UA - Quality (?) of service

[mdurrant]

I recently flew SYD-SFO-LHR return on United. I managed to get upgraded to Business (using miles) between Sydney and SFO both ways. The experience of Business class trans-Pacific was wonderful. They may be ageing 747s, but the Business cabin is as good as any.

SFO-LHR (and return) my upgrade was not successful. Y on UA in old 747s is AWFUL. No seat-back entertainment, you have to pay for wine/beer, food pretty awful, the seats SUCK ... Y on UA in the 1990s was okay. Now, it is diabolical. (To be fair, my American friends tell me that Y travel on ALL US airlines these days is basically Greyhound bus travel with wings!).

I am UA (and Star Alliance) Gold. Almost every other Star Alliance carrier offers a HUGELY better experience. I flew UA because I needed the UA miles for Gold.

Five hours in the international UA lounge in SFO ... the NZ lounge here in Sydney (which UA uses) and the Star Alliance lounge at LHR were THOUSANDS of times better. The UA SFO lounge was great if all I need was wi-fi. If I needed to eat or drink (over five hours), forget it!

To their credit, UA Customer care have basically admitted to me that they realise that their 747 trans-Pacific service is substandard. They plan to upgrade the aircraft type in 2014 and promise that will make the Y experience significantly better. Not sure of their plans on the trans-Atlantic route.

Michael

 

[RooFlyer]

I did a trip report : here on UA in First TPAC and I commented on the lousy service even in that cabin (but I liked the hardware). SFO domestic lounge very ordinary, but their F lounge not too bad at all.

But the attitude of the FAs in the air was just lamentable.

 

[mozerz]

UA is notorious to have terrible service

 

[onlycopunk]

I flew UA once SFO to SYD years ago as they had just started the route so fares were extremely cheap. WORST. The worst trans pacific flight I've ever had. Jetstar to Hawaii was leaps and bounds ahead this service.

 

[Paddy55]

I flew UA once SFO to SYD years ago as they had just started the route so fares were extremely cheap. WORST. The worst trans pacific flight I've ever had. Jetstar to Hawaii was leaps and bounds ahead this service.

I think I'd rather walk :shock:

 

[TomVexille]

Call me insane, but I've had a couple okay (for Y) flights from MEL-LAX on UA. Then again I tend to sleep.

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

Hopefully the day will arrive where competition appears again where UA are given a run for their money on the SYD > SFO route.

UA would certainly be compelled to lift their game one would hope.

 

[Blackswan]

I flew UA last month in J (or in their case C) 747 between SFO and ICN. Upper deck was great - hardware was good. I was expecting the worst with regards to service - I was proved wrong. Found the service amazing - FA's couldn't do enough to make sure everyone was happy. Saying that, service on UA is meant to be inconsistent.

I did go for a walk downstairs and up into Y. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

 

[seanpodge]

Having done three (one way) trans Pacific flights on UA in their 747s in Y, I fully know how poor their product is. But it's hardly a big secret. Basically, UA is one of many options and if the price:quality ratio adds up then go for it. Like the OP, I went with UA to get *A Gold and have enjoyed use of the lounges and other benefits provided by other, rather better airlines.

Overall, I thought that the FAs on my flights were pretty good, not overly formal, although it would be good if UA would give them proper uniforms so they stood out a bit more. The hard product on the 747s is a blast from the past and I'm reasonably confident that none of the 747s have been refurbished (in Y at least) since they were acquired. But we can all BYO entertainment these days reasonably easily so it's not as much of a problem as it used to be.

Like all significant purchases, it's always a good idea to do your research before putting your money down.

 

[cfellows]

I have done a few runs on the old beasty 747's in Y SYD-LAX. I am soon probably going to do another run back to Aus with UA, except now they are running a 777 on this leg with upgraded cabins (seatback screens!).

Has anybody flown this recently, I think it started in April?

 

[Vype]

I flew SFO-SYD in Y on a 777 a few days ago. The Y cabin has seat back IFE screens and power points for computers. Otherwise, it's almost identical to the 747 they used previously. I found the seats were just as uncomfortable as the 747. The service was also similar to when they flew the 747 to/from SYD.

