FlyerTalk Forums - CX vs. BA First Class

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Cathay Pacific | Cathay (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cathay-pacific-cathay-487/)

- - CX vs. BA First Class (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cathay-pacific-cathay/187612-cx-vs-ba-first-class.html)

In entertainment, are you all referring to just the movies played on board or to all entertainments including newspaper, magazine, music, .......?

IMHO, the newspaper and magazine selection are much better on CX than SQ. This is partially due to the fact that I am from HK and am used to the local newspaper and magazines. But I did notice on several trans-pacific SQ flights that the selection of magazines was almost non-existent. And whatever is available aren't that good anyway.

As for the music and movies, the selection on both are fine and SQ used to be miles better since they were the only one with VOD. But CX has caught up in this respect and on my most recent trans-pacific, they have VOD also. SQ does have a better/bigger screen though.

Quote:

Originally posted by number_6:

Equipment: CX (newer planes than SQ--really--and in better shape, also better equipped galleys)

Lounge at other airports: CX (by a wide margin) due to Oneworld lounges much better than Star lounges (CX/SQ lounges are equal)

Champagne: CX (Deutz Cuvee William is much better than Dom)

[/B]

I think your points are generally on target - however

Equipment - I really prefer 747's - I don't like being behind the galley and having all of the noise and light from behind the curtain - being in front of the galley is MUCH better to me. Since SQ flies more 747's, that is where my preference lies. I do however appreciate that CX puts their proper first class product in the 330 (333) and 340 equipment

Out airport lounges - Agree on OW vs Star - my problem is that I don't like using a different lounge than the operating carrier since I would miss special announcements. I strongly believe that SQ out airport lounges are generally superior

Champagne - I can suggest NV options that are better than Dom - I like the Krug on SQ

B Watson,
Just curious, what kind of mileage per year are we talking about? I can't even imagine :-)
Wow, I bow to you sir!!!

This a great thread.

Maybe someone can start a new thread regarding the following:

CX J vs. BA J vs. SQ J

Quote:

Originally posted by andrzej:
B Watson,
Just curious, what kind of mileage per year are we talking about? I can't even imagine :-)
Wow, I bow to you sir!!!

With one RTW per month I have been pushing 500K plus the ocasional domestic trip - I am also pushing myself to death so the end is near and it will go back to the old system of one RTW that is a bit longer in duration every 8 weeks

Quote:

Originally posted by B Watson:
I strongly believe that SQ out airport lounges are generally superior

Champagne - I can suggest NV options that are better than Dom - I like the Krug on SQ

CX also serves Krug so it is same as SQ on that count; where they differ is SQ had Dom and CX has vintage Deutz, and the Deutz is better. Thus advantage to CX on champagne (admittedly a trivial factor in assessing an airline, but Deutz Cuvee William costs more than Dom and CX is willing to pay and cares enough about wine quality to choose it). Of course the killer wine on CX is the Lynch-Bages.
The SQ and CX lounges that I use for for comparison are SFO/LAX/NRT/TPE/SYD and in each of those cities it is either a tie (both CX and SQ are marginal) or CX is better. The CX TPE F lounge is excellent (there is even a noodle bar in the C lounge).
The SQ lounge in NRT is a dump. And the SQ lounges get mobbed by other Star flyers (as their airline lounges are even worse), while CX is not so crowded. And even though there isn't an F lounge at NRT the staff give special service to F passengers, sometimes too much service.
I get the impression that SQ gives you special service because you are Solitaire, and CX gives me special service irrespective of my FF status (it comes with that F ticket). I can honestly say that the air and ground service by CX has been better than SQ gives (and much better than QF or AA or DL give). BA sometimes is equal to CX (but maybe 10% of the time). The thing that I really like about CX as an airline is the planning that has gone into some of the things I see. And the attention to detail: for example, drinks are served in glasses with the Cathay Pacific logo etched in the glass ... and the glass is served so that the logo always faces the passenger. The good crews serve the glass in a single gesture (the less proficient turn the glass after it is put down). If an airline cares so much about how it places a glass upon the table, I bet it also cares how the mechanic tightens that screw on the engine......
I'm sold on CX, and am now going out of my way to fly them. They've earned my trust (and my business).

