Hi everyone,
I have read some of the older posts about various flights, and many conflict eachother because they're at different times.

Wondering what the current thinking here is for SFO to London? I prefer direct, but a friend told me Lufthansa is great with little kids making it worth the stopover. (I'm not convinced.)

I was thinking of trying Virgin, until I read a bunch of scathing reviews of Virgin on Fodors (though they were a couple years old.)

I used to Fly Alitalia a lot out of SFO direct, but they don't do that any more. And AirFrance I was a bit annoyed the last time I flew them... just a bad vibe all around. I've never flown American or any of the US airlines.

Thanks for the info,
Kat

I've only flown British Airways to London nonstop twice: once in 1991 and the other time in 2001. Ten years' difference and instead of being better, it had gotten worse.
I flew Lufthansa from SFO to Paris stopping over in Frankfurt. I honestly preferred Lufthansa over BA! I don't think I'd choose a stopover just to fly on Lufthansa though. The flight attendants we had on Lufthansa were far better service-oriented than the ones on BA and even on AF last time I flew AF.

BTW, you will find negative reports here on pretty much every airline.

I have flown BA a dozen times from SFO to London and I find them great and ususally the lowest prices. They are usually on time out of SFO and the service is fine, you usually have your own screen to watch movies . I did like the direct flight on United to Paris the best, but I would rather not stop on the way to London, it almost seems like a quick trip with no stops to London. My friends have been just as happy with Virgin on this route, which I will be flying in a couple of week. I've always heard good things about Virgin out of SFO.
Everyone does have thier preference.

We flew Virgin last month from SFO to Heathrow. The food was good (for airline food), the flight attendants were friendly, and each seat had an individual screen. My only complaint was that the seat and leg room area was so small for such a long flight...my knees kept brushing the seat in front of me and I'm only 5'6". In the future we will fly business class if we choose Virgin.

I've flown United non-stop to London from both San Francisco and Los Angeles. The service has been good, the food OK and they have 777s on that route. The only "problem" is that they are pretty full. With little kids I would go for non-stop.

I have flown United and Virgin from SFO to LHR over the past several years and I have found Virgin to have better service and amenities.Virgin has an individual TV screen for each seat on the 747's and the TV control doubles as a gameboy so your kids can also play video games.United 777's also have individual TV screens but not on their 747's.As far as space goes if you have an individual TV screen it comes at the cost of less legroom to accomodate all the electronics. Virgins solution to all this is to limit the amount of carryon bagage one can take onboard so that everyone can put the carryon in the overhead compartments and this frees up legspace.Virgin actually has a weight limit on the hand luggage.I forget what it is exactly but it is between 6-10kg.United on the otherhand allows people to schlepp 2 suitcases etc and as a result the legspace is also cramped on the 777's.
As far as service goes I think Virgin is better and more kid friendly.Virgin provides refreshments or snacks every 2 hours on their fights and every child gets a backpack with crayons, sunglasses etc.The actual meals in economy are equally bad for both airlines.
As for flight arrival times I would pick a flight that arrrives in late morning or early afternoon if you are staying in a hotel in London.The rational behind this is that hotel check in times in London is usually 2pm.In high season you will not be able to obtain a room before that time. 2pm GMT means 6am Pacific time and this has implications when travelling with children and being able to provide them with a place to sleep.

In coach, you won't find much difference in service among UA, BA or Virgin. Last time I flew Virgin across the pond, they give us a little backpack with toothbrush, ear plugs, eye shades, little notebooks, etc. That was cute, but I wouldn't pick them over another airline.

UA has daily 777 flights, and some 747. Pick the 777 as that one has personal video screen while the 747 doesn't. All seats on Virgin or BA should have them. And if you choose UA, ask at the airport if they get put you in an "Economy Plus" seat with extra legroom.

And I'd pick a non-stop flight over one with connection. Unless the other airline is significantly cheaper or give you a business class seat for the same price.

United!

Maybe worth connecting throught LAX to get Air New Zealand's non-stop - - best fare on the web right now for LAX-LON? See http://www.eurotrip.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=96548 for details.

Best wishes,

Rex

rex,

Did you actually try to book one of these fares? Anything beyond June is gone, and I'm talking about return, not outbound.

No, naturally, I have not tried. That's (in part) why I said "Maybe", and ended my "best fare" referce with a "?"

Just trying to alert others to something I had read.

Sorry (it appears that) it's a dud.

We have taken the late evening overnight nonstop to LHR from SFO on BA for several trips and can't complain about the food, service, leg room, etc. compared to other airlines. We like the individual screens and have found the cabin crew both helpful and friendly. They too have a weight limit for carryon, but never had a problem in SFO; only in London where they sometimes check.

We used to fly with UAL but were less than thrilled with the plan for our first FF miles trip so switched to BA. I frankly think the onboard service on BA is superior to UAL.

We are considering Virgin for our next time over because BA has cut FF miles to one-quarter mile to every mile flown and is rewarding more miles to the "front of the plane."

Incidentally, if you have a connecting flight BA has recently changed terminals for arrivals from SFO, so that loooooong walk to catch the shuttle to the other terminal is no longer necessary for some connections.