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

Does UA979 (ZRH-EWR) have First Suites? It's a 763. The UA website claims that First Suites are available on that aircraft but, you know, that could mean they're "in the process of installing them."

All 763s are outfitted w/IPTE - it's only the 777s that are a tossup. 763 F suite is great. Almost as good as CO BF! ;)

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

Ex-FRA/MUC/ZRH LH F gets you FCL/FCT access. I don’t know the status of LH’s F refurbs though, so the hard product is probably better on the UA 763. If you check the M&M board they probably have more information on that bird.

Could probably go either way really.

Although most people would prefer the UA 767 F hard product, I don't like how angled the seats are on the 767 and also, on my last int'l flight, the 767 F seats already looked very worn, whereas LH takes much, much better care of its planes and the F soft product is light years ahead of UA's.

You know both the C and the F seats on the UA 767 are perfectly flat, right?

Or maybe you're talking about how they're rotated at a slight angle in the cabin, not really sure...

FWIW in my LH F flight last week I had to manually force the seat back down to go flat, it was pretty beat up.

When was the last time you flew in a UA 763 with the new F seats? There is no angle in these seats at all since the conversions to the new F, and the conversions have all been done in the past few years, so seats presumably are still in excellent shape (not speaking from personal experience).

On the other hand, the FCT in FRA is great if you have enough time to enjoy it.

I would base your decision on lounge access. If you'll have time for the lounge, go with Lufty, if not--I actually prefer the food and seat on UA instead. IFE is a toss-up and service is consistently inconsient on UA.

Read about my recent trip in United First on a 763 from IAD-FRA here.

And my Lufthansa A340 flight from Frankfurt to Denver here.

He was talking about the rotation I'm sure.



To the OP, I'd say LH, better lounge, and food.

Not even close. Seats are comparable but LH is far more likely to be a pleasant experience, both in the air and on the ground.

While LH F wines and food pales in comparison with LX F it is, in turn, better than UA. And if you have the time to enjoy the lounge in MUC or FRA there is no reason to go with UA.

Seriously? I don't care how much of a ra-ra CO fan anybody is (and we all know there's plenty drinking the COol-aid), there's no disputing that the UA F Suite is better than the CO BF seat. It's possible to argue the food and service, but not the seat/suite.

If the OP is absolutely, positively concerned about the hard product and sleeping, then UA is the obvious choice.

The old LH F seat, even with the new mattress pad they introduced in May 2011, is still not nearly as comfortable as the UA F suite.

Food and wine will be better on LH and, as others have said, using the FCL/FCT upon arrival at FRA is a nice treat.

If I had to fly EWR-ZRH and be chipper for work on the day of arrival, I'd no doubt would want to take UA so I could get as much rest as possible. UA also keeps cabins cooler than LH, and for me that's huge!

I just flew JFK-FRA-MUC and return in C with JFK-FRA in F, I'd have to say I'd take United with the new seats over Lufthansa any day!

LH all the way! Flew in UA C and LH C from MUC to ORD, and yes, the hardware is neck to neck, but the extra friendliness of LH FA made the world of difference!

I remembered when flying UA, I got and stretched my legs, and just when I was approaching the 1st class curtain, ready to turn around and stroll back to the end of Eco class, the female FA stared at me and almost yelled at me (it was nappy time) with a murdurous tone "YOU CAN'T GO THERE!" "Yeah well, I am merely walking within C class stretching my legs, and if you have problems with that, you should quit your job, obviously inter-personal skills aren't something you know"

And I strolled back. What a schmuck!

True that LH more consistently has a friendlier crew, but again, if the OP is looking to sleep, he won't be interacting with the crew much so it's kind of a moot point. Seat/bed comfort would be a priority.

You missed the tongue-in-cheek element of my post, thought winking emoticon did it ;)

There is no comparison.
 

There is simply no comparison. LH is a world-class airline with one of the best first class products in the world. UA's first class is barely comparable with Emirates business class, but UA carries cheaper wines. Both seats are lie-flats, LH is just awesome. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbAk_Fs8sJs

There is simply no comparison, and I have flown both LH first and UA first.

Iif this is specifically about comparing UA 979 with (insert daytime LH flight from FRA/MUC here), UA 979 is a daytime flight departing in the early morning, arriving in (ZRH time) evening/(EWR time) midday.

This means that it's not going to be a night flight and thus soft product elements like food and wine, and things like lounges are likely to be more important than the bed/seat (which I would agree UA wins on when you're comparing LH old equipment).

