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.

2019 Skytrax World Airline Awards: Who are the real winners?

It’s that time of the year when the airline industry is abuzz with the Skytrax World Airline Awards announced recently at the Paris Air Show.

There are surveys and there are surveys, if you know what I mean. Skytrax, which launched its survey back in 1999 (according to its website) is generally viewed with some regard. It is said that more than 21 million respondents participated in the 2019 survey.

But what can we read of the results?

Which is the real winner: Qatar Airways or Singapore Airlines?

Qatar Airways switched places with last year winner Singapore Airlines (SIA) to be the world’s best airline.

As far back as 2010 until now, the two airlines have been ranked one behind the other in the top three spots, except in 2012 when Asiana came in second place between Qatar the winner and SIA in third position. In the ten year period, SIA came behind Qatar in eight years, except in 2010 when SIA was second and Qatar third, and last year when the Singapore carrier became the world’s best ahead of Qatar in second placing.

It looks like a tight race between Qatar and SIA for the top spot, and going by the survey results, Qatar has outranked SIA. It has become the first airline to have won the award five times, one more in the history of the awards.

But SIA is still ranked ahead of Qatar for first class and economy class.

In the first class category, Qatar is not even a close second to SIA in first placing but fifth behind Lufthansa, Air France and Etihad as well

In the economy class category, Japan Airlines is tops followed by SIA and Qatar in second and third placing respectively.

Besides SIA has the best premium economy in Asia, second only to Virgin Atlantic worldwide. But,of course, Qatar does not offer that class of travel.

Additionally SIA tops for cabin crew, and Qatar is farther down the list in 9th position.

But Qatar wins for business class, followed by ANA and SIA in second and third placing respectively. So it seems there is heavier weightage for this segment which has become probably the fiercest battleground for the airlines. First class included, it also suggests the halo effect of the premium product, but it is the business class that is the primary focus in today’s business.

It also attests to the impact of the recency factor. Qatar obviously impresses with its cubicle-like Qsuite that comes with its own door to provide maximum privacy. Quad configurations allow businessmen to engage in conference as if they were in a meeting room and families to share their own private space. And there is a double bed option.

Which brings up the importance of having to continually innovate and upgrade the product to stay ahead in the race.

The top ten listing: Consistency equals excellence

The ranking does not shift much from year to year. Besides Qatar and SIA, there are some familiar names: All Nippon Airways (3rd this year), Cathay Pacific (4th), Emirates (5th), EVA Air (6th) and Lufthansa (9th). So there is not much of a big deal as airlines switch places so long as they remain in the premier list.

Hainan Airlines (7th) is making good progress, moving up one notch every year since 2017. Qantas (8th) is less consistent, moving in and out of the top ten list, Thai Airways retained its 10th spot for a second year.

It is no surprise that the list continues to be dominated by Asian carriers which are generally reputed for service. You only need to look at the winners for best cabin crew: Besides SIA, the list is made up of Garuda Indonesia, ANA, Thai Airways, EVA Air, Cathay Pacific, Hainan Airlines, Japan Airlines and China Airlines. With the exception of Qatar, no other airline outside Asia is listed.

If you to look to find out how the United States carriers are performing, scroll down the extended list of the 100 best and you will see JetBlue Airways (40th), Delta Air Lines (41st), Southwest Airlines (47th), Alaska Airlines (54th), United Airlines (68th) and American Airlines (74th).

Home and regional rivalry

Rivalry between major home airlines or among competing regional carriers is often closely watched.

Air Canada, placed 31st ahead of rival WestJet at 55th can boast it is the best in North America. That’s how you can work the survey results to your advantage.

ANA (3rd) has consistently outdone arch rival JAL (11th). In fact, ANA has been the favoured airline in the past decade till now. It has Japan’s best airline staff and best cabin crew. Across Asia, it provides the best business class. Internationally, it provides the best airport services and business class onboard catering.

Asiana (28th) is favoured over Korean Air (35th ).

