Why couldn't CX upgrade its meal service? I can't believe the main dish is still going to be served on a casserole type dish despite being an oval shape instead of rectangular. SQ only uses casseole type dish on light entree. All main courses are served on actual plates with better presentation and portion as well.

As OP commented on this particular topic on the CX J menu section, I thought that it could hold a better place with its own thread and changed the post to a thread and perhaps we could get a discussion going.

Meals on Cathay
 

This is NOT SQ but CX. We are talking about 2 different airlines here so it is unfair to keep comparing SQ to CX. One airline has 'governemental' influence whereas the other has public shareholders.

Excuse my ignorance but how does Governmental influence effect serving dishes?

The amount of money that an airline has when deciding on how budgets are spent or saved.

I don't have a problem with this if the meals are acceptable. The way CX serves its entrees allows me to see the actual meal before ordering. Sometimes what you read is very different from what you see!

SQ meals in J can be a disaster. They are somewhat inconsistent. With CX, you know what you're getting, which is a good, but not great J meal.

Most people who spend a lot of money flying CX in J don't seem to have any real problems with the way the meals are served. If you don't like it, fly SQ.

Many people don't realize this, but CX and SQ, often pitted as rivals, compete on few routes. For example, going to HKG to Europe or Australia, flying SQ would take 4-6 hours longer.

CX...SQ....CX...SQ....
omg.... everyone has his own preference but the real problem is.... *if other airlines could provide similar services/meals*

I have a preference between SQ and CX but i'm more than happy if my flight plans bring me to fly the other carrier.
:)

SQ is a public company albeit with Government majority ownership.

In terms of control it is in general no different than with a wholly owned private company, save for the regulatory BS. If you have control, you can do anything that isn't illegal.

Many (or most, I dare say) Public companies in Asia are far from public. From a corporate governance standpoint, Cheung Kong is not at all like Procter & Gamble, for example.

These companies are controlled by one party, and one party only. Be it a person, a larger company, or the government. I work for one of these companies. It is very different. In my company, there is one man that has authority over everything and has unlimited powers - the Chairman & CEO and controlling shareholder. He cannot be fired. He CAN be a total authoritarian.

I cannot think of one large cap in the US that is like that. Even mid caps controlled by one party are rare. Many ill informed individuals take issue with this arrangement. I, in turn, think it is great. Think about it: If the share price goes up, the CEO's net worth goes up. If it goes now, his net worth goes down. If the company makes a lot of money, he cashes in via dividends. Who cares about pay packages when a sizable chunk of the profit lands in your pocket, anyway? My CEO makes around 100,000 in salary - that's not even VP level nowadays. He makes tens of millions in dividends, which incidentally, also incur no tax liability.

Take everything I said above and change the Chairman to the Government. Trust me, there are a billion ways a government can give any company a break, especially one as sizable as SQ. I not accusing them of anything, just pointing out a simple fact.

I understand what you are saying but back to Guy Betsy's statement would be fair to think that the Singaporean government would micro-manage SQ right down to what dishes they serve meals on, and if they did, where is the cost saving in CX not choosing to?

No, but the Government (essentially here the Parent organization of SQ) could act in a way that would allow the company to enjoy certain competitive advantages, which could convincible indirectly reduce cost to the point where the company could offer a superior product. Indeed, this is very much a hypothetical situation and is nothing more than somewhat unfounded speculation.

So to answer your question, my answer (and it did not even take a blink of an eye to consider this) is no. There would not be reasonable grounds to believe that the Government of Singapore would take part in deciding what dishes SQ J meals are served on. ;)

My initial response detailed the fact that SQ is, in essence, not a "Public" company in terms of Corporate Governance. I am glad you understood my point, and I have no further arguments regarding this matter.

Mr. Moderator, I do apologize for taking this thread off topic.

FYI - the only people who can purchase shares in SQ are SQ employees!

I think you may find you are mistaken.
http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_U...stor/stock.jsp

Thank you... I think they may have changed recently. I knew at one time that one may not just go and buy SQ shares but have to go through certain third parties who had connections in SQ to buy the shares for them under nominees' names etc.

But anyway, this topic is going OT...

So let's get back to the topic of meals...

Chicken Rice anyone?

I used to rave about CX meals but have found in the last year that they have slowly started going downhill (I fly mostly Y with the very occasional J flight). Flew Air NZ a few times (in Y and Y+ which is pretty much J food) and found that the food left the CX meals well behind.

All personal preference of course.

To balance that though, I do think the new CX seats are a great initiative.