BF review
 

I recently did a EWR-HKG R/T on a standard BF award and this is a (critical) review of Continental's "premium" product.

Disclaimer: I had a back-to-back flight on SQ on a FC award ticket to India from HKG via SIN and that may completely color my impressions.

As a bottom line, CO BF is a relatively comfortable product that will get you from point A to point B with decent food and comfort. Any BC/FC travel is better than coach (especially CO coach) and so this does the job in that respect. I experienced nothing serious to complain about nor did I find anything exemplary to commend. The following is a nit-picking discussion of things CO needs to do much better in to catch up with its hype and be a contender amongst world-class International airlines.

Cabin comfort: The biggest thing missing from the cabin is lack of noise-canceling headsets. A premium product should have one. Even the cheap Recotons SQ uses would be better than the $5 headsets CO provides. AA's Bose sets are excellent, especially when you land up with noisy neighbors.

CO's new BF seats are great for comfortable sitting. As for sleeping, they fall short. Nothing can beat a real flat reclinable chair. Even the 1980's style slumberette in SQ's megatop 747 FC is better for sleeping than the CO BC chairs. CO's chair has just enough countours and discontinuities in it to make sleeping on your side not very comfortable. The tilt from horizontal will also bother many. I found myself having to pull myself "up" everytime I moved and it was difficult to keep the knees bent while sleeping on my side because the tilt would keep swinging them down.

Another problem is that in the full reclining position, the overhead reading lights in the row behind you, if on, will shine on your face even with the “hood” pulled over. You use the eye shade or hope the people behind you use the snake lights.

The electronic controls are nice but a bit quirky. The three pre-set positions (completely upright, relaxing and flat) are nice but the relaxing position has a strange design in that you can vary all controls after getting to the pre-set position for personal customization except for the seat back recline. I don't know if this is a bug or a feature. Also on my inbound seat, I couldn't go from relaxing to flat directly. The seat mechanism would shudder a bit and quit. I had to go to the upright and then flat position.

Now what really makes CO BF fall short of being a contender in world-class travel are three things: One, the lack of attention to detail, two, the FA service, and three the fact that it is an US airline. Why the last one, you may ask.

Unfortunately, as a US airline, there is a greater chance of having some "ugly American" type tourist crowd as neighbors. A typical "ugly American" tourist is also parochial enough to only consider US airlines to travel giving non-US airlines a distinct competitive advantage in cabin ambience. Now, of course, this is not something CO (or any other US airline) can do anything about but nevertheless that is a factor. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

On my return I had a couple of absolutely terrible specimens who seemed to think that anytime they were not sleeping, others wouldn't need to either. For the two couples, one next to me and the one behind me, that kept shuffling the cards loudly and calling numbers out loud and talking loudly to each other across the aisle about how they were not able to sleep during the lights-out period, are you so clueless about people trying to sleep around you? I had to use earplugs which brings us to the attention to detail part.

There are good earplugs and bad ear plugs. The good ones are the ones that you can twist and compress and shove it in your ear so that they expand and fill the contours of your ears. The bad ones are the ones that are just conical or cylindrical and unless you have a matching shape for the ear canal, will never seal the noise out. CO has the latter. AA and many others have the former. This lack of attention to detail extends to many things. Use of regular wine glasses for serving champagne, use of regular coffee mugs to serve espresso (although they do stock the espresso cups), etc. In the highly competitive world of international airlines, the attention to detail is what differentiates the good ones from the wannabees. The FAs can do a lot to compensate for such deficiencies which brings us to the FA service factor.

For those that primarily do domestic travel or only travel in US airlines, the CO BF FA service may appear very professional and efficient in comparison. For those that have used Asian airlines or European ones known for service, the contrast is like day and night. The CO FAs appear to be trained to go through their routines as quickly as possible and appear to do all they do because it is written in some book. Whether it is the obligatory round by the purser in the beginning, the menu selection rounds, the water service or food service, it appears very scripted and mechanical. The US airlines do better or worse depending on how good a script they have. But service in a premier product is more than just following the script.

People have written about the difference in the service between the front cabin and the smaller back cabin. I hope the back cabin is much better because the front cabin service was rather lacking especially if you are in the back starboard section (3/4 E/K/L). There just aren’t enough FAs to do both aisles simultaneously for many of the services. They also don’t seem to have the protocol mastered when both center section seats are occupied. Sometimes only the passenger in the serving aisle gets served and sometimes both but often the E seat passenger gets ignored when they come down the second aisle. Happened to me several times with different FAs.

