Originally Posted by trekkie

i agree... when you buy something, you expect it to function and work as it is suppose to. Even though the price that one pays may affect the quality of the product, it shouldn't jeoparidse the spirit of why that purchase was made, if it makes sense.

To cite a hypothethical example, when one buys a phone, you expect to be able to make calls, receive calls and expect the normal things one would reasonably expect.

Im sure that the cynics in this forum would say something to the effect of "having to eat humble pie".

when someone obtains a first class ticket either given or obtained through other means, you expect to be accorded the same level of service as the next first class passenger.

The op purchased a premium ticket that is considered to be priced not expensive but it is still a purchase. The ambiguity comes about as the hotel service provided by SQ is not really a published benefit but rather a benefit that has been given out by the airline in the past under similar circumstances and therefore there is reasonable expectation. I think that the mistake that was made was rather to create a huge drama here that SQ may decide to "short change" future customers.

Obviously, there are lots of SQ supporters who would cry opportunist or greedy. But there comes a point when it becomes a bit too much... In the past there was a general consensus that corporations were taking advantage of individuals. Now that corporations may not report that high profits as before, should we as individuals be forced to eat humble pie till we become beggers and to the point that SQ earns extraordinary profits at the expense of the layman.

Let us not forget, this is an airline which only last week had its outgoing C.E.O announcing that yes the airline is in good financial health but that its profit margins at being only at 4% is considered too low when its profits are being maintained at reasonable levels.

If this is not a sign of a company admitting greediness, im not sure what is.