yauee

No offense, stay away from SQ. so that you won't be encounter this kind of inconvenience caused by SQ.

TG can be your alternative where they will ALWAYS 100% drop you at Terminal 1 and they got buses service.

Just take note of the transit in bangkok if you are lucky you arrive at gate A2a and connecting your flight at gate E2a to take the bus to send you to gate B3 and make you climb the stair is that what we want here?

Sorry that's my experience with Bus Transfer service as I can afford Y class so there will be no limo for me. Hope SATs shall never come across with this idea at all.

KACommuter

I generally try to, as I find them excellent in the air but utterly spastic on the ground. That's why my SQ status is just silver.

lingua101

I am not a big fan of SQ, but I think they are acceptable!

If you said SQ ground service is bad, please tell us who you think is good?

lokijuh

T1 seems exceptional circumstances, like TG parking and loading passengers onto a bus . or not, as that happens a lot of the time with TG.

Not apologising for SQ, bu I do think for the the vast majority of passengers who have nearby gate connections OR are actually terminating their journey at SIN, consolidating in one terminal could have a negative affect, increasing congestion at terminal (waiting for gate space), wait times, queues for taxis etc. Even if they were consolidated in one terminal the time taken to get from A21 to B8 is likely to be just as long as getting to many of the E and F gates. Also many people have SQ>MI transfers or vice versa so they would be disrupted as I am sure T3 wouldn't have capacity for both carriers at peak times.

At the end of the day compromises are inevitable. I mean I loved transiting Zagreb on Croatian, international to international it was about 30 steps. But the scale of the operation was just a tad smaller.

Top of climb

If BA can clearly delineate which flights to/from where arrive at which defined terminal at LHR, SQ can do it at SIN.

SQ325

They are hesitating because a lot passengers are unfamiliar with the airport in general. Has nothing to do with SQ. Its that kind of hesitation no matter if you land at T2 or T3 or FRA or NYC. People naturally stop and hesitate as soon as they get out of the aerobridge to find their way. Its a bit unfair to blame SQ for that.
SQ has always personnel for T1 arrivals to guide people, but you cant expect SQ to have a guide for each passengers. Passengers are still adults which should be able to follow a sign if they are told where to go.

SQ has to many flights to concentrate on one terminal, but to small to occupy two terminals entirely. So other airlines will share that Terminals. SQ has allocated the Terminals as per destinations you fly (at least for the departures they mostly following that rule). Arrivals can be either T2 or T3 (and sometimes T1) depending on aircraft utilisation (Example Flights to India are departing at T2, Arrival can be either or).

TerryK

Three terminals in SIN are actually under one roof. What SQ needs to do is to request SATS to rename the whole structure to T1, with A-F piers, and Budget Terminal as T2. Then, all SQ flights will operate from T1.

That's how it works in places like ORD. UA uses ORD T1 which has concourses B and C, linked by underground tunnel. It can easily take you 20 minutes to walk from B1 to C1 in the same terminal. During busy periods, UA also uses concourse F in T2. You need to take shuttle bus (airside) or tram (landside).

ahdibuao

Abit OT but many people are still confused with the companies operating at SIN.

SATS = Ground Handler
CIAS (now dnata) = Ground Handler
CAG (Changi Airport Group) = Company that operates Changi Airport
CAAS = Government Statutory Board in charge of regulatory affairs

So don't blame the wrong companies! Haha!

House

And that seems to be half the problem. I accept that there is no perfect way of cramming a lot of flights into an airport structure, but I am amazed at the lack of interaction that seems to exist between SQ and the airport, in its various guises, when it comes to planning the airport during the construction phase.

I know that Changi want to maintain something approaching a level playing field for all the airlines, but at most airports with a strong home carrier that carrier will get some influence due to the amount of business they bring to the airport. When this works (see MUC T2 for example) it can be really good.

The distances at SIN can be pretty big, with T2 being a particular offender because there is no obvious sky train or similar option to get you to/from the gate. I arrived on an MI flight to F59 and the walk involved rivalled anything I have experiences at HKG, for example.

KACommuter

Both BA and Cathay Pacific have saved my bacon on various occasions when things have gone belly up on my travels - which is when I think ground service is critical. I have more experience with CX, and whenever I describe what they have done to my "SQ PPS for >10 years continuously" colleagues, they acknowledge that SQ will never do that sort of thing for them. And I'm not even DM+ on CX. By contrast, SQ does not seem to be able to handle even simple exceptions well. It always goes to a supervisor, then maybe another one, but none of them achieves what the frontline does with CX.

My experience to date has therefore been "serious problems are handled well even at outports" with CX, and "simple hiccups are made worse by inept handling" with SQ. I have 3 instances of each of these which are memorable to me, so this is not just one bad experience.

The SQ product in the air is better in Y, regional J and long haul J. But the gap in the air between these 2 airlines is peanuts compared to the chasm on the ground. One OP on this forum has commented that the SQ flight crews earn all the goodwill, and the ground throws it all away, and that's certainly been my experience.

KACommuter

+1^