SQ vs TG in economy

Old Aug 14, 05, 6:52 am
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Perth (Australia), Trondheim (Norway)
Programs: Flying Blue Silver Elite (AF), Eurobonus (SK), Asia Miles (CX)
Posts: 37
SQ vs TG in economy


I am flying mainly between Norway and Australia. Until now I have flown with either KLM or Air France, but as I`m fed up with their appalling service both in the air and on the ground I`ve decided to go for *A.

So my question is: Which is better in economy? SQ or TG? Which airline has the most generous seat pitch? Inflight entertainment? Food?

All feedback will be most welcome.


TRDmiler is offline  
Old Aug 14, 05, 7:08 am
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,341
TG definitely has the more generous seat pitch (34" vs. 32", I believe). I've heard the service and the food are very good as well.

Inflight entertainment: no contest. It's SQ hands down. You get SQ's KrisWorld-- lots of options (60 movies for example, plus lots of TV programs and games), PTV -- versus films played on a main screen in TG economy.

I personally have always liked the food on SQ as well as the service level. An FA noticed that I had brought a small bottle of water with me, and instead of giving me water in one of those little plastic cups during a drinks run, she offered to fill up my bottle instead. This was on a full flight in economy.

Finally, IMO, transiting through Changi is a much more pleasant experience than transiting through Don Muang.

My very biased vote is for SQ, unless you're very tall, in which case the seat pitch may be of utmost importance to you. But as with all advice, YMMV.
jjpb3 is offline  
Old Aug 14, 05, 8:36 am
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Living in SIN™
Programs: TK E+, BA Gold, Marriott Plat, HH Gold, IC Amb, Hertz PC
Posts: 6,654
Having travelled in both, I'd pick TG over SQ for seat pitch (not counting exit rows of course) and food; SQ over TG for IFE and service.

I could be wrong (check over on the TG forum), but the TG flights from Scandinavia (CPH, ARN?) to BKK have the premium economy service - ie. the old business class is sold as premium eco while the old first class sold as business. Just something you might want to consider.

Also depending on how often you fly, if you make TG ROP Gold, you get a roundtrip upgrade voucher which you could use all the way from Europe to Oz. Also, you get one more of these upgrade vouchers to use in your birthday month (+/- 1 month).

I'd say for a medium to long-term strategy: fly SQ, credit your miles to TG till you make *G, then switch to flying TG for the upgraded flights.
Savage25 is offline  
Old Aug 14, 05, 8:42 am
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC, LH M&M
Posts: 938
I think they both offer way better service and food than any European airline I have flown in Y. So it really comes down to if pitch is most important to you then go for TG if IFE is more important go with SQ.

Remember that both of them give no miles for the cheapest Y fares.
JPB is offline  
Old Aug 14, 05, 11:31 am
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13,145
Just a reminder that neither SQ nor TG have flights ex-Norwegian cities. So you would have to fly with someone else (i.e. SK) to get to their getaway cities (i.e. ARN for TG or CPH for SQ).

As the others have said - If comfort matters more, then go with TG although I would only consider comfort to be slightly better. But if meals and IFE are higher on your priority list then SQ is the clear winner.
Rejuvenated is offline  
Old Aug 14, 05, 1:01 pm
Moderator, CoronaVirus and Hilton Honors
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: on a short leash
Programs: some
Posts: 71,107
Another option is Air NZ from LHR (slightly longer as goes via US and NZ). 34" pitch in economy, and from later this year will have PTVs with AVOD in all seats. Good food, drink and service. Downside is the transit process at LAX.
Kiwi Flyer is offline  
Old Aug 15, 05, 12:47 am
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Perth (Australia), Trondheim (Norway)
Programs: Flying Blue Silver Elite (AF), Eurobonus (SK), Asia Miles (CX)
Posts: 37
Thanks for the replies guys.

Transiting through ARN or CPH is more that OK with me, as I have to transit through AMS or CDG (probably the most dreadful airport in the world) today.
SK has good connections from TRD (where I live) to ARN or CPH through OSL. Btw, CPH and OSL are both very nice airports. Have never been to BKK, but AF flies through SIN which I think is very nice.

Anyway, my impression from what you say is that I can't go wrong with either SQ or TG. I think I'll have to base my decision on price and connection times. Since they are both *A, I'll probably check out both of them.

Btw, SQ is using 777s on both PER-SIN and SIN-CPH, whereas TG use 744 on both PER-BKK and BKK-ARL, right?
TRDmiler is offline  
Old Aug 15, 05, 2:21 am
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SIN (LEJ once a year)
Programs: SQ, LH, BA, IHG Spire AMB, HH Gold, Accor Gold, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 5,530
Originally Posted by TRDmiler
Btw, SQ is using 777s on both PER-SIN and SIN-CPH, whereas TG use 744 on both PER-BKK and BKK-ARL, right?
Looking at your routing, I would opt for SQ as the SQ 772 (ER) you will be flying on has 34" seat pitch like TG does. As for the rest my impression is that IFE (much) and service (slightly) is better on SQ and that the food is on par.
demue is online now  
Old Aug 15, 05, 10:14 am
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SIN
Programs: DL,UA,SQ,CX
Posts: 154
I believe BKK-PER is usually an A330 on TG.

Here's my take:

Seats: TG's 34" pitch really is quite apparent especially since the more old-fashioned seats are pretty slim though the padding seems sufficient. SQ's B777-200ERs have nominally the same pitch but the seats are more sculpted (inflatable lumbar support, adjustable headrests, the front portion of the bottom cushion also inflates and deflates). Some people complain about being able to feel some supporting bar in/under the bottom cushion after a few hours. Also note TG's A330s have less pitch (felt more like 32") than the B747s. Similarly, SQ's regional B777s (which also fly to PER) have around 32" of pitch.

Food: I found them equally good. I am partial to the feel and userfriendliness of SQ's new trays, dishes and silverware.

Inflight Entertainment: You've heard this before... SQ has personal screens with AVOD, TG has monitors hanging from the cabin ceiling.

Staff: From experience I'd say both airlines have comparable staff, i.e. nothing to worry about.

Transit Airport: SIN is much more comfortable; Bangkok's new airport should open sometime next year but even then Changi is very tough to beat in terms of amenities and efficiency. BKK might offer a more exotic shopping experience if one is looking for that.

I'd lean little towards SQ mainly due to the difference in transit experience.
JetE is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: