Review: From Singapore to Seoul vv on Korean Air

When I was planning a trip from Songapore to Seoul last month, I had intended to fly either Singapore Airlines or Asiana Airlines. I decided to go with Asiana as it was the cheaper option. However, when I completed my online booking, a different fare was shown.

It so happened that Korean Air in conjunction with a local bank was promoting a fare that was even lower.

Photo by DL

Although I had flown Korean Air before, I confess that I had not thought of Korean Air this time because comparing the two Korean carriers, I had been prejudiced by the many surveys particularly Skytrax which continually favoured Asiana over the years. But the Korean Air offer was too good to resist.

KE 646 departing SIN 01:30 arriving ICN 08:50
KE 647 departing ICN 23:10 arriving SIN 05:00+1

I flew Economy.

Flight

What’s good about a red-eye flight is that you travel at a relatively off-peak time, and you can try to get some sleep during the journey (as would be the normal thing to do at the time) before arriving in daylight.

I have never flown a more quiet flight in all aspects – there was little movement and hardly any unnerving noise made by the passengers. Quite unlike my experiences flying Singapore Airlines or Cathay Pacific long distance when the call button kept ringing throughout the flight. Understandably the distance may make a difference. In any case, this was a pleasant change.

Crew

They were good, the female flight attendants looking most impressive in their exquisite attire. Above all, they were polite and pleasant.

Unlike the crew of most other major carriers (not excluding the big names known for reputable customer service) who would gather behind the curtain in the back galley between meals, there was at least one attendant who would maintain his or her presence in the assigned station throughout the flight.

Food

Good. I liked the choice of a local Korean option out of Seoul.

Toilet

Surprisingly clean. It was observed that the crew would make frequent checks.

Ground service

But ground service seemed to be less than satisfactory. At Singapore Changi Airport, the check-in agent could be a little friendlier and less perfunctory. By comparison, the check-in agent at Incheon International Airport was more customer-friendly, showing a readiness to assist.

The flight departs and arrives at Changi’s Terminal 4, which means you will have to ride the shuttle to Terminal 2 if you are commuting by subway.

At ICN, Korean Air operates out of Termninal 2, which seems spartan compared to the bustling Terminal 1. By 9 pm, it would be hard-put to find a restaurant (or anything else to amuse oneself) except the 7-11 convenience store.

Will I fly this route on Korean Air again?

Certainly YES. Worthy of note is that while Asiana Airlines has lost its place in the Skytrax survey as one of the world’s best, the top 25 airlines for 2020 ranked by AirlinesRatings include Korean Air but not its rival.

What’s behind the partnership between Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines?

This article was published in Today on 26 November 2019

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/whats-behind-partnership-between-singapore-airlines-and-malaysia-airlines

Review: From Seattle to Singapore vv on Singapore Airlines

I decided I might try the non-stop Seattle-Singapore run by Singapore Airlines (SIA), a route that has taken SIA a long time to introduce after decades of its inaugural flight to the United States. I flew economy.

Flight time

The flight was not as long as I had expected, between 14 and 16 hours. Not much of a jet lag if you managed to catch some shut-eye, arriving in good time for dinner in Singapore, and for an early breakfast (if you need one) in Seattle the other way around.

SQ27, Seattle to Singapore departing SEA 10:40 and arriving SIN 17:30 (15 hours 50 mins)
SQ 28, Singapore to Seattle departing SIN 09:25 and arriving SEA 07:25 (14 hours)

Inflight movies

Both ways, I was unable to find a movie that I would find myself hooked on watching despite the wide selection. Disappointing in a way, as I was looking forward to catching up on the latest blockbusters, but that landed me easily into doing the next best thing on a long flight, getting some needed rest.

Broken seats

The seat was comfortable enough compared to most other airlines.

Unfortunately, out of Seattle, I was seated behind a passenger who had a broken seat, which kept rocking to and fro every time that he moved. The seat could not be positioned upright during take-off or landing, and during the meal service. We brought this to the attention of the crew who responded with a shrug of the shoulder. So it was left to us to manage the situation during the meal service, and the passenger in front kindlyt offered paper napkins to mop up some spillage during the process.

(When I provided the feedback online after the flight, SIA responded with an apology and said the crew would have arranged for a change of seat under the normal circumstances. Well, they knew and they didn’t.)

Just my luck that when I flew Singapore to Seattle, I had a seat which was difficult to adjust and the crew had to forcibly move it upright as required. At least they tried. Looks to me this aspect needs a little attention, whether pre or post flight. It would seem that it is only looked into if the crew had logged it in.

Meals

Picture: DL

I would say SIA was generous in offering three entree choices and the portions were substantial. Nasi lemak for breakfast out of Singapore was a nice local touch.

However, I thought breakfast came too soon after dinner five and a half hours before arriving in Seattle, particularly when snacks were served in between the meals (and after breakfast too). That means it may be difficult to have a good rest with all the bustling movement in the cabin. Besides, you could’t be that hungry though maybe for the exceptional few.

Toilets

Suffice to say that all the toilets all the way from Singapore to Seattle were FILTHY. Blame the passengers?

Crew

Efficient, but I miss the magic of the Singapore Girl of yore. They are still good, but some competitor airlines have become as good.

The plus is that SIA has more crew members than most other airlines, so you get attended to quickly when you need something.

I would commend the crew out of Singapore for their enthusiasm. I had not seen a more lively team.

Ground Service

I did interline check-in. Processing at SEATAC was smooth. However, check-in at Singapore Changi Aiport Terminal 3 was a hassle. I went to Row 4 (as indicated on the signboard) to bag-drop. There was an issue at the self-self kiosk. I signalled to a staff member uniformed in a a red jacket (there were a number of them hanging around outside the check-in area), but she just stood rooted to the ground, seeing me but not moving. I approached her and she followed me reluctantly. At the machine, she said I had to go to Counter 10 at Row 3 since I was travelling to the US. (I wished thiere was a sign at the booth that stated this).

So, over to Counter 10 at Row 3, and it took more than 10 minutes waiting my turn although there was only on passenger ahead of me. Then, the next blow after check-in: I was told I had to take a train to the gate at Terminal 1. Movement between terminals can be a nuisance albeit in this case via skytrain, the very reason why I chose SIA over Cathay Pacific this time because I didn’t like the inconvenience of going by shuttle to Terminal 4 when I arrived at Changi via subway.

Will I fly this route again on SIA?

Ah well, I was sufficiently encouraged to say “yes” (if not, sufficiently discouraged to say “no”). I like it being non-stop.

Protecting the consumer rights of air travellers

This article was published in Today, 25 October 2019.

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/protecting-consumer-rights-air-travellers

Are airlines treating passengers of disrupted flights fairly?

Courtesy Reuters

IF you were travelling on Singapore Airlines (SIA) out of London and your flight is delayed or cancelled, you may be compensated up to €600 according to European Union (EU) regulations. However, if it is an outbound flight from Singapore, what compensation a passenger may receive, if any, will depend on the policy of the airline.

This is because EU regulations do not apply to non-EU carriers arriving at an airport in member countries although it covers all departing flights of both EU and non-EU carriers.

The regulations have recently been extended to include connections even if these are operated outside the EU by non-EU airlines. The ruling states that “an operating air carrier that has performed the first flight cannot take refuge behind a claim that the performance of a subsequent flight operated by another air carrier was imperfect.” It is therefore obliged to offer passengers alternative transport for the disrupted flight, in addition to monetary compensation.

Over in Canada, the Air Passenger Protection Regulations introduced by the Canada Transportation Agency require airlines affected by flight disruptions to meet certain obligations which will apply to all flights to, from and within Canada, including connecting flights. Passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled will be compensated up to C$1,000 depending on the size of the airline and length of the disruption. Non-compliance carries a fine of up to C$25,000.

Countries elsewhere do not generally legislate on mandatory fiduciary compensation of a stipulated amount for flight disruptions. In the United States, airlines are obliged to compensate passengers who are bumped off a flight due to an overbooking situation (as in the EU and Canada), but there are no federal regulations requiring them to do the same thing for passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled.

Consumer rights groups have long been pushing for fairer treatment of travellers under these circumstances. Besides arranging meals and hotel accommodation in the event of a long delay, some airlines hand out in-flight gift vouchers, but most do not make any form of financial payment. In many cases the affected passengers get not much more than an apology while they wait to be put on the next available flight.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recognises the vulnerability of passengers and supports “due attention… (which) could include rerouting, refund, care and/or compensation”, but it stops short of spelling out specifics and making them industry standards. The International Air Transport Association is however concerned that airlines may be adversely affected, advocating “an appropriate balance between protection of consumers and industry competitiveness.”

