Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - Cathay vs SIA in Economy

I recently flew LHR-HKG-TPE on CX in Economy, first Cathay flights for me. I was surprised that a "five star airline" and Skytrax "airline of the year" felt as poor compared to my experience with SIA.

I only flew four segments in total on 744, 343, 333 and 772's with mostly the same complaints:

- Ugly interior color scheme
- FA's far from the lovely Singapore girls
- Only average attentiveness from cabin crew, never got that Whiskey I ordered!
- IFE on 744 poor. Average on 343 but not as good as Wiseman 3000 on SIA.
- Poor amenity kit (socks - toothpaste - mints)
- No hot towels before takeoff or meals
- Broken tray on 744. Plane felt old!

Basically it felt like one of those average peoplemovers and not the leading asian carrier i've been reading about here and on Skytrax. I wont be boarding a CX flight as long as I can find a similar SQ flight around.

What else is in SIA's Y amenity kit?

- FA's far from the lovely Singapore girls
...
- Poor amenity kit (socks - toothpaste - mints)

Well I guess it depends whether you prefer to be served by robots or real people...
and curiously, Singapore Airlines' website says:
"Amenity Kits
For added comfort, individual Economy Class amenity kits comprising a toothbrush set and a pair of knitted socks will be presented by your cabin crew on overnight flights exceeding four and a half hours and day flights exceeding eight hours."
so CX seem to be up by some mints there.

I don't think CX excels SQ in any areas in Y.

On all the SQ flights I had, they stocked toothbrushes, razors, hand lotions, mouth rinse, etc. in washrooms even in Y -- even on a short haul. Does CX have toothbrushes on a short haul? I think they do in business. But you have to ask for one even in business class. Then an attendant will search for one for you.

I also find SQ cabin crew are much more attentive. If I had a jacket, they came to me to ask if I wanted to store it in a closet. CX crew have done this but only after I asked.

And there's no question CX's entertainment system is worse. Wiseman 3000 equipment is on-demand even in Y.

Oh, I forgot, one area CX does better than SQ is EmPower in Y on some equipment.

Any other areas I really can't think of anything CX does better than SQ in Y.

If CX and SQ fly the same route and there were no such thng as FFP, I would take SQ anytime.

My experiences also make me think that SQ has the edge over CX in economy. Besides the points mentioned by Chiangi and Bjornstrom, I'd add:


Cocktails as an explicit part of the drinks offer
More attractive menus (I'm referring to the aesthetic component)
Planes that felt better maintained
Crews who were, on average, quicker to respond to requests

For me so far, these elements added up to a better Y experience in SQ than in CX. And I haven't really experienced the so-called 'robotic' service from SQ crew.

It's in the front cabins where CX's 5-star qualities show.

It's in the front cabins where CX's 5-star qualities show.

I believe that is the secret. I checked Skytrax again - CX had five stars in First and Business but only three in Economy. SQ have four.

Well I guess it depends whether you prefer to be served by robots or real people...

I don't know how much have you flown SQ to make this comment, but from my years of flying SQ I don't find their service robotic, except maybe two or three regional flights where the cabin crew team is quite obviously brand new so they seemed to try not to deviate from their SOP.

I don't know how much have you flown SQ to make this commentGranted my experience is on regional rather than long haul, and, I will admit, a little dated. I had such a bad flight on SQ a while ago (in J on a very old A300) that I have no real desire to try them again.

Planes that felt better maintained
....It's in the front cabins where CX's 5-star qualities show.I'm very interested in the maintenance aspect of airplanes, and my research suggests that CX does much better maintenance than most airlines, and in this specific example better than SQ. SQ has a different maintenance strategy -- they sell the planes and buy new ones (for some plane types). The financials of that have deteriorated so they are holding on to some planes longer than originally planned, forcing more maintenance to be done than they were prepared for. This has strained SQ's maintenance facilities and it isn't a strong point in their company.

