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?

At last, Emirates will be offering premium economy

Courtesy EPA

Emirates Airlines is the latest of the few remaining major airlines to jump on the premium economy bandwagon. The Gulf carrier is launching the service in 2020. And as one of the world’s best airlines according to several surveys, it promises a product as one to beat.

Emirates CEO Tim Clark said, “We’re aiming to make it a quiet zone, a comfortable zone.”

It will be an exclusive cabin. Besides more legroom, better food and beverages, and other perks, the seat will be a “sleeperette”, but it will not be a lie-flat bed as in Business Class. The idea is to attract economy class passengers to upgrade. And Mr Clark has said the prices will be “well below business class fares.”

Emirates’ entry into this segment of the business will certainly heighten the competition among rival airlines that are already offering premium economy. A noted rival is Singapore Airlines (SIA). Interestingly, Emirates seems to be following in the footsteps of SIA which held out for quite a while before it decided to fly premium economy behind several other major carriers such as Cathay Pacific and Qantas. Both SIA and Emirates are known for their excellent service in the upper classes, but they cannot ignore the growing appeal of that in-between class that their close rivals ride on.

Closer home, it may not be a question now as to whether Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways will also come on board but when

Can AirAsia save Malaysia Airlines?

Courtesy Reuters

Back in March, AirAsia chief Tony Fernandes said he was not keen on acquiring Malaysia Airlines (MAS).

This came amidst speculation of a likely scenario when Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohamad mulled over the future of the beleaguered flag carrier, suggesting it might be better off sold if not downsized or expanded as the case may be with a change of management.

Dr Mahatir said: “Although we hired foreign management, MAS still faced losses. Therefore, one of the options is to sell.”

Four turnaround initiatives without success had apparently cost the government MYR250 billion (USD 6.05 billion).

Recent events have led to renewed speculation of AirAsia’s interest. Former AirAsia Group Bhd non-executive chairman Pahamin Rajab is said to have met Dr Mahatir. However, it might well point to Mr Pahamin’s personal interest eyeing the top job at Malaysia Airlines following the resignation of Tan Sri Mohammed Nor Md Yusof as chairman.

But if the acquisition does come about, it would be an interesting case of how a budget carrier came to assimilate a larger national carrier. AirAsia, once itself heavily indebted, had become Asia’s leading budget carrier.

There are clear benefits of such a merger. The two carriers can complement their networks and not compete as rivals on the same routes given AirAsia’s ambition to expand into the long-haul market, unless the products differ substantially in their make-up. This can be modelled after the likes of Singapore Airlines-Scoot and Qantas-Jetstar complement.

The execution is key. The industry has seen one too many examples of assimilation by a legacy carrier of a low-cost operator. For AirAsia, the big question must be one of how its operating culture will mesh with that of MAS, noting in particular that its success lies in the austere budget model although this does not imply it is not inclined to be service-bias.

One can’t help but wonder how and why MAS has failed to change in spite of earlier initiatives at restructuring, so much said about cost-cutting and perhaps not enough focus on the operating culture. So can AirAsia work the magic?

But, of course, only if Mr Fernandes wanted it. He had said: “For low-cost carriers to go full-service… is a mistake.” He had also called Malaysia Airlines “old-fashioned”. For him, the priority is to transform AirAsia into a “travel technology company”. In his words, to be “more than just an airline”.

The real question then is: Is MAS ready for the transformation?