The big three Gulf carriers are ranked Qatar first, followed by Emirates (5th) and Etihad (29th).

Among the European carriers, Lufthansa (9th) leads the field, followed by Swiss International Air Lines (13th), Austrian Airlines (15th), KLM (18th), British Airways (19th), Virgin Atlantic (21st), Aeroflot (22nd), Air France (23rd), Iberia (26th) and Finnair (32nd).

What about low-cost carriers?

Worthy of note is how some budget carriers are ranked not far behind legacy airlines. AirAsia (20th) is best among cohorts. EasyJet (37th) and Norwegian Air Shuttle (39th) are not far behind the big guys in Europe. Among US carriers, Southwest Airlines (47th) is third after JetBlue (40th) and Delta (41st).

Also, pedigree parents do not necessarily produce top-ranked offshoots. Placed farther down the list are SIA’s subsidiary Scoot (64th) and the two Jetstar subsidiaries of Qantas – Jetstar Airways (53rd) and Jetstar Asia (81st). So too may be said of so-called regional arms. Cathay Pacific’s Cathay Dragon is ranked 33rd, but SIA’s SilkAir is way down at 62nd.

Pioneer of the modern budget model Ryanair is ranked 59th.

Down the slippery road of decline: Aisana Airlines and Etihad Airways

If it is difficult to stay at the top, it is easy to slip down the slippery road of decline. Asiana and Etihad are two examples.

Asiana was ranked world’s best airline in 2010 and became a familiar name in the top ten list up to 2014, after which its ranking kept falling: 11th (2015), 16th (2016), 20th (2017), 24th (2018) and 28th (2019). Its erstwhile glory has been whittled down to being just best cabin crew in South Korea.

Etihad did reasonably well for eight years until 2018 when it was ranked 15th, and a year later suffered a dramatic decline to the 29th spot. That, despite beating Qatar to be this year’s best first class in the Middle East.

As I stated at the onset that there are surveys and there are surveys. Some are not specifically targeted , whether its interest is business or leisure for example. There is always an element of subjectivity and bias in the composition and weightage, and this renders no one reading as being definitive. At best, we can read across several creditable surveys to know with some conviction how the airlines really measure against each other.

Read also:

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/can-singapore-airlines-overtake-qatar-worlds-best-airline

Size matters in the air

Courtesy Getty Images

Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary predicted that “within the next four to five years you are seeing the emergence of four or five large European airline groups.” He even named the airlines, Ryanair among them in a mix of full-service and low-cost operators: Lufthansa, IAG (International Airlines Group which owns British Airways, Iberia, Aer Lingus, Vueling and Level), Air France-KLM and, probably, Easyjet.

This sentiment has been opined before by others at a time when mergers, assimilations and acquisitions across the industry were trending as competition broke barriers of entry and intensified, and so-called safe niche markets became every player’s game.

Air France-KLM as the name suggests is a merger of the two European airlines in 2004. Rival British Airways (BA) viewed it as a step in the expected direction, predicting further consolidation within Europe. And in 2011 IAG came into being when BA and Iberia merged. BA chief executive Willie Walsh said at the time that the merger would enable the airline to compete effectively with low-cost carriers.

So there came a time when budget carriers began to pose a threat to full-service airlines, with Ryanair leading the pack. Many of the legacy airlines today have adopted the budget model of charging for ancillaries, and introducing a basic economy class to keep cost-conscious travellers from switching. However, many low-cost carriers have become victims of the competition – the reason why Mr O’Leary named only one other carrier, EasyJet, as a probable survivor.

EasyJet, founded in 1995 and headquartered in London Luton, UK, is Ryanair’s closest rival which has grown and spread its wings across Europe. It too has made a number of acquisitions which include Swiss TEA-Basle and Go.
Elsewhere around the world, the vibes are not unfamiliar, New in the circuit is Air Canada’s interest in Sunwing and Cathay Pacific’s interest in Air Hong Kong Express, And where acquisitions and mergers are not on the plate, airlines are working to form alliances that are more than mere code-sharing. Qantas did it in 2013 with its tie-up with Emirates, and now Malaysia Airlines and Japan Airlines have applied for waiver of government restrictions to form an alliance that will enable easier connections between the two carriers.