As for Y service on CX, I've never flown it but I understand it to be average and I expect SQ is better. SQ used to be better in all 3 cabins and had the best F/J service in the world, but competition has caught up and now I think CX is slightly better in F and slightly worse in J compared to SQ. Of more interest to me is that CX seems to have better pilots, despite the debacle of the pilot strike, firings and their lingering legacy. I fly both airlines but prefer to fly CX.

Regular readers of the SQ forum and those that caught the significance of my screenname know that I am very much a fan of SQ, not quite to the level of SQ-can-do-no-wrong, but close. It's been a long time since I flew CX, but I certainly liked it too, just don't have as much recent experience.

I find the SQ-cabin-crew-are-robotic accusations uninformed, prejudicial, and generally offensive. Nevertheless, I have definitely noticed a stark contrast in the in-flight personalities of certain crewmembers. In my (limited, compared to SQ regulars like MAN Flyer) experience, it varies by crew teams, and perhaps even within groups on the same aircraft/flight. On my most recent SQ flight, the Upper Deck crew on SQ 12 SIN-NRT were amazing. Exceptionally friendly and seeming to seriously enjoy their work while doing it very well, they were led by a very young Chief Steward. The warmest and friendliest of them all, he seemed to have encouraged his crew to loosen up and enjoy themselves, knowing it makes for better service and happier pax. (Another FT regular and very experienced SQ flyer, CGK, had the same crew the following day NRT-LAX and concurred in my assesment.) The crew that replaced them on my NRT-LAX leg of SQ 12 were all business, strictly by the book. The service, while professional and totally satisfactory, lacked some personality. That experience was unusual, though. Even when the crew carried out their structured service duties in a very businesslike manner, I have found many individual crewmembers quite friendly on a one-on-one basis in the pax rest areas or galleys. Calling all SQ crew or even SQ crews generally "robotic" is grossly unfair. For a handful, though, the shoe fits.

Granted my experience is on regional rather than long haul, and, I will admit, a little dated. I had such a bad flight on SQ a while ago (in J on a very old A300) that I have no real desire to try them again.

Ahh... I see.
And to think the last SQ A300 was phased out around mid 1980s.

I agree that to generalise all SQ crews that way is unfair, and I apologise to any I have offended. But I still say that my (limited) experience of SQ is that they are more often than not "robotic", which is something I have very rarely seen on CX. And that one truly awful flight (SIN-MNL for what it's worth) has put me off SQ for a long time.

But MegatopLover makes a very good point - the inflight experience is hugely dependent on the attitude of the Chief Steward / Inflight Service Manager. I find that you get a pretty good feel for that immediately when you walk on the plane. I have had some great experiences on pretty much every airline I fly (primarily OneWorld) when the "boss" has been superb, but rarely if the boss has been "invisible". CX F would be an exception to this - I have never had a bad experience there even if the "boss" has been invisible. Partly I think this is due to the fact that CX has a bit of a "logjam" amongst senior crew, so there are many F Senior Pursers who are perfectly qualified to be ISMs and are just left to get on with it inflight.

Ahh... I see.
And to think the last SQ A300 was phased out around mid 1980s.Er, well maybe it was an A310 then. The flight was in mid-2002 SIN-MNL. Whatever the plane was, it was one of the tattiest planes I have ever flown in in a "first class" airline. There was no in-seat IFE in J, and the service was truly dire.

Er, well maybe it was an A310 then. The flight was in mid-2002 SIN-MNL. Whatever the plane was, it was one of the tattiest planes I have ever flown in in a "first class" airline. There was no in-seat IFE in J, and the service was truly dire.

FWIW the A310s were indeed the 'dreaded' aircraft in SQ's fleet until they were retired at the time of SARS. We prayed not to get those. As you said, the lack of facilities & seat comfort were inexcusable.

