Uzbekistan Airways offered an appealing business class fare from Baku to Kuala Lumpur via Tashkent, with dedicated premium seats, generous amenities and friendly cabin service. The journey also involved a difficult airport security encounter, a 5-hour technical delay and a baggage mix-up after arrival.

The result was a sharp contrast between a comfortable onboard product and a frustrating overall itinerary. This review covers both flights, the practicalities of a 9-hour Tashkent layover and the problems that made the lower fare less compelling by the end of the trip.

Why the Route Through Tashkent Was Attractive

The Uzbekistan Airways ticket cost approximately AUD 2,400, less than half the price of the major-carrier alternatives considered for this journey. It connected Baku with Kuala Lumpur through Tashkent, rather than following the original plan to return to Perth after Baku.

The change followed the announcement of a race in Malaysia. An existing Qatar Airways business class return ticket between Perth and Europe had cost AUD 8,000, and altering that booking introduced a separate set of costs.

The options worked out as follows:

• Cancel and rebook before departure: Qatar quoted a AUD 400 cancellation penalty and AUD 6,000 for the replacement booking, totaling AUD 6,400.
• Use the outbound journey, then cancel the unused return: This produced a refund of AUD 3,600, leaving an effective one-way cost of AUD 4,400.
• Difference between those options: AUD 2,000.

A separate Baku-to-Barcelona ticket, originally needed to connect with the Qatar return journey, also received a near-full refund. Against that background, the Uzbekistan Airways fare looked like good value. However, the saving came with a lengthy connection, even before any disruption.

Baku to Tashkent: A Strong A320neo Business Class Product

Flight HY756 from Baku to Tashkent operated on an Airbus A320neo and took approximately 2.5 hours. The cabin appeared relatively new, and business class used proper premium seats rather than an economy row with the middle seat blocked.

The initial service was a highlight. Crew were friendly, and passengers received a choice of drinks before departure, a hand towel and wet wipes. Amenities already at the seat included slippers and a kit containing:

• Creams and earplugs
• A dental kit
• A hairbrush
• An eye mask

Airline-branded headphones were supplied, in-seat power was available on the seat ahead, and the aircraft offered Wi-Fi. The inflight magazine also included English-language content.

Lunch arrived approximately 45 minutes after takeoff. The first tray included salad, nuts, cheese, cold meats, savory pastries and a chocolate bar, accompanied by Jameson whiskey. There were 3 main-course choices, with the chicken receiving a positive assessment.

The arrival service continued the positive impression. Business class passengers had separate transport to the terminal.

Online ratings were less encouraging than this first flight. The Trustpilot score checked at the time was roughly 2 out of 5, based on only around 50 reviews, while the Skytrax ranking cited placed the airline 4th in Central Asia. Those ratings provided background, but the small Trustpilot sample made it a limited basis for judging the whole airline.

A 9-Hour Tashkent Layover: Storage, Connectivity and Taxi Costs

A scheduled 9-hour connection allowed time outside the airport. Immigration on this occasion took approximately 1.5 minutes, with a passport and boarding pass presented and no additional questions reported.

Leaving a camera bag in airport storage avoided carrying it around the city, but the quoted charge was substantial: 600,000 Uzbek som, approximately USD$ 51, for 1 bag and 6 hours.

The taxi drivers approached outside the airport wanted cash rather than a credit card. Their suggested solution was a stop at an ATM, but a credit-card cash advance was not acceptable because of concerns about the card’s interest terms. Those terms vary by issuer and account, so they should not be assumed to apply identically to every traveler.

The taxi fares on this trip differed considerably:

• Airport to city: 200,000 som, approximately USD 16.92 at the conversion shown.
• City to airport: 50,000 som, approximately USD 4.23.

The outbound trip cost 4 times as much as the return. These were individual fares paid on this journey, not a published tariff, but they illustrate the value of confirming the price before departure.

The Camera Dispute at Tashkent Airport

The most unsettling problem involved re-entering the airport with an assembled camera rig. An earlier entry had caused no difficulty, but a subsequent attempt was refused by security staff, who pointed to a no-camera sign.

A second attempt at a neighboring terminal produced the same response. The language barrier made it difficult to establish whether the objection concerned filming, the equipment itself or another rule. The immediate concern was whether the camera could be brought back into the airport for the onward flight.

The situation was complicated by 2 additional cameras already inside the stored camera bag. With several hours remaining before departure, the uncertainty overshadowed the city visit. English-language assistance was difficult to find among the people approached, although the duty manager at the InterContinental was able to discuss the problem and expressed surprise at it.

The visible parts of central Tashkent included fountains, landscaped public spaces, broad roads and tree-lined pedestrian areas. The city made a favorable impression, but the unresolved airport issue prevented the layover from being a relaxed sightseeing break.

Later, the camera was dismantled and its components repacked across 2 carry bags. Entry through a different airport entrance succeeded. After the stored bag was collected and departure immigration completed, security again examined the camera, asking about its value and several accessories. The equipment was ultimately allowed through.

