![]() |
Originally Posted by kchika
(Post 16540692)
My reply in the another thread:
Yes, I've flown SQ F on their 388, 77W and 744. As far as I'm concerned, SQ (apart from their 77W F seat) blows CX out of the water in just about everything. |
Was CX really happy to allow MH in?
|
Originally Posted by UA Fan
(Post 16541176)
Was CX really happy to allow MH in?
|
How about segment runs like PVG - HKG - KUL - CGK and back? ;)
|
Best CX-related news all year for MNL-based pax
I do MNL-KUL & MNL-SIN frequently -- means I'll get Asiamiles for this now. |
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Segment run on MH domestic flight should be interesting |
Originally Posted by ChrisLi
(Post 16542247)
Segment run on MH domestic flight should be interesting
|
Originally Posted by kchika
(Post 16540692)
As far as I'm concerned, SQ (apart from their 77W F seat) blows CX out of the water in just about everything.
|
Originally Posted by zhaobao
(Post 16535138)
Definitely more choices for Oneworld members flying
Europe - Malaysia Australia - Malaysia Europe - Australia Asia - South Africa / South America Look forward to it, especially after they revamp their A330 and B737 aircraft. |
Originally Posted by midlevels
(Post 16540719)
Especially on the regional J seat. SQ's new regional J seat makes CX regional J feel like Economy class.
Has anybody from CX management bothered to fly on the new SQ regional J to try it out? Or are they just ignoring the problem and hoping that nobody notices? SQ needs good regional seats as a lot of its regional flights are 6 hours long - you need that much time to get to Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing and New Delhi, and many of these flights are red eyes. It often makes me wonder why on earth so many companies choose to have their Asia Pacific HQ's here. |
Originally Posted by kchika
(Post 16540692)
My reply in the another thread:
Yes, I've flown SQ F on their 388, 77W and 744. As far as I'm concerned, SQ (apart from their 77W F seat) blows CX out of the water in just about everything. |
Originally Posted by wanaflyforless
(Post 16543571)
To me, the seat is the most important part of the product. I know others have different priorities.
|
Originally Posted by KACommuter
(Post 16545044)
But when on the ground and/or in distress, there is absolutely no contest - I can rely on the CX front line to help me out effectively and SQ's to refer me to the supervisor's supervisor whilst telling me about their processes and problems (but not solving mine).
|
Originally Posted by kchika
(Post 16545219)
Any examples, KACommuter? @:-)
- No interline agreement with SQ, which had a flight leaving in 1 hr 45 mins. - Would I mind buying another ticket (no). I said no. - Oops, SQ flight sold out. So I resigned myself to a 3 hrs + wait. Was having a drink, and they came back 15 mins later with a seat on the SQ flight I had hoped for: - No charge. - Sorry. no aisle seat. - Please come with us to SQ check-in as there wasn't much time left. Wrote to CX to compliment them, never received an acknowlegement. Have other cases like this. Have recounted this and other stories to super SQ PPS diehards. All agree it is as pointless for one to expect this of SQ as it is to expect CX to match SQ's hardware. |
Originally Posted by KACommuter
(Post 16545008)
SQ needs good regional seats as a lot of its regional flights are 6 hours long - you need that much time to get to Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing and New Delhi, and many of these flights are red eyes. It often makes me wonder why on earth so many companies choose to have their Asia Pacific HQ's here.
Off-topic: The SIN government offers special deals to multi-national companies like tax rebates, etc. There are many companies who are relocating from HKG to SIN. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:51 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.