I'm primarily familiar with SQ service in F and have noticed an interesting pattern in the cabin crew. They have both male and female cabin crew; the male crew are mid-40s and very competent, also have the air of the head waiter at a rated restaurant. Service is competent but not friendly, robotic is not an unfair characterization. But then they have done it many times before. Female cabin crew are much younger and act very subservient. Kneeling at your seat, for example. Service is very meticulate (every i is crossed and t is dotted, or something like that) and they do everything you ask. But nothing extra is offered (in either case). On some other airlines the staff suggest things you might enjoy ... on SQ, you suggest. If you don't suggest, you don't get. LH is also like that, to the extent that they don't make the bed for you if you don't ask (but we thought you prefer to sleep without that duvet...). I have a hard time characterising the service, it precisely meets requirements (they do everything I ask) but I have to do the asking. By contrast on most CX F flights the service becomes a dialogue and the cabin staff do the suggesting, though I suspect many of them recognize me and know what I like (dinner at odd hours is my trademark as I am often in a strange time zone and I know how to deal with that). An interesting difference between CX and SQ is that on CX it is no problem to have strange meal requests, while on SQ I always feel pressured to eat when everyone else eats.

I believe that is the secret. I checked Skytrax again - CX had five stars in First and Business but only three in Economy. SQ have four.

I dont know how CX mantains a 5* rating with a 3* economy class :confused:


Surely the FJ classes no matter how excellent dont compensate?

IMHO SQ is more deserving of the 5* ranking... if only all its planes had spacebeds :D



hi

I am not rich enough to fly F (yet), so I won't comment on the respective pros and cons of SQ and CX's first class. But as far as economy is concerned, SQ beats CX hands down.

SQ has more responsive service, better food (portion seems bigger too) and a way superior IFE. Since I am a light sleeper and can never fall asleep on an economy seat, a good IFE with lots of games and movies to tide me through the long flight is an absolute must.

... An interesting difference between CX and SQ is that on CX it is no problem to have strange meal requests, while on SQ I always feel pressured to eat when everyone else eats.

Well,... I think meal at odd hours is no problem on SQ. For long-haul flights on SQ I often switch the refreshment & lunch... and request for meal while nobody else is eating... Net, it really depends on how we want it...

Fly both CX and SQ, I think Y on SQ is better. Better IFE, meal, interior... , and service :) Have to admit, though, that I'm an SQ fan and fly much more SQ than CX these days. I also prefer SQ in J class. You may be surprised... but it is exactly their attentive FA's that keeps drawing me back to fly SQ... I don't find them robotic at all...

I like SQ's Y because they keep refilling my glass with sparkling wine, CX does not. Now, as simple as that. :D

A thread on SQ v CX ?, these seem to be almost as old as the airlines themselves. Some interesting and valid points made on here, some the same as usual. I was surprised to see someone like christep trot out the good old Robots line though.

Lets face it they're both bl**dy good airlines. Is one better than the other ?. Impossible to ever say for sure as it's just subjective opinions, SQ regulars will stick up for SQ and CX regulars for CX, and so they should. Good to see the comments on the 2 actually voiced by people who fly them, and in a civil and sensible manner...

It's nice to also see people even do research on these things, even if they seem to have missed picking up on who it was had planes with numerous technical problems and bits falling off recently. ;)

The research correctly sumised that when SQ don't have any further use for planes that are too old, like 744's, they get rid of them. I'm sure some quick research will tell you who bought them ;)

Lets face it they're both bl**dy good airlines.

Sorry but I disagree. Economy in Cathay is nothing special at all. The seats are uncomfortable, the meals not very tasty, service average at best, and the IFE is just bad.

Maybe Cathay shines in first and business class, but economy on Cathay is nowhere near what I would call "bl**dy good".

The research correctly sumised that when SQ don't have any further use for planes that are too old, like 744's, they get rid of them. I'm sure some quick research will tell you who bought them ;)I've actively avoided flying SQ after the TPE and AKL incidents, where systemic errors in pilot procedures and training were almost deadly. The AKL one particularly, considering the captain, with less than 100 hours flying 744s, ignored the stick shaker and flew for 8 seconds at 2 knots above stall speed. His co-pilot realized what was happening but was too junior to correct his captain ... SQ has greatly revised procedures since then, but this is the kind of info that most pax neither consider nor have access to in choosing an airline. I do and I've flown less and less on SQ, Krug not withstanding.