Quote:

Originally posted by number_6:

Quote:

I am prepared to concede the champagne wars! SQ wins on Port however.

Re lounges, It tends to come down to the markets that you fly. The SQ lounges in SYD and MEL are better than CX and I am often in those markets. NRT is a disaster and CX may have the only decent F lounge at LAX (bathrooms please??) However, I am amazed at your preference to CX at SFO. That JAL lounge with no food and the silly side room for F is a bad joke - the new SQ lounge is SMALL but at least has a shower and a proper F side with real food (sort of)

Finally on the glasses, etc. I TOTALLY agree with your point and it is the same on SQ. linens aligned with the logo just right and the plates always with the logo in the correct spot. Also the glasses all have the stylized F logo so you may have missed that. Anyway, this kind of attention to detail is what makes it all work in my opinion and clearly both CX and SQ get that. I also LOVE the single middle seat at the front of the F cabin on SQ 747's - you can not even see someone else and it is worth the trade off of loosing the room below the window. Speaking of which, that is the single best part of the CX seat on the Airbus and the last row of the 747 - I end up spreading out on that shelf space.

While in the end this is most likely a draw, you seem to have strong negative feelings toward SQ. Since it is only the last couple of years that CX has really been competitive again in terms of quality, how did SQ fall out of bed so badly with you??

Quote:

Originally posted by B Watson:

Finally on the glasses, etc. I TOTALLY agree with your point and it is the same on SQ. linens aligned with the logo just right and the plates always with the logo in the correct spot. Also the glasses all have the stylized F logo so you may have missed that. Anyway, this kind of attention to detail is what makes it all work in my opinion and clearly both CX and SQ get that. I also LOVE the single middle seat at the front of the F cabin on SQ 747's - you can not even see someone else and it is worth the trade off of loosing the room below the window. Speaking of which, that is the single best part of the CX seat on the Airbus and the last row of the 747 - I end up spreading out on that shelf space.

While in the end this is most likely a draw, you seem to have strong negative feelings toward SQ. Since it is only the last couple of years that CX has really been competitive again in terms of quality, how did SQ fall out of bed so badly with you??

I have 6 flights on SQ this year ... not a huge sample ... but on those flights, they did NOT place the glass with the logo properly place (it was random). And the service was good, but not great. Maybe I got 6 sub-standard crews. Or maybe SQ is slipping.
Actually I like SQ, and they haven't ticked me off. I wish they were better (or as good as SQ used to be). I have written to SQ twice with some suggestions for improvement, and no response both times (not even acknowledgement at receiving the letter). But I am not in their FF program, so when they look me up I am a nobody. Several times I've deliberately left off my FF number on CX flights, and if anything they treat me better. The service level is not tied to FF status, it is part of the F ticket. And that is the way it should be. I started out being skeptical about CX (you are correct, they weren't that good in the past), and in the last 6 months I have been convinced that CX is systemically great. SQ has cash flow problems due to their Ansett and AirNZ losses, and has cut spending in ways that affect the short-term service level. Until they correct this, I am flying CX. I don't have negative feelings about SQ, just disappointment that they have fallen.
You are right about the port, but BA has the best port. Luckily CX and SQ tie on cognac (both have Hennessy XO, rather nice). But LH has the Bogners, and I like those. Does LH still let you book your own flight attendant in F? That was a rather outrageous -- albeit convenient and highly abused -- feature.

OH the Bogners!!

I had a snoring fool next me from JNB to FRA and the lead FA was SO sorry that she gave me 6 of them from inventory (I assume ones that were left behind, perhaps the FA's already had a lifetime supply) All of this without me complaining since it was not their fault this poor sod could not breathe.

BTY - Whose BRILLIANT idea was it to put F upstairs!!! What a joke!

Plus, you have now made me tick one more positive for CX - I hate those SQ sleep suits but I really liked the Grey ones on CX - the new ones are ok, but not as soft. Plus, I liked the old wood ammentity boxers - VERY cool - the news ones require a hacksaw to open the zipper!

I think that I am willing to give the CX/SQ debate a dead heat - you make some really good points but clearly my in flight service has been on the mark and yours has not.