They have an espresso machine on these 777s but everytime you ask for one, I got the distinct impression they didn’t really want to serve it (extra work?) at any time. I asked for an espresso when the “last request before kitchen is shut” came around and the senior FA literally rolled her eyes. How much the service script is a factor also became evident in getting coffee served outside the regular beverage hours. When they go through their beverage service, they are religious about placing the napkins out. It is part of the script. When I skipped my midflight snack so I could sleep and asked for a cappucino on waking up, the dourest looking FA I had the “pleasure” of being served by on both trips plunked a cup in front of me with quite a bit of coffee dripping outside. No napkins. When she removed the cup, she did nothing about the pool of coffee on the tray to my utter disbelief. Not even an offer of a napkin. I assume there is no CO script on how to do unscheduled service.

I woke up in the middle of my sleep due to the aforementioned noisy neighbors and found my amenities kit was missing the ear plugs. I asked the senior FA if I could have some earplugs. On better airlines that train FAs for service, the response would be something simple like “Of course, sir. Will be back in a moment”. Not on CO. She rifles through the amenities kit while I am waiting half asleep despite me telling her that it is not there. Says “Will have to see if I can find any” and to my disbelief “we are serving the midflight meal soon and you might as well stay awake” as if the request was an imposition. I was too groggy to explain to her that “I might want the ear plugs even if I wanted to stay awake or that I might want to skip the meal altogether”. I did skip the meal.

The BF service was pretty much “do the obligatory rounds” as efficiently as their individual capabilities allow. One doesn’t necessarily need the pampering from SQ FAs but the cabin service in a premium product ought to be more than just the “obligatory rounds”. While I am sure there are some FAs that are exceptionally good in this matter, it is obvious that it is entirely because of what they are personally and not part of the CO “culture” training.

The above is precisely why CO BF service seems like a poseur rather than a contender in the highly competitive world of international premium service. The standards are much higher than what CO has set for itself. It is a decent BC. The “First” part is unfortunately more marketing than reality.

A good, spot-on analysis.

I am wondering, since most of the airlines have improved departures and arrivals, that CO employees are NOT getting as many monthly bonuses for FIRST place. And further to dissappoint is the fact, that the second and third place bonuses were discontinued!


That could account for the less then 'happy' service! I will never forget the HUGH smile a FA got on her face, when I asked if she had gotten her monthly bonus earlier this year! She had just gotten it that day, and if I recall pulled it out to show me!!

That Happy face smile used to be put on every employee face on getting their checks.

[This message has been edited by classy (edited 11-29-2002).]

venk-

I will grade your essay an "A+". A very nice complete B/F analysis. When traveling I always carry a pair of comfortable industrial strength ear plugs, a comfortable eyeshade (on old DL one) and my own personal Sony NC-20 noise cancelling earphones whenever I travel on a bus (great for the Carey NYC-EWR trips), Amtrak, airlines etc.

Do note, noise cancelling headphones do not attentuate speech well, they are designed to reduce other frequencies.

MisterNice

Superb.

That marketing line about "intl. first class service at business class prices" is just cr*p. Many J class projects are way better (CX, SQ, BA)--let's not even talk about intl. first class.



[This message has been edited by Babu (edited 11-30-2002).]

I guess it's all a matter of opinion-- and I haven't flown in the new BF seat, but flew dozens of r/t's in BF in pervious years-- but I personally don't prefer CX or BA J-class' seating to CO's BF. I like the service and food better on CX, and CX's new J-class has it's charms, but I'd prefer a BF seat-- especially when it's crowded. F on any of these carriers, of course, is a different matter altogether.

I'd also agree strongly with MisterNice's points:
1. Conventional NC headphones do virtually nothing to attenuate loud passengers-- not what they were designed to do.
2. Bring your own NC headphones, earplugs and comfy eyeshade. I never travel without these items, despite that fact that they are always supplied in the F-class amenity kits.

