I think the main point here is that KLM just has a strategy that we as Flyertalkers would rather not see:

• Attract the wide public, not the select few, by offering low fares.
• Offer decent enough service to keep people happy, in relation to what they've payed for. This is plain economics as you don't have enough money to offer something fantastic when using a low price strategy.
• Use strategic alliances and strategic flight planning to offer convenient connections. This is extremely important as KLM's success is mainly based on transfer passengers. Really, what other country the size of The Netherlands can sustain an airline such as KLM by themselves?

This does not seem to be SQ's strategy. They seem to focus on connecting passengers as well (EU - Oz e.g.), and they have a strategy that enables them to offer higher fares and use that money to offer a different service model. Unless SQ is doing something terribly wrong I really think this should lead to a better service standard experienced by the majority of the passengers, even though some may feel otherwise.

Some of the things I think KL is doing wrong:

• Scaring away FFs by offering a low-perk programme. Their focus seems to be on marketing, but there's not enough true quality to back it up IMO.
• AF merger. KL's people don't mix with AF's people due to a strong difference in corporate climate. However, it seems the KLAF Group is successful in keeping their companies apart both physically as conceptually (a part from Flying Blue that is).

Note that my experience is mainly based on flights to Africa and Asia and within Europe. I have little recent experience with KLM to other continents.

Kind regards,
Maurits