MatthewLAX

UA F. Without hesitation.

To me it's like comparing SA to LH. I think the food and service is much better in LH C, but I have to say I enjoyed my SA longhaul much better becuase of the lie-flat Business Class seat. I slept like a log.

And a tip: Make sure you are not seated near the galley if you choose UA.

stupidhead

Given a choice between United and Singapore Airlines (or any foreign carrier for that matter; yes, EVEN AIR CANADA), I'd pick Singapore Airlines every time. But I can't sleep on planes anyways so inability to sleep doesn't make any difference. And at $7k, they'd better be waiting on me hand and foot.

If I'm spending $7,000, I'd be spending it on Singapore Airlines, period. As far as entertainment goes, I'll bring a laptop and some Boston Legal DVDs to kill time. As far as seats go, I can't sleep on planes (or anything that moves for that matter) anyway. And United's 747's are disgusting and not fit for human occupancy for any period of time, let alone for 11+ hours.

But caveat emptor because I'm the one that secretly wants United to go belly up. But seriously. It comes down to value for the money. Singapore Airlines has a highly publicized reputation for excellent service and being far, far ahead of the curve when it comes to product and service. SIA built an entire company on it. United generally gets an F in service from many people. And if I'm spending $7k-$12k on a plane ticket, whether it be my money or my employer's money or my parents' money, the level of service you'd receive on board a Singapore Airlines plane is the BARE MINIMUM. You can tell me that my standards are too high, I don't care. It doesn't change the fact that quality is critical in my decisionmaking when it comes to spending $12k. I'd book with Singapore Airlines in a heartbeat for the same reason you couldn't pay me to buy, or drive for that matter, an American car.

When you're dropping $8k on a business class ticket, decent, adequate, very nice, good, whatever, isn't good enough. What I get better be, at a minimum, excellent. In other words, I won't be satisfied until I'm blown away by the sheer excellence of the service. The planes better be spotless. The service better rival Ritz-Carlton. The food better be comparable to a Michelin 3 star establishment. The product itself better be one of the best. UA loses in 2 out of 3 categories.

Actually if they truly value my business or hope to see me again on some future flight like they say at the end of every flight, they'd be exceeding my expectations every time. A problem-free flight is the minimum. Every little problem, no matter how insignificant, is a strike against the company in my book.

weero

And it is obvious where they have it from - they operate three great planes (777ER, A380, and A340-500). Their entire rest of the fleet is an antique joke and the midhaul equipment of SQ is abysmal.

I'd never fly, let alone pay for Biz on an SQ service not run by one of the above listed birds. Sure you get fed while you are immobilised in the straightjacket of their 747 seats which barely produce enough power to charge your iPod. Hell, I am happier in UA's shabby old dentist chairs when I have work to do.

SQ definitely is one of the world's best carriers ... if used correctly.

ozflier

If you want consistent service and entertainment , go for SQ, for a good sleep go for UA F.

weero

The entertainment system - while being truly superior to most other carriers - is not consistent at all across SQ's fleet. The A380 IFE is infinitely better than the one on say the 747.

UpInTheSky

Not every traveler would choose "excellent" service in a "decent" seat over "decent" service in an "excellent" seat.

UncleDude

Flying Flat First with UA means you are getting the best that Airline can offer

Flying Spacebed with SQ means you are getting the 4th Best that Airline can offer

If you want to travel in 4th Best go SQ

stupidhead

If you consider UA's old first class seat "excellent". Or if you consider anything UA does "excellent".

It's not. "Excellent" is along the lines of Singapore Airlines' new product or Cathay's new first class or things of that nature. UA's old (and new) first class would be considered below average and average respectively, if that.

So Excellent service in a decent seat or decent service in a below average seat...?

Axey

Are you sure you're not thinking of LH's C product here? I wouldn't describe the spacebed as narrow nor have I ever seen a filthy SQ airplane in several hundred thousand BIS miles on SQ. As for power, it powers my 85w Macbook Pro just fine.

That being said, I too would choose SQ here simply because UA deserves zero premium cabin dollars until they cease war with their customers. If this was an award, I'd choose UA.

Is it April Fool's already? You're calling SQ's fleet of 777 and 747's antique? Their avg fleet age is 6.5 years. United's is 13.9 years.

jgsx

Uh, no. I've flown in UA's new international first class at least 10x this year, and the seat is A+. Calling is "average, if that" shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

stevenshev

Agreed. Few (of the generation), if any, are better. Only a couple of airlines have a proper new generation, SQ, CX, EK, anyone else? Don't think so.

stupidhead

Everything else gets an F which averages out to somewhere along the lines of D+. So there you go. C=average. D+=below average.

CommittedLurker

Exactly. Why would anyone want to fly an airline where it is virtually impossible to get an intl award (unless you fish around for 5+ months out and manage to find one seat. maybe).

I will only fly UA now if I can redeem my miles. And that seems pretty unlikely now.

It's time to go for those inflated standard awards now.

weero

Na. LH's C seat is ways superior to SQ's spacebed IMO.

As for power - I did extensive measurements during the last two years (which I plan to publish on FT of course) - on the last two flights, the SQ outlet shut down at less than 70 Watts(!!!!). So I strongly disagree with your assessment - your Mac doesn't suck 85 watts obviously. That is the mere ceiling in consumption.
Not the metal, the seating (plus I clearly exempt the 773). I had to endure the terrible SQ flights PER-SYD and the dusty old cabins on the 747 SYD-SIN several times.

And while I have no doubt that SQ on the 777ER, the 380, and the 345 beats anything else in the sky in all 3 (respectively 2 on the 345) classes, the SQ product overall is very, very inconsistent.

CommittedLurker

If you consider the SQ 747 cabins to be dusty, I wonder what adjective you would use to describe any cabin in the UA fleet ?