Flying to Europe from west coast in Oct, 05.
Is there a significant difference between airlines such as AA - UAL - BA - Air France?
It will be economy and I just wondered if one was better than another as far as service or comfort?
Thanks in advance for your replies.

Last year I flew BA for the 1st time and like their service quite a bit compared to soem of the others I've flown. BA has those individual monitors at every seat with lots of movies and porgrams to chose from. On a long flight with kids, this comes in handy!

I think that BA and AF have a bit better service and comfort than their American based counterparts. At least in economy class.

Pretty subjective. Where from and where to? Long legs or petite? Alone or with companion(s)? Member of any FF plans?

Considerations that would go into a decision are cost, connections/convenience (at both ends), seat comfort, in-flight service needs, etc. For example, BA has a huge menu of onward connections; however they're via Heathrow for the most part, which is no picnic. OTOH a lot of people also try to avoid CDG for connections because it's so confusing.

AA (in 777 planes) will still have a couple of inches extra legroom in October; their other planes will be in the process (or complete) of having coach seats squeezed back in, resulting in "less room in coach" on most planes. Given AA's pretty basic in-cabin service and poor west coast-Europe schedules, that might take them out of the running.

UA has "economy plus" seating (more legroom) but reserved for UA "elite" frequent flyers and those with higher priced coach fares. You might get lucky, though.

Don't overlook KLM/NW and SAS (both Seattle) or Lufthansa (Portland) or, especially, Air New Zealand on their daily LAX-LHR route. ANZ has an excellent coach product with more room than many of the others.

Lots of choices - happy analysis paralysis

The most important thing to me when I have a choice from Seattle to Europe is the airline that has a polar route... It cuts 4-5 hours off the trip and that means a lot to me. I can handle 12-13 hour trips from point to point better than 17-19 hours. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Have flown both BA & UA LAX - London, slightly preferred BA. Have flown UA economy plus, on one plane it made a noticable difference (JFK to LHR) on another it made none at all - very cramped (LAX - LHR) - never could figure out why the difference.

Another Seattle traveler who chooses the overnight flight/polar route!

On British Air works fine for me. I HATE to stop in the U.S. on the way to Europe (i.e. a day flight with transfer at JFK). So boarding in the evening and getting of in London in the morning is always my pick.

BA has tiny seats, but all have the entertainment seatback screens, headphones with a good choice of stations, free drinks, nice enough food and snacks, reasonably pleasant service (did i mention the ugliest uniforms in the sky?).

Suze. I've never flown BA but I have done SAS several times and I think the seats are comfortable enough (nothing is comfortable enough after 7-8 hours), service is good, food is ok, free drinks, seat back movies, music and games. I haven't had much to complain about (except that time I was sitting next to a drunk and we had to get him thrown off the plane somewhere over the pole).

I prefer the daylight eastbound flights from ORD or the east coast, as they get you to Europe in time to go to bed as soon as you check into the hotel. If you're up the night before on the redeye to the east coast, the net result is (for me) a major reduction in jetlag after that.

SAS is worth the effort because CPH is such a nice wee airport. I'd use NW/KLM for the same reason (okay, Schiphol's not exactly small) but their planes are ready for the Menorah Home IMO.

I'm on the west coast too and usually just go w/ whichever has the best sale.

But genrally my favorites in order are

1) Virgin for the best service (but cramped in coach)

2) tied BA and AA -
-BA for better service than AA but cramped seating.
-AA for better leg room - but no non-stops from the West Coast.

3) UAL

haven't flown AF or KLM

I fly KLM. From SFO to NL. Nice crew, nothing special regarding flight good or bad. Long flight. Food - well on the way home last time I brought my own.

Believe personally there is little difference between airlines.

West Coast of which country?

BA seems to always have airline specials and promotions that they are running; and their RT prices from the West Coast (CA/Seattle) to London seem better than any offerings from United Airlines or other airlines I have seen. One of my brother's flies PHX/AZ to CDG several times a year on Air France and just raves about their service, food, etc. I fly UAL and my miles are accrued with them so I don't fly other airlines that aren't in the UAL star alliance or code share system (alas, neither BA nor Air France are in their system).

I would choose BA

Lufthansa was very good for us last summer. I would definitely fly Lufthansa to Italy again. We connected in frankfurt. (San Diego to Los Angeles to Frankfurt to rome)

By 'west coast' I meant California. Going to Venice, Italy.
I'm in San Jose but could get to other large cities such as SFO, OAK, LAX, or Seattle or Portland if it would mean a better scheduled flight.
Also trying to decide if I should buy now or wait for a sale. We need to be in Venice by October 3, 05.

twoflower- 14 out of 15 posters figured out which west coast.

re BA cramped seating- it is still my airline of 1st choice for many reasons, but i heard (read here on fodors no doubt) that inch for inch BA has the smallest economy seats.

Having flown international numerous times, I would personally go with whatever airline gets you there the fastest and at the cheapest rate. Unless you are flying business or first class, you aren't going to have a real comfortable flight. Save your money and spend it on hotels and food once you're there.

It is way too early to be booking flights for next October. Just sign up for all the different airline e-mail announcements - when one of them throw a sale you can jump on it.

If you find the fares just too high to stomach another option is to book R-T to a major hub like London. You can get there non-stop from LA, SFO, even Las Vegas. Then you can book one of the low cost airlines to Venice.

JIW, ok, I too fly to Venice. On KLM from SFO to Amersterdam. Flight leaves (do not think this has changed) close to 4:00pm from SFO. You arrive in Amersterdam (great airport!) around 10:30am (the next day of course). Than about 3 hours later you take the KLM City Chopper to Venice. I find that the easiest way to get there. Per my other post and well as other posters thoughts, do not think there is any big difference in airlines regarding seats etc.

I have always found the crew of KLM to be very pleasant. And again, find the airport at Amsterdam a joy so to speak.

Only complaint is that the flight out of Venice back to Amesterdam leaves around 7:00am. But believe most flights due. Flight from Amersterdam gets into SFO late afternoon. Again, I do not think their schedule has changed.

BTW, you book KLM through Northwest Airlines. www.nwa.com.

Have fun dreaming of your trip to Venice!