Noisy, obnoxious neighbors can happen on any airline in any class, IMHO. In fact, QF F-class has supplied me with a couple of "we used ALL our miles to get here and are gonna' "enjoy" it to the fullest" once-in-a-lifetime types-- probably CO redeemers, not sophisticated OneWorld types http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif. I'm talkin' about the loudest, dumbest, most selfish rubes you could possibly imagine. So, IMHO, just being on an international carrier does not guarantee well-behaved cabin mates.

Consider this thread, for example:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum85/HTML/001286.html
(not for the squeamish)

I am sorry that you had such poor service on your flight to Hong Kong. I hope that you know that this is not typical of Newark based international crews. It is true that morale is down somewhat, however that does not excuse the lack of basic etiquette.

The old amenity kit had the compressible earplugs. As a matter of fact, the current coach earplugs are better in that respect. Next time, ask them to get you a pair from coach.

I don't know if these new earplugs are part of some cost-cutting measure, but I doubt it, since coach still gets the better ones. So I think its more a lack of attention to detail (with which I agree completely, not just for CO, but in general for any US-based service provider of any kind) than anything else.

Disclaimer: I recently read reviews in the trip report forum and this a (critical) review of this review. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

You probably received 3 food services and didnt talk in depth about the food at all. The food, seat, and service are usually the most important part of any B/F review...I'm sorry that you didnt go into the food more. Please do if you have some time.

As for the other parts of the review, I would tend to agree with you on the product's quality. The flight attendant's do not seem to understand that they need to match their service with the quality of the product they are delivering. Many times in BF CO offers excellent service components (the food, the seats, etc.), but the FA's go through the motions as if they were in the back. With prices in the range of $1000 an hour it is imperative that the FA's increase their service level to at least that of...ummm...maybe a Ritz Carlton reception desk employee (not the concierge...the airline would not be able to hire such persons at FA compensation levels).

However, comparing this product to SQ doesnt make much sense. They are not CO's primary competitors. If you were running CO I bet you wouldnt spend your precious few $$$ chasing SQ.

UAL, DAL, NWA, U, AMR and BA are the competitors and only BA can make a solid case against CO's J product. All in all I am happy with CO's J service vs. BA. As one in the side sleeper majority, the new seats have made quite a difference.




[This message has been edited by DrivingRain (edited 11-30-2002).]

Aside: DrivingRain, do you mind deleting the quote of my entire post from your post? You should be able to edit it even now. Thanks.

About the food:

An evaluation of the food depends on one's personal tastes and whether one normally dines at McDonalds, Mom&Pop Diner, or a home cooked gourmet meal.

I don't personally rave about any of the airline food whether it is SQ or anyone else. As long as they are not inedible.

Wine selection was decent. M&C for Champagne rather than DP as in SQ unfortunately http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif. The Red Bordeaux was drinkable. It is always nice to have any Port after dinner.

All I can say is that the food on CO was decent enough to not distract for me. One highlight was the excellent ingredients for the Salad. Appetizer choice of Shrimp was disappointing. Shrimp turned out to be tough and dry.

The dim sum was ok.

The Grilled Chicken entree was good but not good enough for me to finish both pieces. The rice bowls were decent.

Bread selection was good all around.
They ought to provide olive oil as an alternative to Butter as SQ does.

The nuts were just Cashew nuts (also on SQ). I prefer a mix. Perhaps they are afraid of allergies.

Desert choice is really lacking. Just ice cream with toppings or cobbler with ice cream topping. They ought to provide more variety.

While I don't mind airlines substituting local products from the destination, they should never substitute chocolates with anything but from Europe. Chocolates from anywhere else just don't have enough Cocoa content and is dominated by Sugar and Vanillin. Hong Kong made pralines just don't cut it.

As far as competing with SQ is concerned, it is CO's business decision as to how they set the standard. You are right that they do not have to set the standards to SQ and such. Unfortunately, US airlines have a fairly low standard in service for international flights. So claims relative to those don't impress me much.

Only cashews...what a shame.

At that price, one has a right to expect more.

Wow....attitude from a EWR-based F/A. What a shock http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif.
Perhaps this is part of the problem mentioned in the original post.

Most of my travels this year have been on NW, despite my status on CO. Why? Attitude. There are some GREAT CO employees. But many have an the attitude of "we are CO, we are great, you have no reason to complain". For that reason, my relatively extensive travel budget tends to be spent else where.


------------------
Friends don't let friends fly RJ's
I am not real smart, but I can lift heavy things.