It looks like size matters in the air.

Can Jewel Changi Airport continue to shine, for both Singaporeans and foreign travellers?

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/can-jewel-changi-airport-continue-shine-both-singaporeans-and-foreign-travellers

(Courtesy of TODAY)

Never say never: Cathay Pacific enters budget market

Courtesy AFP

In 2015, Cathay Pacific together with Hong Kong Airlines opposed Qantas’ application to set up Jetstar Hong Kong Airways – co-owned with China Eastern Airlines and billionaire Stanley Ho’s Shun Tak Holdings Ltd. Cathay was particularly vehement about there being no room or need for budget travel in Hong Kong. The authorities were convinced and Jetstar HKG never took off.

Today, Cathay announced its decision to buy Hong Kong’s only budget carrier, Hong Kong Express Airways, for HK$4.93 billion (US$628 million). This expands Cathay’s stable of airlines to three, which includes regional carrier Cathay Dragon. It will boost Cathay’s market share to 50 per cent in Hong Kong.

A Cathay spokesperson said: “We intend to continue to operate Hong Kong Express as a stand-alone airline using the low-cost carrier business model.”

Now what caused Cathay to change its mind?

Cathay is not alone in facing stiff competition in the long-haul and premium market, from not only neighbouring rivals such as Singapore Airlines (SIA) but also Middle east carriers such as Dubai Airlines. Besides, Chinese carriers from mainland China are also fast expanding, flying direct and more services to Europe and North America.

At the same time, Cathay can no longer ignore the encroachment by the flourish of budget carriers in the region, particularly those operating out of mainland China. The Hong Kong authorities too may begin to realise how all this may be reducing Hong Kong International Airport’s hub status, particularly when limited options are resulting in Hong Kong being bypassed.

It could be a matter of timing. In 2017 Cathay reported its first annual net loss in eight years and introduced a three-year transformation program. It was later in that same year that Cathay CEO Rupert Hogg affirmed that Cathay had no plans to start a low-cost carrier. But the debt-ridden HNA Group which owns Hong Kong Express offers a timely opportunity not to be missed even as Cathay posted its first full year profit in 2018 of US$299 million.

The business climate can change fairly quickly, but unfortunately airlines may be slow in catching up with the changes because of the huge investment and lead time to implement many of the changes, apart from a host of other reasons, some of which could be largely circumstantial.

Many legacy airlines pooh-poohed the threat of budget airlines to their traditional market when it was first mooted, and as many of the carriers fell by the wayside before they could assert any impact.

SIA for one came on the scene later than most others, setting up Tigerair jointly with Ryanair, and then Scoot. Its strategy has changed yet again with the merger of Tigerair and Scoot, and now SIA is in the process of assimilating SilkAir into the parent airline.

One wonders if this is the path that Cathay may take should Hong Kong Express and Cathay Dragon find their services overlap as they expand.

Whatever the reading, it would be discreet to never say never. The question is always if so, when?

Qantas is changing the game

Courtesy Getty Images

After the successful launch of the non-stop Perth-to-London flight in March, Qantas is now working on plans to introduce a non-stop Sydney-to-London flight, which is expected to take a little more than 20 hours. Boeing and Airbus have been invited to retrofit an aircraft that will fly the distance, and Qantas CEO Alan Joyce expected a launch by 2020.

This is set to be a game changer, continuing the momentum set by the Perth non-stop which, according to the Australian flag carrier, is performing well, and in fact, exceeding expectations. Mr Joyce himself said early signs were positive, and that the new route “is the highest rating service on our network.”