Affected passengers therefore by and large can only rely on the goodwill of the airlines, whose policies differ across the industry. Many of them have come to realise that to take the matter further on their own – including bringing an airline to court – can be tedious, frustrating and, more often than not, futile. What they need is the support of an authority who can enforce compliance within a legal framework.

Yes, even with mandatory compensation in place in the EU and Canada, there have been complaints that the airlines are not forthcoming in meeting their obligations, citing extraordinary circumstances that do not render them liable or delaying payment indefinitely. Still, in the context of good governance, what the EU and Canada have introduced is a significant step forward in recognition of the uphill challenge passengers face in their battle with the airlines for fair compensation.

Some airport authorities fine airlines for flight delays or operating off-schedule because it disrupts and causes less-than-optimal resource allocation that can be costly to the airport’s operations. By the same argument, passengers of disrupted flights deserve to be fairly compensated. The disruption can be costly in terms of making alternative arrangements, staying in some place longer than planned, and losing opportunities as in failing to make a business deadline. Above all, it causes anguish and distress.

The amounts recommended by the EU and Canada are miniscule compared to the fines of up to US$27,500 per passenger imposed by the US Transportation Department for planes left on the tarmac for more than three hours (or four hours for international flights) without taking off. American Airlines and Southwest Airlines share the honour of holding the record fine of US$1.6 million, the former in 2016 and the latter in 2015.

Non-US airlines that have been penalised by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) include Japan Airlines which was fined US$300,000 for two incidents in 2018 in which passengers were made to wait more than four hours on the tarmac before they could deplane.

All these measures serve the common goal of encouraging airlines to ensure their flights operate as scheduled and hopefully too that they become more conscientious about how they treat their customers. However, the fines imposed by DOT do not directly benefit the passengers who are the very reason why an airline is in business.

An example of how an airline may take the EU regulations seriously is when British Airways, faced with the threat of strike action by its pilots recently, informed its customers as early as two weeks of cancellations of some flights to avoid paying compensation.

However, do not expect similar regulations to be introduced any time soon in other parts of the world. For one thing, consumer rights groups do not appear to be as aggressive, and many countries especially Asia are less prone to industrial action. Besides major Asian carriers known for good customer service are more responsive to feedback and complaints and may already be offering some form of compensation even if they are not as generous.

But as the number rises, there is a greater need to ensure that affected passengers are fairly treated. The powers that be can ensure that. According to aviation data and analytics experts at Cirium, about 3.9 million flights or 10,700 a day were delayed by over 30 minutes or cancelled worldwide in 2018. Take a typical day on 5 August 2019.there were 22,386 delays and 1,107 cancellations globally, of which 29 per cent of the combined total occurred in the United States, 26 per cent in Europe, and 34 per cent in Asia Pacific.

Until then, here’s a poser for SIA and the likes: Will they accord the same level of comnpensation to all passengers even if they are not bound by regulations, for no better reason than simply one in the name of fairness?

Malaysia Airlines: Waiting for the white knight

Courtesy Reuters

IN July, there was much excitement about Qatar Airways’ interest in acquiring Malaysia Airlines (MAS), being one of four proposals received by the ailing flag carrier of Malaysia. It seems that has as quickly dissipated.

According to sources, apparently only one proposal from local investors Jentayu Danaraksha Sdn Bhd (JDSB) is left on the table. The consulting firm is fronted by former MAS chief executive officer Tan Sri Abdul Azia who retired in 1991.

But MAS’ owner Khazanah does not seem to favour JDSB which in 2014 said it was keen to revive the carrier but was snubbed.

There has been ambiguity as to whether MAS prefers a local or foreign investor. But there is now new excitement about the possibility that Japan Airlines (JAL) might be that white knight. Much has been hyped about JAL being a good fit for MAS since it had only not too long ago pulled through a difficult time of near collapse and would therefore know what’s needed to rescue MAS.

JAL has earlier tied up with MAS to operate joint flights between Japan and Malaysia, and it looks like a natural step forward to take on a bigger role. Besides, both airlines belong to the OneWorld Alliance (and so too Qatar Airways).

And while the powers that be at Khazanah are gushing with excitement about that prospect, JAL president Yuji Asaka said it was too early to consider an equity investment in MAS but future discussions were possible.

Extending its reach internationally may be a strategy for JAL in competing with rival All Nippon Airways. So far it has partnered with airlines which include China Eastern Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and Garuda Indonesia in commercial agreements. But equity acquisition is so far not on the card. So it may be a long road, so patience may just be what MAS needs right now.