Is that sarcasm I detect? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Cashews are indeed one of my favorites and are not cheap compared to peanuts and walnuts. However, as a gourmet ingredient, just eating a bunch of cashews by themselves is like eating a pile of caviar by itself or a slab of pate by itself. Gets boring very quick. Cashews are best used to garnish and complement other things. A well chosen mix of nuts with various tastes and textures is a lot more appetizing especially with a glass of champagne. Hence my preference...

Of course, if the choice is between a bag of peanuts and a cup of cashew nuts... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

this is superb analysis that i hope you shared with Continental and not just us flyertalkers.

Venk,

Thanks for the report. Good show!

I will comment that I think you may have been somewhat skewed on CO after flying SQ's F.

I recall the first time I flew SQ F how impressed I was with the attention to detail, even more so than many other global carriers' F products.

Today, I don't notice it as much because I have upwardly adjusted my expectations for fine service--so much so that on my last flight the Sky Suite seemed a bit small. I had to take a walk through the economy cabin to reorient myself to reality and how much space I really had for being on a flying ship!

My point is that it is can be expected that you would be disappointed in CO and notice the inattention to detail and attentiveness, given that it was CO J following SQ F.

First in Class

venk, thanks for your astute commentary!

In recent months I have taken transatlantic flights on KLM, both in WBC and in Y, and I was, in both cases, struck by the commitment on the part of the F/As to do what was necessary to help each individual. Granted that while in KL Y there was definitely a sense of routine to the service, it was clear that the crew was well-trained to avoid things such as eye-rolling and speaking in b*tchy tones of voice. In WBC, the crew was extremely respectful and patient, despite the fact that I had clearly brought on more than my alloted share of carry-on luggage and was struggling to find places to put it all. When I had lost the eyeshades that came in my ammenities kit and had to ask for another pair, the F/A, although clearly not expecting the request, was happy to go off and find an extra pair while being careful not to give off any attitude.

I couldn't agree more that when the F/As in a premium class give the sense that they are fatigued or annoyed by any type of unexpected request that this makes the "premium" experience quite a bit less enjoyable.

I would be interested to hear, however, whether people think that a general distinction can be made between the behavior of F/As on US airlines compared to that on European and Asian airlines. Obviously a lot depends on the individual crew, and so forth, but are there any US carriers where the premium class crews' behavior reflects my experience on KLM? Likewise, are there there any European or Asian carriers where the crews are as routine oriented as the venk's BF crew was?

[This message has been edited by aparsuites (edited 12-03-2002).]

This was a very interesting review---thank you for taking the time to write this, venk.

Your discussion of the FAs was right on target. I've flown CO and SQ to Asia. The biggest difference between these two airlines' FAs from my experience was the attitude. The SQ FAs were proactive, passenger oriented, and never gave the slightest appearance of a negative attitude. Maybe it is because of the way SQ trained and or hired them but they made it clear that they took pleasure in serving the first-class passenger. I never heard "You'll have to wait" "I'm busy right now can't you see that" --- on SQ.

Maybe it's a mindset or a completely different way of looking at their careers but it seems that CO's FAs could learn a great deal from the professionalism and high levels of personal service for which SQ FAs are known. I expect nothing less when flying first-class overseas.

[This message has been edited by Analise (edited 12-04-2002).]

Northwest World Business Class is much more comfortable and spacious than Continental BusinessFirst. Northwest's service levels are nothing to rave about in the food & beverage area, unfortunately. As much as I like to eat & drink, Northwest is my choice. I especially enjoy the old First Class seats in the 747-200 upper deck and 747-400 nose. I'm looking forward to a Northwest World Business Class flight this Tuesday.

Above all else, Continental's seat pitch needs to be improved.

I took NW WBC DTW-FRA-DTW in September <for Octoberfest>. I found the seats to be much more comfortable than those on CO's 767's and the older BF 777 seats <have not flown the new seats yet>. The food, beverages and IFE are superior in BF; HOWEVER, the F/A attitude both ways was great. I really felt they wanted us on the plane.



------------------
Friends don't let friends fly RJ's
I am not real smart, but I can lift heavy things.

I can't believe that nobody has commented about the stupid "ugly American" comments. I travel to Asia all the time in Biz class and have tried both Asian and US carriers. I've generally found passengers on all aircraft to be polite and kind.
Just last week I flew TPE-SFO on UA and had two Taiwanese people yacking behind me for the entire flight, extremely loud. This does not lead me to any generalizations about "ugly Chinese" however. To generalize is just stupid...except when talking about elitist farts who view people as "specimins" I hope you are doomed to a life of flying next to 3 month olds who cant keep their formula down during turbulence!!

I can assure you that our bf mixed nuts are just that...mixed nuts. Not just cashews, not just almonds but a plethora of choice. They are boarded bulk in a silver pan and divided up into your individual ramekins. As far as asia flights go, if it is any insight, the flight attendants that fly these flights are very senior. Basically that is all they fly one or two Hong Kongs per month. So I would not say that this group of FA's is a fair representation of Continental FA'S. My seniority is 10 years and I can not touch a Hong Kong flight with a 10 foot pole. So if your service is slow or you feel that the FA's are bitter they probably are. These woman have been flying for 35+ years. I am sorry, that is just how things happen in the airline industry. After 35 years of shelling out chicken or beef in such a turbulent industry, with no prospects of a decent retirement would make anyone bitter. Yes we all have a choice, and fortunately for me by livelihood does not depend on the realtively small checks that I bring home. However for some people it does.So having only cashews, is a very small problem in the grand scheme of things.

i like that word "ramekins." i have never heard it before.


[This message has been edited by fly co to see the yanks (edited 12-04-2002).]

I recently returned from HKG flying flts 99/98 roundtrip.

I find CO's BF service to be "flat". Nothing notable. And yes -- even though I do not eat peanuts --- there was only one kind of nut --- not a plethora / selection.

Some observations --- the FAs are senior ---
and come to find out they do up to 3 round trips in a row --- that is alot of flying --which is sure to make one a little cranky after the 1st trip! The FAs give no more and no less -- but I do find it amazing for how many hours the BF cabin can go without a FA even doing a "walk thru".

The return trip was another Non Rev delight!!
Just prior to closing the door 9 off duty non rev FAs came hustling on with all their shopping bags ---a plethora of shopping bags filled with their recent bargains from the mainline shopping spree.
It appears that the "word" is out that the HKG flight is great for a "shopping spree weekend" --- Of course you can imagine the calm and decorum of the BF cabin when 9 shoppers has stowed their goodies in the overhead and now can sit down and (change seats to be near a friend) and talk about the bargains.
The empty seat next to mine was taken by a non rev who told me the whole story --- and on account of the lack of sleep consumed a plethora of glasses of wine -- to induce a slumber -- only upon landing to realize that the wine did not set well --- and the barf bag was required as well as a run to the lav upon touch down.

This all in the "premium cabin" of BF!!!!!!

Hey Gang,

I have been reading this thread since it first appeared and like my colleague I wanted to aplogize for the other flight attendant's lack of attentiveness and professionalism. I also wanted to "flame" those whose criticism appeared unfounded or overly critical.

Instead I'd like some cultural and economic information that pertains to this topic:
[list=1][*]Does anyone know the statisical breakdown of the number of employees at SQ vs. CO?[*]How many daily flights? How many of those are domestic? [*]What, if any, assistance is given to SQ from their government (Is is SQ deregulated)? [*]How is the f/a compenstated for his/her work? [*]Is there a restriction on their longevity? (i.e. I believe EL AL f/a's are given a 5 year contract and then moved to another job) [*]Culturally speaking, how do citizens in the US compare to those in SQ? [*]Is it a democracy? Are they free to think for themseleves? [*]After they leave the career of F/A, does the government train them for another job?[/list=a]
Now, about co-workers;
[list=1][*]Does anyone work with someone that they wish management would kick to the curb?

Granted, in a union shop that prospect is hindered, but what company is without "sluggos". [*]Is there anyone you work with that when you are entertaining prospects/customers, you wish wasn't present? [*]Does their very presence jeapordizes the business relationship? [*]Does this individual always behave this way? [*]Do you know whether their behavior is tied to a problem at home or work or both?[*]Does it ever appear that no matter how often you complain to the boss, nothing seems to change regarding the individual?[*]Do any of you have careers where their is a "understanding" that you don't report the actions of the other unless it jeapordizes lives? [/list=a]

Thanks in advance.

P.S. I read on another board about how AA offers BOSE Headsets in both F and J. Very impressive. Do you think they have the exclusive on that? Like UA does on Starbucks Coffee?

