. many legs will play into it as well. YMMV.

azepine00

Ya, only on LH it's 5 converted out of 60-ish widebodies (47&AB) with F in LH fleet so count your percentages. And the complete process is expected to last another 3-4 years. Good luck!

UNITED959

Oopsie, sorry.

eponymous_coward

True. But I don't particularly mind LH old F (I suspect SFO777 doesn't either, after reading his trip reports). It didn't look and sound as "beater" on my A333 recently as UA old 777 F suites I've seen in reports, and a small screen is fine for me. But I could see where someone would want UA new F over LH old F.

Always Flyin

I don't use the in-flight entertainment so that does not factor into my analysis, but I actually prefer the old UA F-Suite to the new one. The old one had the shelf above where your feet go that I used all the time and I could move the entire seat forward and rest my feet on the foot portion under the shelf with my knees bent. Can't do that in the new suite.

SFflyer123

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52m-b_Pf_ek

stevenshev

I really doubt the honesty of anyone who claims they've flown both the old LH first and the new UA first and prefer the LH hard product. The UA hard product wins hand down - more comfortable bed, substantially more privacy (even considering the LH 8-seat 744 config), better IFE, and a reasonable cabin temperature, which you can regulate yourself.

In terms of soft product, there is no question that LH spends more money and puts more thought into its offering. The wines/spirits are always better, caviar service is nice, and you are clearly being served better quality ingredients. That said, it is often hit or miss in terms of tastiness. Still, LH is the clear winner in this category.

Also, no one disputes lounges. But if you're actually flying to get to a destination, rather than sit in an aiport, there is no reason to ever be spending more than 2 hours in a lounge. So, you're comparing 8 hours + of flying with < 2 hours in a lounge - as nice as it may be (and it is - I love the FCT/FCL B in FRA).

For me, whether on a night flight (where sleep is paramount) or a day flight (where IFE is important), UA is the winner. I acknowledge that others who value sleep and IFE less than food and quality of service are correct in voting the other way, but let's not mislead those who do care about a decent night's sleep in a bed/cool cabin.

SkiAdcock

I'm assuming you're saying the new configured F cabin is cool, and not the temp of the cabin. One of my big pet peeves w/ UA is them keeping the cabin temp too high, which makes it difficult to sleep. Flew 767 Int'l F just a few weeks ago & cabin was too hot. It cools down when they want you to wake up/brekkie, and it's a noticeable difference. Been a pet peeve of mine for years w/ UA.

How does a passenger in UA F regulate the entire cabin temp? Did I miss something? Wouldn't there be fisticuffs btwn passengers when some like it warm & others like it cool?

And hey, you get PJs on LH. I flew LH F on the way back 2 weeks ago. My plane matched the pics farther up in the thread. FCT rocks; 'nuf said.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not going to complain about Int'l F class, regardless of carrier.

Cheers.

MatthewLAX

Have you flown Swiss First? Or Etihad First?

eponymous_coward

Well, then, let me make an honest statement to you: whatever things others think is sexier about UA F on a 747 than LH F on an A333, I didn't end up really giving a damn about those things when I tried both products, but sure, I could see how someone else might think differently. I don't care if people see me sleeping or eating in a (max) 8 person F cabin. I wasn't impressed with UA's IFE setup compared to, say, Emirates, or even VX RED, and if it's not going to impress me, something arm-mounted is fine if it comes with a far superior soft product and lounge. I didn't find the UA seat more comfortable to sleep in than the LH seat. I didn't find the LH cabin particularly sweltering.

Given that if I want to go to or come from Europe from SEA, UA F is a one-hop, LH F is a nonstop... well, this makes it a no-brainer. It will be LH F out of SEA every chance I can get, instead of going though a hub like IAD, ORD or SFO and risking misconnects, additional flights, and so on.

I agree. I can see why people do the thing when there's no Dom and caviar, but I haven't reached the rarified level where I can take it all for granted yet. I'll need lots more flights in longhaul F and C to get there, I suppose.

Motorskills

How do these seats (A330 First Class) compare with CO's BF (flatbed) service?

I flew LH old-school business class and wasn't all that impressed.

EnvoyBoy

Seat-wise, LH is far behind CO's BF and UA's new J products. Angled, seats first lie-flat mini-suites.

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.

Like CO's 757s, UA's 767s have a nasty temperature creep-up problem. That said, LH lacks personal air vents AND keeps temperature set north of 75 more often that not; it's been sweltering on 75%+ of flights I've taken and multiple requests only help 50% of the time; if you're in F on UA and complain, it can get very cold, very quickly.