In the last 3 weeks, I have had the opportunity to travel in Qantas J class to Asia and to the USA. In view of the potential increase in competition on the transpac route with ? Singapore .I thought my recent experience may be of interest.
At the risk of being accused of filing a �trip report� for another forum , I have tried to just summarise the good and bad points . I traveled in 2 class 747 in QF and refer to the UA 747 service to Oz.
I expected to report that QF equipment and service clearly outmatched United but that is not the case.

Check in : Qantas not much difference to UA.
Lounges: Qantas slightly better with wider choice of magazines and food and better internet access.

Boarding Experience : not much QF differentiation between J and economy in the rush to board . I think UA slightly better organized to favour the business class pax.

Pre Take Off : real champagne in real glasses in QF- say no more! ( I just cannot understand why the TSA will not let United serve real champagne in real glasses pre take � at least that is what the FAs tell me!)

Time to seat belt sign off and first drink : consistently faster in QF ( maybe United aircraft climb more slowly or FAs take longer to "stir")

Nuts : UA ahead by a mile � QF's either came on a small and I mean small bowl or in packets � no where near my favourite warmed nuts on UA .Nor did QF offer seconds!

Seating arrangements : slightly fewer seats in top deck on QF or so you would think but the Skybed cocoons do seem to take up a fair bit of space � they actually made United�s upper deck seem more "roomy".

the actual seats : the Skybeds were not flat AND sloped towards the front and I did notice that .Their controls were a little complicated to work individually but the icons for several set positions were useful . The back massage on QF did not seem as good as the UA one. Still unable to get legs out horizontal in front you as the seat in the cocoon in front restricts upward movement. The QF seats just did not seem as comfortable as I would have expected but maybe I need to fly them more often before I criticise .

FA service: excellent on QF .The oldest staff member was 50 tops .(say no more re United. It was great have the feeling that a medical emergency on your flight is unlikely to involve a staff member.)

Wines : the champagne was of same standard both airlines ( nb QF champagne did not run out!) UA had the advantage of listing the available wines on their menu whereas QF did not even though the United often runs out of the good listed ones.

Food : QF a little better both in terms of quantity and quality � eg a decent size slab of beef fillet . Having said that ,UA�s steaks are always good quality also. Qantas had a great idea for breakfast � you filled in one of those hotel type breakfast orders and attach it to your seat coat hook and it got served when the FA saw you were awake .You had choices of muesli , fruit , bacon and scrambled eggs , yoghurt etc or note, United, all of them ! Service at slightly separate times meant less queues in fact no queues for the toilets.

Baggage storage : the upper deck QF a/c have bigger overhead storage compared to United � no need to use the rear storage area.

Deplaning : QF better at holding back the �hordes� so the front and upstairs could get to the immigration lines first.

Entertainment: many more choices on QF but with the Skybeds , the screen is on the back of the seat cocoon in front of your seat� its big but too far away , there is far less adjustment available and it is more subject to daylight interference if someone else in the cabin has their window open. The choice of movies did not include too many new releases in either airline. On 2 of the QF flights, part of the entertainment system was inoperative . As always, no audio comedy channel choice on United (why ? political correctness)

Cleanliness: same in both � crumbs left behind on the floor of QF plus on one flight , lettuce leaves still in the meal tray( I wasn�t hungry enough to check how fresh it was!).

Overall: I did not think that Qantas was that many "miles" ahead of United . Don�t get me wrong . They were better but not so far ahead that UA could not catch up to with a little effort, staff consistency and some money.

Sure, I am biased as QF simply does not compete in terms of frequent flier programs, and maybe it�s a case of the "Devil" that I know .

A great post and a great summary. I think people have this perception that foreign carriers are MILES ahead of UA, and I just don't buy it. Better? Yes. MILES ahead? No.

mmmmm... I think time until seat belt sign off/drink has more to do with weather, traffic, and individual flight crew than the airline as a whole.

But don't get me wrong, I appreciate this set of observations for comparing UA and QF's products. Thanks!

All United needs now are truly flat beds and it will blow QF out of the water. Here's hoping!

I should add that what I feel UA needs most is a more general policy of "we are here to serve you" by FA's.

While many get it, some don't, and it's inconsistent. I find that foreign carriers are just more consistent. When UA FA's are "on", especially in premium cabins, the flights can be truly world class (especially in F, with the suites).

But a matron can really ruin a flight.

My observation also applies to NZ on the transpacific run from AKL. Their first drink comes rarely comes later than 20 minutes after wheels up .
In contrast,I have had to wait over an hour on United (usually sit in rows 15 or 16) and we are not talking about a lot of turbulence .

I've flown QF SYD-LAX 18 times in the last 14 months in Y, J and F and I think their product is excellent (my last trip in F (award) was the best I've had on any airline). If they didn't have such a terrible FF program I wouldn't have switched to UA. An F award ticket on QF from IAD -SYD- IAD is 384K miles (!!) and nearly impossible to find.

I agree with most of your review, it is very even handed. I think you have underemphasized the seating though. In J, the flat (but angled) beds beat the hell out of the UA cradle seats in C. Perhaps you are a back sleeper so it wouldn't matter much, but as a side sleeper, the flat beds really make a difference.

Ask any UA regular if they would rather a C or F seat on a p.s. redeye, then tell them it is a 3 times longer flight. I think they'll take F.

Here's to hoping that UA will never adopt those ridiculously slanted ironing boards as business class seats!

Perhaps you are a back sleeper so it wouldn't matter much, but as a side sleeper, the flat beds really make a difference.

Indeed I do sleep on my back - much to my wife's irritation because I have been know to snore occasionally!

Another flat versus cradle seat discussion. I personally like the QF and LH C seats. I am a side sleeper and can not sleep well in UAs C class unless I am dead exchausted. Prefer the "flat" beds. Please introduce them asap.

My vote is with United.

I think this is a USA legal environment vs. everybody else's. USA carriers are based in a place where people are more inclined to pursue legal remedies for minor mishaps, even imagined ones.

That said, I did notice that when flying local airlines (QF, NZ, Ansett) in Oceania, the pilots were very quick to turn off the seat belt signs. Occasionally, it seemed as if the signs were off as soon as we were beyond the end of the runway.

It all depends on the angle of the slant. For example, the LX flat seat slants at such a steep angle, it is useless as a flat bed simply because you cannot help but slide toward the floor. LH flat seats are much better because you don't slide down. (OK, at least I didn't.)

SQ Spacebeds are great for sleeping, but in the seated position they are quite hard and the footrests don't come up enough, IMO.

UA beat QF hand down! ^

GO UAL!