While this could be a nice sociological survey befitting academic research, as a passenger flying in first-class, it is irrelevant to me. First-class is about service and comfort as the high price which the airlines charge suggests. The backgrounds of the individual FAs and their respective countries are meaningless to me as long as they can perform their functions with the utmost professionalism and courtesy.

Cathay Pacific's FAs are also in the same league as Singapore Air. I meant to include that earlier.

What does this have to do with the price of beans? Do you think that SQ or CX staff is better because they are happier, better adjusted, better taken care of by their government (??), better paid, and not allowed to think for themselves? Did it occur to you that it is because they know they have a job to do, and part of their job is to be efficient, professional, and courteous, and thus take their job description seriously?

It drives me nuts to see this kind of attitude. If I, in my current job, I were to slack off and treat my clients the way CO F/A sometimes treat their (yes) customers and clients, I'd be out of a job in about seven days. Do I like my job? Sure. Do I always like my job? No. Do I eat from the bucket, when eating from the bucket is the thing to do? Yes, and that's they way it goes. Why should I expect any less from other service providers, especially those charging premium prices for ostensibly premium service?

Flame away, boys and girls.

I think you might have stayed in the Pickle Jar to long....Just kidding!

I think these questions have relevance to the topic and I'm just asking for answers. Why is it a problem to try to find out more information?

Sure, they are relevant. I just think that the answers to such questions will not get you any closer as to why the difference in service.

For example, what does the Singaporean government and thinking for oneself have to do with the quality of airline service? If the SG government wants to make sure that only brainwashed people staff their planes (which I doubt, first because I don't think the SG government is that detail-oriented, and second because I don't think the Singaporeans are brainwashed), and as a result the service is excellent, well, maybe CO ought to follow a similar procedure, no?

FCTSTY, I'm glad you brought this up, as it is clearly central to this thread's discussion. Here are the definitions according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

ramekin

a. A small quantity of cheese, with bread-crumbs, eggs, etc., usually baked and served in a special mould. Chiefly pl.

b. A dish in which ramekins or other portions of food are baked and served.

alternate spellings include: ramme(l)kin, ramequin, and ramakin.

So if the nuts are just heated (in BF, my nuts are usually heated, and there isn't even a seat warmer!) but not baked, does that qualify as a ramekin? Is this like "momentarily"?

Some thoughts on the service and cultural attitudes:

There are definite cultural differences in the concept of service around the world. Anyone who has stayed in hotels or shopped in Asia and North America will immediately notice the differences and flight service is no different. Heck, you can even notice the differences between NYC and Chicago shopping but there are broader differences between North America and other societies.

Without making any value judgments, here is the major difference and the origins. In a class-less society like North America, the concept of service originates in a barter system where the service is provided for a return in value (usually monetary) where no one is really "subservient" to the other.

In Asian countries or even in the UK for that matter, the history of a class system has defined what the nature of a service is over and above monetary transfer set amongst the background of a lower class serving the upper class for thousands of years. While the class system is no longer a necessary factor in many service situations even in Asia, the "subservient" factor is still an accepted characteristic of service. This allows them to provide service in a way that they do not feel is demeaning.

While the phrase "treat your customer like a king" is all but a cliche in North America, it has a realistic meaning in the East.

What that means is that it is easier for Asian companies to train and expect their people to "serve" in a way that North American service people would find unnecessary, demeaning or not covered by what they are paid for.

Just as some random examples, (this is the majority, there may be some bad apples even in SQ) SQ FAs unfold the blankets carefully over you not just hand you the blanket in a plastic cover. If your shoes are left out in front of the seat that would impede other travelers or their own service, they will pick it up themselves and place it carefully out of the way. If there are any items in the food service that is unwrapped or emptied from a container they whisk away the wrapper waste as soon as they see it and they are on the look out for it. They are on the look out for any items that may have dropped from your seat or tray and dispose it off immediately. You have all probably seen advertisements from JAL (or is it ANA?) where the FA is seen to be removing askew eye-glasses from a passenger who has dozed off highlighting the "service" concept. It is literal as well as symbolic and captures the essence.