LH's seat and cabin temps were fine for me for getting in a few hours nap during a similar daytime flight recently (LH 490 FRA-SEA). I don't generally sleep well on planes (in fact, I slept quite poorly in F on a UA flight that left at a similar midday departure time on the same trip, and was pretty spent by the time I got to HKG after 25 or so hours of flying/lounge time with little sleep). I think LH blows UA away on nearly everything else, save IFE (LH's F seat screen is not very large)- food, wine, lounges, ground handling out of FRA/MUC (where you won't get anything special as a UA customer).

If this were an eastbound flight ex-EWR where the OP was primarily interested in sleeping a full night, I might have a different answer (though in my case, I'd probably pick LH anyway because I really liked LH soft product and I slept fine in LH F seats, but I'll grant that UA's IFE and bed could tip the scales the other way). Also, whether or not the OP is having to do some hideously complicated routing that kills lounge time/ gives a long layover to fly LH and less convenient flight times might influence my answer as well.

+1. There is absolutely no comparison. Go with LH.

Have you people bashing UA and heralding the Lufthansa first class seat flown in UA's international F-cabin?

I think there is no dispute that the UA seat is MUCH better than on LH. If you want to sleep, go with UA.

For everything else, go with LH.

In what world are the UA C and LH C neck to neck? UA has flat bed suites in C (except a few remaining 777's) with larger IFE screen. LH has angled seats, even on it's new 380's with small screens. Hardware is hardly neck to neck??

Personally, I don't care whether it's lie flat. In fact, with the kind of pillows UA supplies, its rather uncomfortable to "lie flat" IMHO. That's why I have always been a fan of slanted seats. Whether its the old 777, NH or LH flights. As far as IFE, ever since iPad, I found myself ignoring the IFE except to check the flight status.

In that case, I like the LH armrest :D Yeah! That's right, their armrest provided better supports when using the iPad. IIRC the UA seats armrest is adjustable, but relatively narrower then LH. And one last thing, which absolutely bugs me is the "Backwards" seating in UA. I always found it creepy.

So, I should probably say LH>>UA.

And if you want to stay awake and watch IFE take UA. 7" LH screen is laughable. Also when departing at least from LAX (and IIRC SFO) I'd take UA IFL over *A lounge. And if smth goes wrong i can get some travel credits out of UA.

Aside from more consistent service and meals (can't comment on wines - don't care personally) I hardly see any reason to pick LH when flying from US.

To each his own but your preferences are really out of mainstream. Nothing wrong with it but very few people would pick slanted over horizontal for example. And I have to pay to download movies to iPad while UA selection is acceptable, free and on a great screen.

While I can in some cases agree that LH F is better that UA F, it doesn't come anywhere close to "best first class products in the world".

The OP is flying ex-Europe, if you check the post.

I would see some very good reasons to fly LH F instead of UA F ex-USA, though- if you have to connect in SFO/LAX/ORD/IAD to get a UA nonstop to Europe from a hub (like me, SEA-based) and then (possibly) connect AGAIN in FRA/MUC, as opposed to taking a nonstop/single connection, it would be a no-brainer for me- I'd take LH F to Europe without hesitation. The difference between a 15" screen and a somewhat better lie-flat, and a 7" screen and a worse lie-flat is not enough for me to not like the convenience of the nonstop on a longhaul, especially given the other advantages that LH has.

That being said... I'll take a connection if it times the flight better. I preferred HKG-ZRH-FRA over HKG-FRA on a trip because the LX flight was a night flight- it's easier for me to get a decent night's sleep in LX F then than during daytime on LH.

The bottom line is there is no right answer that will suit everyone. Everyone's needs are different, so pick what suits your needs.

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? :rolleyes:

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

http://sfo777.smugmug.com/Other/Luft...P1040182-M.jpg

http://sfo777.smugmug.com/Other/Luft...P1040188-M.jpg

Wow--those new seats--in a 747 to boot--look great.

But with no blue and yellow, it doesn't look like LH!

At IAD, it depends on which lounge warden is manning the front desk. Last month I was admitted to the IFL "as an exception" and only because I was meeting a colleague before my LH flight departed.

Let's not resort to cheating here - the pics are not of current LH F. ;)
There is no question that the upcoming one is better but how many of those are currently in the sky - a couple? I think the comparison is with current LH F where I spent two long hauls last week...

Not sure if you had a chance to fly from LAX but it's mighty hard to access UA IFL in terminal 7 when you depart on LH from Tom Bradley.

I took those pics last Friday, so it's pretty current in my book.

Fortunately, I live in SFO and the SFO IFL is one minute from the LH gates.

While the UA 767 F and C seats both lie entirely flat, in F, the seats are angled sideways... so much so that they require an additional seatbelt which I don't find very comfortable.

Yes, thanks dino!

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. ^

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.

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!

Oopsie, sorry. :)

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.

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.

Check it out:
 

Check it out:

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

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.

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.