As for the 744s sold by SQ and bought by CX, half of those offered failed to meet CX standards and were not purchased, the other half are going into freighter service. Best I can tell none are going into the passenger fleet -- despite CX being desperate for more 744s due to a great shortage of planes and inability to operate all desired routes. SQ maintenance is pretty good compared to MH or TG but suffers from a brutal climate.

Sorry but I disagree. Economy in Cathay is nothing special at all. The seats are uncomfortable, the meals not very tasty, service average at best, and the IFE is just bad.

Maybe Cathay shines in first and business class, but economy on Cathay is nowhere near what I would call "bl**dy good".Clearly it depends on your reference point. Compared to many US and European airlines the fact that you get any meals, any IFE, and cabin crew who are not generally unpleasant is a huge improvement. Personally I don't find the seats particularly any better or worse than other economy classes - granted there are others with a little more legroom, but there are plenty with less. One advantage of CX (not over SQ I grant you, but over many airlines) is that all of their planes are dual aisle which I find to be a much more comfortable environment than anything single aisle.

Best I can tell none are going into the passenger fleet -- despite CX being desperate for more 744s due to a great shortage of planes and inability to operate all desired routes. SQ maintenance is pretty good compared to MH or TG but suffers from a brutal climate.

It seems that a couple of them would be joining CX's passenger fleet, B-HKD (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=491860) (ex SQ 9V-SMN) and B-HKF would enter the passenger fleet.

AFAIK, the interior of B-HKD was 'transplanted' from B-HOU which was to be coverted to a B744SF.

Having said that, I see no shame of any airlines purchasing second-hand planes if they need it and the price is right. QF is another good example with the purchase of 2 ex-MH and 1 ex-OZ B744.

Back to the topic, I found CX's service is very good and since I would be travelling on SQ is a week's time, would be interesting to see if it had lived up to what people had said in here.

AFAIK, the interior of B-HKD was 'transplanted' from B-HOU which was to be coverted to a B744SF.

Now this I don't quite understand. Isn't it less trouble to keep B-HOU in the pax fleet and convert B-HKD to a freighter? :confused:
Understood that B-HKD is about one and a half year younger than B-HOU.

Please note that CX will be taking out Magazine racks in Y Class. Therefore No more Magazines in Y Class. Another Low in CX.

Now this I don't quite understand. Isn't it less trouble to keep B-HOU in the pax fleet and convert B-HKD to a freighter? :confused:
Understood that B-HKD is about one and a half year younger than B-HOU.

I guess they want to keep the all the planes in the freighter fleet with the same RR engine :confused:. Maybe it has something to do with pilot ratings and stuffs.

At least for SFO-HKG, CX beats SQ in Y. Even as SQ flies out of HKG more than 5 flights a day, there are no HKG based FA on SQ. Singapore girls speaks mostly Mandarin and English, minimal Cantonese, but people flying out of HKG speak more in Cantonese, especially the older ones.

I would say CX definately get 5 star in J, for SQ, I would say 4 star, just one reason, SQ has NO real amenity kit in J class. All they give you are eyeshade and sockettes, anything else, "help yourself in the bathroom!"

At least for SFO-HKG, CX beats SQ in Y. Even as SQ flies out of HKG more than 5 flights a day, there are no HKG based FA on SQ. Singapore girls speaks mostly Mandarin and English, minimal Cantonese, but people flying out of HKG speak more in Cantonese, especially the older ones.

I would say CX definately get 5 star in J, for SQ, I would say 4 star, just one reason, SQ has NO real amenity kit in J class. All they give you are eyeshade and sockettes, anything else, "help yourself in the bathroom!"