 

[lovestotravel]

A slightly newer or shiny plane doesn't really change too much!

Food/service/paying for alcohol still makes the Y experience terrible and not something I ever wish to do!

A seat-back TV is a nice addition but it's still United!

 

[BAM1748]

I think people don't understand UA transpacific.

They don't have specials because they are always the best price. For them it's about volume to make a profit rather than providing more service for more money.

I've travelled many times on UA and as long as you have the right expectation for the fare then you don't have a problem.

Comparing is like trying to check a Suzuki Alto to a Hold SV6. There is no comparison because it is not logical to do one.

Everyone whinges about UA but they market to certain demographic.

I think they actually keep QF and VA in cheap on their specials and regular fares.


Matt

 

[lovestotravel]

I think people don't understand UA transpacific.

They don't have specials because they are always the best price. For them it's about volume to make a profit rather than providing more service for more money.

LOL - If you are going to tell people they are wrong about UA, best to get your facts straight first!

If it was about volume they would be flying 747's instead of 777/787s....

Oh and they do have specials

Oh and they are NOT always the best price as they are currently about $1585 MEL-LAX-MEL and Virgin is about $1250 and Qantas was about $1200 last week, so that makes UA the most expensive for the worst product!

 

[BAM1748]

LOL - If you are going to tell people they are wrong about UA, best to get your facts straight first!

If it was about volume they would be flying 747's instead of 777/787s....

Oh and they do have specials

Oh and they are NOT always the best price as they are currently about $1585 MEL-LAX-MEL and Virgin is about $1250 and Qantas was about $1200 last week, so that makes UA the most expensive for the worst product!

I did check, the QF special was buy now if you want to travel in Oct or Nov for that price. They are changing to a more economic aircraft to keep fares low rather another another overhaul of a 747.

You've proved my point, VA is keeping its price low because of others, or do you think they keep them low because so they can make less per seat mile.

Matt

 

[lovestotravel]

I did check, the QF special was buy now if you want to travel in Oct or Nov for that price. They are changing to a more economic aircraft to keep fares low rather another another overhaul of a 747.

You've proved my point, VA is keeping its price low because of others, or do you think they keep them low because so they can make less per seat mile.

Matt

Oh dear...

You made the claim that

They don't have specials because they are always the best price. For them it's about volume to make a profit rather than providing more service for more money.

I think they actually keep QF and VA in cheap on their specials and regular fares.

But now you are saying they are reducing capacity/volume ?

Yet VA are now cheaper than UA ?

Oh dear...

 

[seritonin]

Flew SYD-SFO in J last week on their 777. Worst service ever! In fact, there is no service, 60+ yo flight attendants who did not want to be there. The state of the J restrooms after 13 hour flight were even worse! The flight was full and I suspect united doesn't really care because there is no competition on the route!

 

[Scarlett]

I flew UA TPAC return in J twice last in the last few weeks, firstly on probably the last of the 744 services and then on the 772 a fortnight later. Most of the things I'd read about UA were confirmed: perfunctory service by more mature cabin crew; terminal scrums in LAX; and a decent hard product in the J cabin including an excellent AVOD screen and layout, but what looked like zombieland when I went for a walk around the rest of the aircraft (whY indeed?). The AVOD content and method for selecting programmes was a little ordinary.

I found the 744 a significantly nicer J cabin and would prefer to fly on that aircraft if there was a choice, but alas no choice until the 787 commences services to MEL later in the year.

We were on or about time on all of the flights and I managed sleep on all four TPAC flights so that's the major boxes ticked for me. I'd eaten in the lounge (in Aus) or in the terminal in LAX (can't really eat a meal in the UA Club...) before the flights so wasn't really interested in the dinner options, however the build your own sundae at the end of dinner was appreciated!

For about $2K cheaper than VA and QF, I guess I'll be using UA J again in the future. If I have to travel whY for BFOD purposes then I'll have to be a little more creative in what my timings are, as that's not something I want on my AFF Flight Tracker log.

UA J - Serviceable, but I'd much prefer to be on VA or QF.