The task now is how to make the ultra-long haul comfortable enough to influence the pattern of travel and get non-believers on board. According to the Independent, a Twitter poll with over 1,200 responses showed that 40 per cent would prefer a non-stop flight, 30 per cent would want a break in the journey, and the remaining 30 per cent said it would depend on the fare.

“We’re challenging ourselves to think outside the box,” said Mr Joyce. “Would you have the space used for other activities – exercise, bar, creche, sleeping areas and berths?”

Maybe think, along the line of a cruise?

One suggestion put forth was converting the plane’s cargo hold into sleeping pods.

With more non-stop ultra-long haul flights from Australia – Perth now, Sydney next and most likely Melbourne to follow suit – to London and possibly other European destinations such as Paris and Athens (and further down the road to key destinations in Africa and the Americas as well), how will this affect the competition?

The Kangaroo Route has been a lucrative route for Qantas and rivals that include Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Middle East carriers, notably Emirates Airlines (despite its alliance with Qantas), Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways, flying via their home airports. Even Cathay Pacific may be counted as a veritable competitor.

However, these airlines are themselves also operating the ultra-long haul, so they are not unaware of how the game may be changing. Take, for example, the Middle East: Emirates, Etihad and Qatar are all operating non-stop to Los Angeles, albeit from their different home airports of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha respectively, in close proximity, and this is besides Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) flying from Jeddah. Both Emirates and Qatar are also flying non-stop to Auckland.

Asian rivals Cathay Pacific and Philippines airlines both fly non-stop from New York to Hong Kong and Manila respectively, and will soon be joined by SIA connecting the Big Apple with Singapore. Cathay and Philippines are also competing on the non-stop option from Toronto, while SIA and United Airlines are taking on each other flying non-stop between San Francisco and Singapore.

Perhaps to the relief of Qantas, British Airways (BA) has expressed no interest in mounting non-stop flights between Australia and the UK. In fact, over the years, BA has reduced its interest in Australia, currently operating only one service from London to Sydney via Singapore.

It seems that the ultra-long haul aims at narrowing the rivalry on key routes where point-to-point traffic is the target, and is perhaps also an attempt to claim native rights, cutting out third parties jumping on the bandwagon. The question is whether there is adequate traffic to justify the operations.

The fortunes of some airlines may shift, so too those of some airports which rely on transit traffic with no real attraction other than being a convenient stop en route. One only needs to look back at how Bahrain Airport quickly lost its status when new technologically advanced aircraft able to fly a longer distance without refuelling emerged on the horizon.

Dubai International and Singapore Changi are two popular hubs on the Kangaroo Route. How will their fortunes change?

Yes, they may lose some traffic with Qantas flying direct from Perth, Sydney and Melbourne, but all is not lost so long as there continues to be up to 70 per cent of travellers who are yet convinced the ultra-long haul is the way to fly. The airlines themselves understand the dynamics, hence the dual strategy, offering the options. Qantas may reduce some flights, but it is unlikely to completely stop flying via Dubai or Singapore. Similarly, SUA will not cease making a stop at an Asian port just because it has introduced non-stop flights to Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Again, if one sees how Dubai International does what Bahrain could not do, reviving the importance of a Middle East hub with convenient connections to Europe and Africa, no less owing to the vast network of Emirates, and how Changi has enticed transit and transfer passengers with being more than just another airport, one can be hopeful of their future. They may even flourish as important regional hubs, feeding traffic from and into the ultra-long haul flights.

And don’t forget, non-stop flights cost more. People spend their dollar in different ways.

News Update: US carriers abide by China’s Taiwan ruling

https://www.todayonline.com/world/us-airlines-plan-accept-china-demands-naming-taiwan?cid=emarsys-today_TODAY%27s%20evening%20briefing%20for%20July%2025,%202018%20%28ACTIVE%29_newsletter_25072018_today

Refer Much Ado About China’s Geography, June 30, 2018
https://airlinesairports.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/much-ado-about-chinas-geography/