Originally Posted by HKMatt_S (Post 28340711)

So I had to make a relatively late notice trip to Jakarta. CX was HK$6.3k (ex HKG) in economy while Garuda was HK$7k in business. Why not, I said, let's give Garuda a whirl ....(CX business was HK$15k or so)

Well, with the exception of the lounge (the Skyteam lounge in HKG is not great) I would have to say Garuda outshone CX business by quite a margin. Wine was better (at least twice the retail price of what CX serves, and Billecart Rose as the champagne), real/full size wine glasses, better food, actual plates/crockery, a decent amuse bouche and excellent, attentive service ....

Seat was not as good as CX long haul but substantially better than CX REgional and perfectly fine for a 5 hour flight

Was a very eye-opening experience for this CX Diamond. Without wanting to put the boot in, CX seems to have some catching up to do ...

Originally Posted by HKMatt_S (Post 28340887)

I mostly do CX J long haul (US, Europe and Australia ex HKG) and the food and wine on Garuda short haul crushed CX long haul J too ...

A side effect of the changes to the FF programme and the negative business news stories is that people will start to look elsewhere. And then people start to realise they are paying premium prices for an average product ,,,, Or at least I just did

Originally Posted by 1010101 (Post 28342431)

Personally, Garuda is on my no fly list so the product doesn't concern me.

Originally Posted by no1cub17 (Post 28342605)

why?

Originally Posted by 1010101 (Post 28342431)

CX has been moving towards a European model of regional business (read: rebadged economy) in recent years. Hopefully the change in CEO will rectify that.

Personally, Garuda is on my no fly list so the product doesn't concern me.

Originally Posted by no1cub17 (Post 28342605)

why?

Originally Posted by 1010101 (Post 28342889)

As above. Safety.

Originally Posted by HKMatt_S (Post 28340711)

So I had to make a relatively late notice trip to Jakarta. CX was HK$6.3k (ex HKG) in economy while Garuda was HK$7k in business. Why not, I said, let's give Garuda a whirl ....(CX business was HK$15k or so)

Well, with the exception of the lounge (the Skyteam lounge in HKG is not great) I would have to say Garuda outshone CX business by quite a margin. Wine was better (at least twice the retail price of what CX serves, and Billecart Rose as the champagne), real/full size wine glasses, better food, actual plates/crockery, a decent amuse bouche and excellent, attentive service ....

Seat was not as good as CX long haul but substantially better than CX REgional and perfectly fine for a 5 hour flight

Was a very eye-opening experience for this CX Diamond. Without wanting to put the boot in, CX seems to have some catching up to do ...

Originally Posted by G-CIVC (Post 28342952)

Same reason why I generally don't look at SIA :D

Originally Posted by QRC3288 (Post 28343015)

Extremely thoughtful post, IMO. Although I agree with 1010101 sadly because of the safety issue.



Ha mate, in this regard the example doesn't quite hold water with what I've seen. I've been (fortunately or unfortunately) familiar with the likes of Garuda, China Airlines, MH and both Korean carriers for going on two decades. I have generally refused to fly any of those carriers my entire life, and only taken them out of absolute and total necessity. Odds are indeed verrrry low. But, still far higher (IMO) than other regional carriers, and that includes JAL and SQ, which I lump roughly into the same category (I fly both without concern). SQ is far above the bad ones and has made very admirable strides, but indeed SQ is still below the likes of CX, which I consider probably in the top handful of carriers globally when it comes to safety. Of course, I don't think I'm the norm here. Plenty of folks still fly MH. And obviously they seem to be handing points away like candy if I'm reading these posts correctly. But no amount of points are convincing me the culture changed in 2 quick years. I also am aware that this is probably a bit too extreme in the abundance of caution category....but it's what you grow up with and see.

It's true China Airlines poached the maintenance/safety fellow from CX. But the culture there was polluted for too long (same with Garuda and the others). And no kow-towing silly Blogger posts are going to convince me otherwise. I can fly comfortably generally where I want to go, I don't need to go out of my way to fly Garuda F. I've seen a little bit too much of the sausage factory at most of these places.

One of CX's hidden edges to me is the safety. Which the Bloggers are totally clueless to. But I still really like the OP's post, and 100% agree with his spirit...even though I won't be flying Garuda any time soon. The same logic can easily hold true for other carriers where CX is competing and the point is excellent!

Originally Posted by cx4ever (Post 28343178)

Does anyone remember when SQ had a problem with a fuel leak and the right engine/wing caught fire on landing in Singapore rather recently (as in within the last year)? If I remember correctly, this occurred soon after BA's 777 engine fire in Las Vegas.

What I find strange is that on touchdown the SQ crew didn't start an emergency evacuation... were they so sure that SQ's fire services would respond so quickly? (Obviously, there is the difference that singapore's airport knew about the issue, while the BA fire happened unexpectedly.) It seemed like quite a major fire and I'm wondering, even though everyone was fine, whether they should've made the decision to evacuate.

Originally Posted by G-CIVC (Post 28343087)

As for SQ, let's say I'm the millennial too reliant on online information, I just wasn't convinced at all how they handled the Milan air return incident last year ;) ;)