Tashkent Lounge Access: Landside Versus Airside

Lounge location mattered after the security dispute. On this journey, the Uzbekistan Airways business class lounge was landside, while the lounge used after departure formalities was an airside Priority Pass facility.

The Priority Pass allowance was limited to 2 hours. That was a notable restriction for a long connection, especially when remaining airside was preferable to dealing with airport entry again.

The lounge had sweet and savory food, soft drinks and a limited self-service bar. Its carpet appeared visibly dirty. The food was not sampled, with packaged Lay’s chips chosen instead, so there was no direct assessment of the buffet’s taste or quality.

The practical distinction is important: a business class ticket does not necessarily mean that the relevant lounge is located beyond immigration and security. Lounge location and access duration can substantially affect how useful it is during a connection.

Tashkent to Kuala Lumpur: Comfortable Seats, Then a 5-Hour Delay

The onward flight used a Boeing 787-8 with 18 business class seats in a 2-2-2 configuration. Boarding began after an initial delay of approximately 1 hour.

This layout offers less privacy than a suite-style product such as Qatar Airways Qsuite, but the seat itself was comfortable. The center pair has a useful advantage: both passengers have direct aisle access without needing to cross a neighboring seat.

By contrast, a window-seat passenger in a side pair must pass the aisle-seat passenger to get out. The aisle-seat passenger may also be disturbed by that movement. For this cabin arrangement, a center seat is therefore a practical choice when easy aisle access is the priority.

A welcome drink was offered promptly, and crew on both flights spoke very good English. Only 1 of the 18 business class seats was unoccupied, and it was beside seat 2C.

The larger disruption began after the aircraft left its stand. It stopped approximately 5 minutes later, remained stationary for about 30 minutes and then returned because of a technical problem.

The 246 passengers disembarked and were transported by bus to a holding area. The wait included a period on the bus on the apron, followed by uncertainty in the terminal about how long repairs would take.

Water was distributed approximately 1 hour into the terminal wait, followed about 5 minutes later by food. The meal supplied was chicken with rice and was served cold. There was no confirmed departure time at that stage.

Sleep took priority over the onboard meal service after reboarding. Grilled beef was on the menu, and the remaining options appeared similar to those on the first flight, but the second flight’s catering was not reviewed.

The seat performed well as a bed. It was reported to be long enough for comfortable sleep, with no enclosed foot box. Its usable length was estimated as slightly greater than a Qsuite bed, although that was a personal comparison rather than a measured specification.

Cabin Safety Observations and the Overall Trade-Off

Friendly service and a comfortable bed did not remove concerns about cabin procedures. On the Baku flight, the reported observations included a lack of reminders to fasten seatbelts and no collection of a remaining glass before landing.

On the second flight, a passenger remained in the lie-flat position during takeoff without being required to return the seat upright. These are observations from the 2 flights, not a comprehensive assessment of the airline’s safety record, but they are relevant concerns when evaluating the experience.

The broader trade-off was between a lower fare and a demanding itinerary. The planned 9-hour connection was already long. The technical delay added further fatigue, while the camera dispute consumed several hours of attention during the stopover.

Across the preceding 2.5 days, total sleep amounted to just under 7 hours. Even with a comfortable business class bed, the route and disruption left the journey poorly suited to arriving rested.

Kuala Lumpur: Delayed Luggage and the Wrong Delivery

The problems continued after arrival in Kuala Lumpur. Airport staff advised that the checked suitcase had not arrived, leaving approximately 1 day without it.

The following day, an email confirmed that luggage had been collected by a courier for delivery to the Mandarin Oriental. A plastic-wrapped suitcase appeared in the hotel room about 1 hour later, but it was noticeably too light and turned out to belong to an AirAsia passenger.

After the delivery agent was contacted, the correct suitcase arrived approximately 1.5 hours later. Its condition was substantially worse than when it had been checked in at Baku: the case had been secured with a large amount of clear tape around a failed exterior closure.

Verdict: Good Onboard Value, a Difficult Overall Journey

Uzbekistan Airways delivered several genuine strengths: proper A320neo business class seats, useful amenities, a good first-flight meal, friendly English-speaking crew and a comfortable 787 bed. At approximately AUD 2,400, the fare was considerably cheaper than the alternatives considered.

However, this itinerary also brought a long scheduled layover, an unresolved camera-entry dispute, restricted airside lounge access, a 5-hour technical delay and delayed baggage followed by an incorrect hotel delivery.

The onboard product was better than the overall travel experience. The lower fare did not outweigh the time, fatigue and uncertainty on this particular journey. Tashkent itself made a positive impression, but the airport encounter significantly reduced the value of the stopover.

For anyone considering the same route, the central question is not simply whether Uzbekistan Airways has comfortable business class seats. It is whether the fare saving justifies the connection length and the practical demands of the whole itinerary.