AFAIK many Singaporeans at least speak conversational Cantonese. I have never seen a pax on the HKG route who spoke Cantonese but answered with Mandarin or other language by SQ FA.

I would say SQ is a 5 star in J as well. I don't see how one amenity kit drops SQ J from 5 star to 4 star rating.
Although I would agree that an amenity kit would be a welcomed addition to SQ J service.

I guess they want to keep the all the planes in the freighter fleet with the same RR engine :confused:. Maybe it has something to do with pilot ratings and stuffs.

From what I remember, they would want to convert the second hand 744s with PW engines to the passenger fleet so they'll be the first to be dumped when they get a replacement (after they have decided their future long-haul fleet).

Having said that, I see no shame of any airlines purchasing second-hand planes if they need it and the price is right. QF is another good example with the purchase of 2 ex-MH and 1 ex-OZ B744.

Didn't QF learn an almost deadly lesson with one of these three when a crack (that supposedly showed daylight) was discovered near the tail during heavy maintenance? And wasn't it reported that the crack was due to metal scrapers used during the re-paint job which scratched the skin allowing the crack to develop over time?

These unknowns are always a risk when buying a second hand aircraft.

CX bought numerous 2nd hand L1011s during the 1980s.
Don't recall any mishaps with them.
Does anyone here remember any L1011 accidents?

Please note that CX will be taking out Magazine racks in Y Class. Therefore No more Magazines in Y Class. Another Low in CX.
Maybe it really won't make a difference (I myself bring my own reading materials), but I don't like it when they fritter away little things like that. Isn't the tagline in the CX ads something like "It's the little things we remember"? Well, those little things have a tendency to add up to a feeling that economy class travel is not the average, cattle-class experience. SQ cleverly avoids that feel, IMO (but I'm not one who chafes at the seat pitch); I hope CX figures out a way to do the same. (Self-interested comment: starting with AVOD in Y!)

Having just completed a round trip on SQ for MEL-SIN-KUL-SIN-MEL, I have to say I am fairly impressed by SQ, nevertheless, I was somewhat surprised to see:

- On overnight flights, we were given a plastic bag labelled 'amenity kit' containing only a pair of socks and a toothbrush set. While on CX I have received a proper bag (with lanyards) with similar items. But presenting them in a plastic bag is inappropriate IMO.
- Meals were very average.


- FA's far from the lovely Singapore girls
- Only average attentiveness from cabin crew, never got that Whiskey I ordered!


Unforutnately, the FA's I have encountered on 3 of my four flights are far from attentive of the CX crew, and as for attentiveness, they are okay, but I have never seen them doing drink rounds like CX.

On my SIN-KUL flight (SQ 116), the flight was delayed by about 15 minutes and it had somewhat affected the crew, I had a purser yelled at me :mad: for staying on the plane for a bit too long (I was packing my belongings). And on my MEL-SIN flight (SQ 218), one of the FAs forgot to serve us drinks with our meals, as well as missing our row for the intial drink service.

Also, they are less likely to strike up a conversation (or verbal contact) with a passenger unlike QF (and also CX) which I enjoy.

However, I am impressed with the seat pitch in Y as well as the IFE (Wiseman 3000 absoutely rocks ^ ) also the choice of drinks in Y is much better on SQ.

I would not hesitate to fly with them again but I would stick with CX as my first preference.

On my SIN-KUL flight (SQ116), the flight was delayed by about 15 minutes and it had somewhat affected the crew, I had a purser yelled at me :mad: for staying on the plane for a bit too long (I was packing my belongings). And one of the FA forgot to serve us drinks with our meals, as well as missing our row for the intial drink service.
That's very poor form. I'd encourage you to send them feedback via the "Contact Us" button on the SQ website. Since you're a KrisFlyer member, they might give you some miles as an apology. (It's also possible, however, that you might get just the form-letter apology. :p )

Well I guess it depends whether you prefer to be served by robots or real people...
What a hogwash statement! :rolleyes: