Which airline has better seats

[sswitenki]

If given a choice, are one airlines seats more desirable than another when looking to book airfare for the Australia/New Zealand cruise from the US?

Air New Zealand vs Quantas or others? Better food or service? It is such a long flight, we wonder if we should let HAL book the flights but pay to request a specific airline.

Sue

[cands]

Seat pitch is the distance between the rows of seats.

Qantas 747 services have 31 inch pitch, Air New Zealand 747 services have 34 inch. Doesn't sound like much but believe me it makes a world of difference when you are travelling coach.

 

Be aware that Air NZ services from San Francisco use 777s. These have 32 inch pitch, but are 'only' 9 seats abreast.

 

Hope this helps,

Steve.

[Globaliser]

Seat pitch is the distance between the rows of seats.

Technically, pitch is the distance from one point on a seat to the same point on the corresponding seat in the next row. It's not the distance from the front of the horizontal seat cushion to the back of the seat in front, which is one of the distances that counts for "legroom". So "legroom" can vary for reasons other than pitch.

 

Qantas seats are of a slimline design, which means that there is about an inch more space using that "legroom" measurement than on an airline with a more traditional seat design. I find the QF seat pretty comfortable, and prefer it to the British Airways seat when I have a choice between those two airlines. But I have no experience of the Air New Zealand seat.

Be aware that Air NZ services from San Francisco use 777s. These have 32 inch pitch, but are 'only' 9 seats abreast.

The 9-abreast configuration simply reflects the fact that the aircraft is narrower than the 747. I'm not sure that in itself it has much impact on comfort - I've certainly never noticed much difference on that account.

Better food or service?

If you're looking to fly non-stop between North America and Australia and New Zealand, United Airlines will come a distant third on most people's scales for this.

[cands]

Technically, pitch is the distance from one point on a seat to the same point on the corresponding seat in the next row. It's not the distance from the front of the horizontal seat cushion to the back of the seat in front, which is one of the distances that counts for "legroom". So "legroom" can vary for reasons other than pitch.

 

Qantas seats are of a slimline design, which means that there is about an inch more space using that "legroom" measurement than on an airline with a more traditional seat design. I find the QF seat pretty comfortable, and prefer it to the British Airways seat when I have a choice between those two airlines. But I have no experience of the Air New Zealand seat.The 9-abreast configuration simply reflects the fact that the aircraft is narrower than the 747. I'm not sure that in itself it has much impact on comfort - I've certainly never noticed much difference on that account.If you're looking to fly non-stop between North America and Australia and New Zealand, United Airlines will come a distant third on most people's scales for this.

 

Sorry I wasn't precise enough for you. Of course I didn't mean there was 34 inches of leg room!

 

Some airlines squeeze 10 across in a 777, like Emirates.

I was simply pointing out that ANZ has 9 abreast seating.

 

My response was to the original poster. Not sure why you decided to pull it apart point by point.

[kenexx]

Sorry I wasn't precise enough for you. Of course I didn't mean there was 34 inches of leg room!

 

Some airlines squeeze 10 across in a 777, like Emirates.

I was simply pointing out that ANZ has 9 abreast seating.

 

My response was to the original poster. Not sure why you decided to pull it apart point by point.

 

Oooohhhh Someone took their sensitive pills today didnt they....:D :D :D

[cands]

Oooohhhh Someone took their sensitive pills today didnt they....:D :D :D

 

Guilty as charged :o . My apologies to Globaliser, too. Bad day at work.

 

Steve.

[kenexx]

Guilty as charged :o . My apologies to Globaliser, too. Bad day at work.

 

Steve.

 

No worries Steve. At least you dont have too long before your next cruise. :)

 

Maurice

[Ms Understood]

Seatguru.com is your best friend when trying to decide about seats. We are fortunate enough to be able to fly business class on Air new Zealand when we leave for the Feb 28 Sapphire cruise and I am really looking forward to this, the seats look fantastic.

[Globaliser]

My apologies to Globaliser, too. Bad day at work.

Hey, no worries mate! I know how it feels.

 

But I agree with you about the 10-abreast 777s on EK - I just won't do it.

[kaseyoz]

also bear in mind that united still do not have seat back tv in most of their planes.

Tough when the flight from LA to sydney is all night time flying and you have to try and watch the main screen.And you are travelling with children and you do not sleep on planes.

Sorry i have only travelled coach(economy)

[caribbeansun]

I would opt for Air New Zealand - we were in front of cabin but economy looked very good indeed.

[never2late]

We are flying Air New Zealand to Auckland, and then United home from Sydney. I purchased the United Economy Plus Pass to have a little more leg room -- I hope it is worth it. I flew home from Tahiti last summer on Tahiti Nui Airlines and I felt like a sardine -- what a miserable night -- and that was only for 8 hours. So I felt like it might be a good investment to get a little more leg room on a 13-14 hour flight. Also I am bringing some Ambian (sleeping aid).

 

:)

[vozzie]

Some more alternatives if leg room is important to you ... as it is to me.

 

Premium Economy - Air NZ - 38 inch seat pitch

Star Class - Jetstar HNL-SYD (you'll have to get yourself to HNL) - 38 inch seat pitch

 

You'll pay a fare which is about half way between Business & Economy.

[jane02]

Seatguru.com is your best friend when trying to decide about seats. We are fortunate enough to be able to fly business class on Air new Zealand when we leave for the Feb 28 Sapphire cruise and I am really looking forward to this, the seats look fantastic.

You will enjoy ANZ - we flew my elderly mother in law to New York for a family wedding in August. She flew Business Class to NY on United which she said was terrible and ANZ home which she raved about. She is very particular:p .

Jane;)

PS We were very clever and avoided the group family travel altogether and flew First Class with Qantas both ways which was heaven:D .

[Aussie Cruisers]

okay, I think that when it comes to economy travel, they are all very similar... however after saying this, QF comes ahead of ANZ.

1) SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY.... okay, while QF had had some scares in the past 5 years, they still have had no loss of life.... ANZ can't say that.

2) QF has better food, as they have the Snack on Cue (Q) bags will lots of crap to enjoy.

3) The inflight entertainment is better.... IF it works. Anyway, I also like South African as their staff are great and the catering is great too. But they don't count as they don't fly SYD to LAX.:D

[Steamboatin]

This website may be of some help in providing some airline seating information you are searching for.

http://www.seatguru.com/

[Globaliser]

1) SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY.... okay, while QF had had some scares in the past 5 years, they still have had no loss of life.... ANZ can't say that.

Right, I have to take serious objection to this, particularly as airline safety is one of my pet interests.

 

First, it is not true that Qantas has had no accidents or that it has never killed a passenger. That's an urban myth, which gained particularly widespread currency when it was repeated by Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man.

 

Second, and more importantly, the accident and fatality statistics of the major "Western" airlines are meaningless if you're trying to assess whether one is safer than another. Every major airline experiences incidents and serious incidents that compromise safety. But air travel is so safe that in virtually every case, one or more of the safety nets kicks in to prevent an accident occurring. That's the way the system is designed, and that's why it's so safe to travel by air.

 

Every once in a while, though, an incident will fall through a hole in a safety net, and a hole in the next one, and the one after that - and become an accident. On the rare occasions when a major airline has an accident, that is always what has happened. It is usually a matter of pure bad luck when a particular incident becomes something more serious, and it usually does not reflect on the airline's safety culture or experience.

 

Although one of these two airlines was neither a major airline nor a passenger airline, there is a striking example of this from these two events within months of each other: MK Airlines at Halifax, Emirates at Johanesburg. What saved the Emirates aircraft? About 50 feet. What did for the MK aircraft? Pure bad luck.

 

For that matter, what saved the Qantas at Bangkok? Pure luck again - a long wet grassy overrun. There are many other airports where if the same thing had occurred, Qantas would have been looking at a hull loss and many dead. As it happened, they did not draw the short straw and the bad luck that day, thank goodness. (And they just managed to persuade their insurers to repair the aircraft rather than write it off.)

 

So would you please withdraw your imputation that Air New Zealand is less safe than Qantas? It is not true, and this is extremely poor advice to give about choosing between these two airlines. There are airlines which I would not recommend on safety grounds, but there is no reason to doubt either of these two.

[vozzie]

Although I would be happy to fly on any of the Airlines mentioned in this thread as the chances of an accident are extrememly remote and I have a bigger chance of being killed driving to the airport, I believe that, based on the actual statistics (which is the main way that airline safety is assessed by insurers and risk assessors) AUSSIE CRUISERS's statement is factually correct and there is no valid reason for him/her to withdraw them.

 

I am sure that prospective passengers are intelligent enough to consider all the facts and opions and make their own decisions.

[lov2sailtoo]

If given a choice, are one airlines seats more desirable than another when looking to book airfare for the Australia/New Zealand cruise from the US?

Air New Zealand vs Quantas or others? Better food or service? It is such a long flight, we wonder if we should let HAL book the flights but pay to request a specific airline.

Sue

 

Unless you are traveling first class, find an airline who uses airbus jets. My best friend who refuses to go first class took me to South America on AA. It was okay we were able to choose from a selection of what we wanted to watch on the screen in the chair in front of us for the 10 hour flight. If you can go first class the trip is soooo much better, well worth the price.

[cands]

Right, I have to take serious objection to this, particularly as airline safety is one of my pet interests.

 

First, it is not true that Qantas has had no accidents or that it has never killed a passenger. That's an urban myth, which gained particularly widespread currency when it was repeated by Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man.

 

Second, and more importantly, the accident and fatality statistics of the major "Western" airlines are meaningless if you're trying to assess whether one is safer than another. Every major airline experiences incidents and serious incidents that compromise safety. But air travel is so safe that in virtually every case, one or more of the safety nets kicks in to prevent an accident occurring. That's the way the system is designed, and that's why it's so safe to travel by air.

 

Every once in a while, though, an incident will fall through a hole in a safety net, and a hole in the next one, and the one after that - and become an accident. On the rare occasions when a major airline has an accident, that is always what has happened. It is usually a matter of pure bad luck when a particular incident becomes something more serious, and it usually does not reflect on the airline's safety culture or experience.

 

Although one of these two airlines was neither a major airline nor a passenger airline, there is a striking example of this from these two events within months of each other: MK Airlines at Halifax, Emirates at Johanesburg. What saved the Emirates aircraft? About 50 feet. What did for the MK aircraft? Pure bad luck.

 

For that matter, what saved the Qantas at Bangkok? Pure luck again - a long wet grassy overrun. There are many other airports where if the same thing had occurred, Qantas would have been looking at a hull loss and many dead. As it happened, they did not draw the short straw and the bad luck that day, thank goodness. (And they just managed to persuade their insurers to repair the aircraft rather than write it off.)

 

So would you please withdraw your imputation that Air New Zealand is less safe than Qantas? It is not true, and this is extremely poor advice to give about choosing between these two airlines. There are airlines which I would not recommend on safety grounds, but there is no reason to doubt either of these two.

 

Bravo! Very well put.

I always think about the Qantas Bangkok incident. Repairing that plane to avoid a 'hull loss' was almost criminal. When boarding a Qantas 747 now, we always wonder (Is this the one?). The overshoot only happened because of Qantas' change to braking protocols (a cost saving measure).

As far as Air NZ is concerned, Mt Erebus was a long time ago and is irrelevant today.

When Qantas was a government owned airline safety has always an absolute priority, with all maintenance done inhouse and procedures well above the normal practice. Now it's just a regular airline.

 

BTW, we're flying to the USA next week on Air NZ in premium economy.

I'll post on this thread about the experience.

 

Cheers,

Steve.

[Aussie Gal]

We usually try and fly Singapore airlines when we fly to Europe and yet they had a major crash in Korea a few years ago due I believe to a number of reasons such as weather, pilot error and not enough warning about using the wrong runway and yet we never think of these things when we board one of their aircraft. Their service is A1 and they have one of the youngest fleet of aircraft in the business.

 

I believe that the airlines that fly to and from Australia are among the safest in the world. You have more chance of being killed outside your front gate than being on an aircraft.

 

We flew four times last year across the Pacific on Qantas and each time it was a great flight. We also use Qantas here at home on domestic flights. Over the past 40 odd years we have flown many thousands of miles around Australia and besides our flying with our beloved but now departed Ansett, we have mainly used Qantas. They are a very safe airline and except for the Bangkok over-run they have a wonderful record.