Caution keeps B737 Max jet grounded

Courtesy Getty Images

Carriers which had been hopeful that the Boeing B737 Max jet would return to the skies as early as next month have deferred scheduled dates to operate the aircraft.

Earlier in August, Boeing CEO Dennis Mullenburg was hopeful that this would happen in the fourth quarter of the year and the airlines could look forward to capturing the peak holiday season traffic.

American Airlines which owns 24 of the Max jet is pushing the date to Dec 3. United Airlines with a fleet of 14 is moving it further down the road to Dec 19. It looks like both carriers are still hoping to cash in on what shall remain of the peak season including the Christmas holiday. But Southwest Airlines, the largest of the Max operators worldwide with 34 aircraft has moved the scheduled date to Jan 5 next year.

North of the border, Air Canada (which owns 24 Max jets) and Sunwing (with 4 aircraft) are not expecting the aircraft to be operational until next year. For Air Canada, it is Jan 8. And for Sunwing, even later in May. WestJet (with a fleet of 13 Max jets) too is not scheduling Max flights during the year-end holiday season, but said the company might consider an occasional flight to ease the demand should the ban be lifted then.

WestJet’s vice-president in charge of scheduling said: “It’s a little harder to unmix the cake at that point, but we would look at peak days, the Friday before Christmas (for example) where we can still sell seats and we’ll put the airplane back in.”

Elsewhere across the world, affected carriers remain non-committal on their plans. Other major operators until the jet was grounded include Norwegian Air Shuttle (18 aircraft), China Southern Airlines (16), TUI Group (15), China Eastern Airlines (14), Lion Air (14), FlyDubai (14), Turkish Airlines (12), and XiamenAir (10).

The B737 Max jet was grounded globally following two fatal incidents, one involving Indonesian carrier Lion Air in Oct last year and the other involving Ethiopian Airlines in Mar this year, both crashes claiming a total of 346 lives.

Quite naturally, carriers which own the Max jet are keen to see its early return to the skies. Many of them have cut back capacity to cope with the shortage of aircraft and are reporting losses as a consequence. United which took out 70 flights a day in its September schedule will see the number increased to 90 in December. Together, the three airlines – American, United and Southwest – have cancelled 30,000 flights. Delta Air Lines, however, stands to gain from these airlines’ disadvantage as it does not own any Max aircraft.

Budget carrier Norwegian Air Shuttle which plies the ultra-long haul is said to be on the brink of collapse, and the grounding of the B737 Max jet isn’t helping. According to former CEO Bjorn Kjos, the restriction has cost the airline US$58 million. Norwegian, which took the US by storm with its low fares, raising objection from American carriers, has cancelled numerous flights between Europe and the U.S.

Both the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing have suffered some loss of credibility in the wake of the two crashes. Stories about Boeing’s shoddy work at is plants and allegations of FAA’s relegating its oversight role to the manufacturer had hit hard. FAA’s delayed action to ground the Max jet after a number of authorities across the globe had done so also called into question FAA’s leadership role in the field.

However, FAA may have learnt its lesson. Following meetings between Boeing and various industry players where disagreement on the readiness of the Max jet was apparent, FAA had said, “Our first priority is safety, and we have set no timeframe for when the work will be complete. Each government will make its own decision to return the aircraft to service, based on a thorough safety assessment.”

Europe’s aviation safety watchdog – the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) – for one will not rely entirely on a US verdict on whether the Max jet is safe to resume flying. It will instead additionally conduct its own tests on the plane before giving its final approval.

Transport Canada has insisted on the need for essential simulator training in early discussions when Boeing said it was not necessary since the Max jet was a variation of the B737 master model. The authority said it “will not lift the current flight restriction… until it is fully satisfied that all concerns have been addressed by the manufacturer and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, and adequate flight crew procedures and training are in place.”

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, multiple regulatory bodies around the world were not satisfied with Boeing’s briefing on the Max software update. They contended that Boeing “failed to provide technical details and answer specific questions about (the) modifications.” Boeing is expected to resubmit documents providing more details, and that these should be first approved by FAA before a follow-up meeting is convened. This in a way reminds FAA of its oversight role.

While affected airlines are looking forward to normalising their operations with the return of the B737 Max jet, what happens post-ban is another story. In fact, it may present a more difficult problem to handle than the technical aspects of the saga as the carriers try to win back the trust of travellers. If, indeed time is the healer, then taking the time to be absolutely convinced of the jet’s airworthiness before lifting the ban may be a good thing for the airlines.