If a North American airline were to include the above in its service training, they would have a minor revolt in their hands. The common reaction would be "we are not being paid enough to do this". It is not that you cannot get people in North America to provide that service but the cost of doing so is very high based on the monetary value placed on such things in the barter system. It is only in the extremely high-priced places in North America where you can find such service so that the people providing the service can be paid enough to do it. The mention of a Ritz Carlton concierge and price of that service in one of the posts above is an example. A concierge in an Asian Hotel may provide that same service for a fraction of that price even after considering standards of living.

I again want to mention that I am making no value judgments on any of the two attitudes towards service. Both may be relevant and appropriate and proper in the cultures in which they exist. When you have an International service that provides opportunities for direct contrast, of course, one has an advantage over the other. Also note that I have made no gender assumptions in the discussions above.

As to whether this is strictly according to culture, the answer is no. The airline management and training has a lot to do with it. Air India is a good example of an Asian airline where you can find some prison matrons who are worse than any FA you will meet on North American airlines. Lufthansa is a Western airline where the concept of service (while a bit different than asian) in FC cabins is better than some Asian airlines.

While the North American crew excel in efficiency and practicality over many of the Asian crews, the NA Airlines need to look for what "service" would be appropriate and deployable given the cultural attitudes amongst their employee demographics and the costs associated with that service.

In a competitive situation with International companies, they cannot depend on their customers to expect less because they happen to be North American over the long term. It is possible to define a level of service (with attention to detail, attentiveness, etc.) that can be achieved in North American airlines without hitting cultural boundaries on what is "demeaning".

This is not impossible. Look at all the French waiters that are doing well in British Restaurants who have worked out their own compromises between what they are culturally inclined towards and what the British are accustomed to from their butlers. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Hope that I have not offended too many people.

Venk,

Your treatise on socialogical underpinnings of good service is interesting, but musn't cloud our view of good vs. bad service.

Good service can be had in the US. Bad service can be had in Sing.

Airline service is largely based on airline product competition, demand and cost for FA labor, and the economics of providing good service (can I charge $2 for better service that costs me $1 to provide?). I believe CO could deliver a product near the quality of SQ if required and the economics worked out--in fact I'm often told (but cannot personally attest) that UA's Int'l F can hold its salt with SQ--excluding degradation in the last 12 months.

I agree with Analise that good service is good and bad service is bad. How it got that way doesn't particularly concern me, I just want to know what metal I should fly on the get the best product for the price.

(I'd call it "bang for my buck," but that may confuse the issue with those oh-so-attractive SQ Singapore Girls involved!)

-First in Class

Did I just make up that phrase? I think so.

Another malaprop, compliments of First in Class.

To plagiarize, "good service is easy to recognize". http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I didn't mean to imply any other way. The sociological underpinnings give an explanation for the current situation and what the reality of the "costs" involved are.

My only thesis is that "service" costs money. And it costs more money in the Western Hemisphere than in the Eastern Hemisphere. As I pointed out there are Asian airlines that are mediocre and western airlines that are good.

Let us say good salad ingredients are cheaper in the east than in the west. A restaurant in the east or west can make good or bad salad. It is just cheaper for a restaurant in the East to make a good salad where good ingredients are a pre-requisite.

For CO or UA to provide a high-level of service, it has to spend a lot more on the FAs or bring down the expectations of its FAs about the value of their services and insist on higher levels of service, neither of which seem feasible. Of course, it could hire "Singapore Girls" at much lesser cost but that would be so politically incorrect for CO. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
(I'd call it "bang for my buck," but that may confuse the issue with those oh-so-attractive SQ Singapore Girls involved!)

---

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Heck you would have to pay Western FAs top dollars just to have them dress like that and then they wouldn't respect themselves for it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Could you please look up the word "bake". I'm not sure if Merriam Webster is considered a "real" dictionary, but here is there definition of bake:

Main Entry: 1bake
Pronunciation: 'bAk
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): baked; bak·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bacan; akin to Old High German bahhan to bake, Greek phOgein to roast
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 : to cook (as food) by dry heat especially in an oven
2 : to dry or harden by subjecting to heat
intransitive senses
1 : to prepare food by baking it
2 : to become baked
3 : to become extremely hot
- bak·er noun

I think this definition would reflect the correct use of the word "ramiken" by the orignal poster, but then again we might have to look up the word "cook". Let me know what you guys and gals think.

Thanks for the information, it was quite interesting.