 

We are flying with Air New Zealand in 3 weeks time and again I am sure we will have another good flight. We have flown with Air New Zealand quite a few times on both short and long hauls and the experience has always been good.

 

Jennie

[Globaliser]

... I believe that, based on the actual statistics (which is the main way that airline safety is assessed by insurers and risk assessors) AUSSIE CRUISERS's statement is factually correct and there is no valid reason for him/her to withdraw them.

The statement about Qantas' record is factually incorrect. A correct statement would be that Qantas has never had a fatal accident in a jet aircraft, which is also the company's official line when asked. The company also claims never to have lost a jet aircraft, although the aftermath of Bangkok remains controversial.

 

Insurers do not base their decisions on fatal accident statistics. They are not stupid enough to believe that these are meaningful. Insurers will look at an entire airline's safety record, which contains huge amounts of information compared to the miniscule number of accidents (fatal or non-fatal) that any major Western airline suffers. The information that insurers look at will include that about the regular stream of safety-related incidents that Qantas and every other airline experiences.

 

There remains no reason for anyone to prefer Qantas over Air New Zealand on safety grounds, especially when they share one well-known and huge safety advantage, namely a low power gradient across the flight deck. Whatever basis on which one might choose between them (and I am a regular Qantas passenger), safety is not a valid consideration.

[got2go2mo2]

We just returned yesterday from our Auckland to Sydney cruise. We booked directly through United 330 days out (first day tickets were available). The deciding factor was the amazing sale fare of $853 per person from LAX to Auckland, then Sydney back to LAX (included all taxes and fees). Obviously this fare was for economy class with no upgrades allowed using FF miles, although we did acrue miles for the flights. For LAX to Auckland, we were booked on Air New Zealand since they are partnered with United in Star Alliance. The leg room was ample, the seats were quite comfortable, the seatback entertainment system was terrific, and the food was good. Flight attendants were cheerful and accommodating. This was on ANZ's recently refitted 747. We paid the $55 fee for using the Koru Club (ANZ Lounge) at LAX and it was money well spent, particularly if you have at least a four-hour wait before boarding. Not only do they provide free drinks and snacks, buffet dinner, and complimentary Internet use, but you can shower and freshen up before the long flight. They also escort you to the gate at boarding time to board with 1st class. The 12+ hours on the plane seemed to "fly" by!

 

We booked our own post-cruise stay and flew Qantas from Sydney to Cairns and return. The three-hour domestic flight was comfortable, but I can't speak for Qantas' transpacific flights.

 

Now for the return flight to LAX from Sydney on United's 747 -- We were seated in row 34, seats A and C, so we had no one between us. This is a small cabin of only three rows between business class and premium economy. If we had a person between us, I think we would have felt quite cramped, but since the middle seat was empty, we were comfortable. There is no seatback entertainment, only the small screens scattered about the aircraft. The screen for our section of the plane was on the bulkhead so not easily seen if you are a short person. The picture on the screen was poor and the headphones noisy. The sound would probably be improved if you had your own noise-reducing headphones. We slept a good portion of the 14+ hour flight so it was not a major player for us. The food and service were adequate.

 

The important thing is that we had a safe journey, but if given the choice, we would pick ANZ for their transpacific flights. We have flown ANZ before, to both Tahiti and to Rarotonga and have always appreciated their kind and friendly "Kiwi Spirit." :)

 

Kathy

[clogaltocruise]

Kathy ~

Thank you for your post. It was very informative and we appreciated your perspective.

Kathy, too

[kenexx]

Bravo! Very well put.

I always think about the Qantas Bangkok incident. Repairing that plane to avoid a 'hull loss' was almost criminal. When boarding a Qantas 747 now, we always wonder (Is this the one?).

 

Cheers,

Steve.

 

Considering that United repaired, re-registered and returned to service the 747 that was operating UA811 HNLAKL when the cargo door blew out I would not have a worry in the world stepping aboard OJH after what was a comparatively minor bingle !! :p

 

I acutally did see a few years ago on the intranet at work a statement from the insurers of OJH that it was nowhere near being written off. Whether they were asked to make that statement who knows? Just saying what I saw.

 

Maurice