Look what you've started, yanks! I'm not sure about the ramikens, but if for those who complained about BF F/As, check out the definition of "cook, v.3". They take their cooking responsibilities very seriously in all senses of the word.

From the OED:

bake, v.

1. a. trans. To cook by dry heat acting by conduction, and not by radiation, hence either in a closed place (oven, ashes, etc.), or on a heated surface (bakestone, griddle, live coals); primarily used of preparing bread, then of potatoes, apples, the flesh of animals. (Thus, in the primary sense, distinguished from roast: but in transferred uses they are not sharply separated.) Often absol.

b. fig. To ripen with heat.

c. fig. To prepare, make ready. Obs.

2. trans. To harden by heat: a. in a (brick) kiln.

b. as the sun hardens the ground.

3. To harden as frost does.

4. To form into a cake or mass; to cake. Obs.

5. intr. (for refl.) a. To undergo the process of baking; to become firm or hard with heat. Of land.

b. To be made uncomfortably hot (by the sun, a fire, etc.). colloq.

6. Phrases and proverbs: to bake one's bread: to ‘do for’ one. as they brew, so let them bake: as they begin, so let them proceed. only half-baked: (colloq.) deficient in sense; half-witted.

7. Comb., in which bake, in sense of vbl. n. baking, is used attrib., as bake-kettle, -oven, -pan, -shop; bake office dial., (a) = BAKEHOUSE; (b) a baker's shop (Eng. Dial. Dict.). Also BAKE-BOARD, -HOUSE, -STONE, BAK-BRED, q.v.

cook, v.1

1. a. intr. To act as cook, to prepare food by the action of heat (for a household, etc.). (Now regarded as the absol. use of 2.)

b. Slang phr. to cook with gas (or electricity, radar): to succeed, to do very well; to act or think correctly; also to cook on the front (top) burner. U.S.

c. To play music with excitement, inspiration, etc. slang (orig. U.S.).

2. a. trans. To prepare or make ready (food); to make fit for eating by due application of heat, as by boiling, baking, roasting, broiling, etc.

b. with up (implying manipulation).

c. intr. (for refl.) Of food: To undergo cooking, to be cooked. Colloq. phr. (orig. U.S.) what's cooking?, what is happening? what is in train?
In the construction ‘to be cooking’, ‘cooking’ is historically the vbl. n. (to be a-cooking, i.e. in process of cooking); but this runs together with ‘to cook’, = ‘cook itself’ or ‘be cooked’; = F. se cuire. Cf. similar construction of bake, boil, cut, eat, taste, etc.

d. trans. and intr. To prepare opium for use by the application of heat.

e. trans. To make radioactive. Also intr., to become radioactive. colloq. (orig. U.S.).

3. fig. Also with up (esp. in a and b, rare in c).

b. To ‘get up’, concoct.

c. To present in a surreptitiously altered form, for some purpose; to manipulate, ‘doctor’, falsify, tamper with. colloq.

4. a. To ruin, spoil, ‘do for’. slang.

b. to cook any one's goose: to ‘do for’ a person or thing; to ruin or kill. slang.

cook, v.2

intr. To utter the note of the cuckoo.

cook, v.3

To disappear suddenly.

Either someone with a cashew-allergy raided the tray or the FAs separated out the nuts and served different nuts to different people. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif It was definitely just Cashews. Is there a backup of cans or bottles of these nuts that they open in case the catering messes up providing mixed nuts or some "accident" happens to them?

Sorry to hear about his. Franky, I don't think this is in the best interests of the customer or the airline to have such a system. I would have thought there would be a rotation in which senior FAs (for their experience) are accompanied by top-performing (but less experienced FAs) in premium routes.

I did hear that the senior FA on my return flight had 30+ years of experience. Having seen some really rude and obnoxious travelers, I had always wondered how they maintained sanity over a period of time.

Don't mean to sound insensitive but it is not the FA's responsibility but CO's responsibility to have the right items. The fact that FAs have a tough time with their jobs and careers which potentially affects service is also a problem for the airline to solve not something for the customers to put up with out of sympathy.

"...They are on the look out for any items that may have dropped from your seat or tray and dispose it off immediately..."

It amazes me that N. American flight attendants will step over all kinds of trash in the aisles for upwards of 8 hours without ever thinking of disposing of the errant articles. Must not be in the training guide or somehow is regarded as beneath their social status.