mjcewl1284

I'd like to add the fact that ST doesn't have a CX or an SQ on their team. I feel like the reason why people would want to join OW and *A is because the average traveller from North America would like to be available to redeem their mileage for travel on an airline with such prestige for their premium cabins. ST has what, KE? (language/consistency issues) AF? (consistency issues/cutbacks) Pales in comparison with CX or SQ. So in conclusion, there is no "shining star" so to speak in ST.

If ST gets MH and AS, that will only be better for them. ST needs to distinguish itself, rather than pursuing airlines that are a question mark at best. CI, MU, AH should really be passed off.

A minor OT but I'd also like to add that the DL/NW merger might be great for them but it does take away from ST. Countless stories about how many people have already bolted to OW, *A.

UA Fan

Well said, agree with you on all points.

graraps

SQ really is a rather special airline, but, despite what many people seem to think, CX just isn't anymore. The SU business class product is light-years ahead of the Cathay equivalent (at least on the Airbii which I flew 4 times this year and never again!!). Skyteam basically is full of underrated airlines- AM, OK, KE, SU...

mjcewl1284

People will bring it up, however, that CX IS one of the more "special" airlines. That being said, if you look up some of my old posts, I have been very critical about what I view as slipping standards among the CX product (especially this year), whether it is attention to detail in F or a short haul TPE-HKG hop in Y, all aspects have been disappointing. I don't like to point this fact out (and it is not racist because I'm Asian) but the product started slipping after the Chinese opened up their routes to CX and Macau started booming with casino business.

I fly about 30-40 segments with CX in a given calendar year, been having second thoughts whether I should hop to CO (I use the JFK/EWR-HKG nonstop primarily) for my business.

Please explain why OK, SU are underrated in your opinion? I will not berate you or anything but for any European travels that I might have, I hop over to OW with BA, AY.

graraps

But, as with ST airlines being underrated, it's a question of image. CX appear to be special but in reality they ain't, and it seems that you agree with me on that (admittedly, their lounge facilities are great, but IMHO they're distinctly average in the air).

Many people think of SU as an essentially Soviet organisation providing crap service. In reality, they fly modern jets and they've got some of the best business class products around, both in terms of seat (lieflat but very spacious and comfortable) and food (at least for the Western palate). Their main hub is antiquated and overcrowded, but the new SVO3 will solve that issue. Intra-Europe, they again are in a class of their own, with proper business-class seats and multi-course meals.

Similarly, OK has limited brand recognition outside the Czech and Slovak Republics, but its intra-Europe service is up there with the best (and certainly better than the big 3), with a business class that includes 2-2 seating and all kinds of amenities, from PRG transfers included in the price of a business class ticket to a closet which you can also use to store heavy handluggage in and a very comprehensive bar available even on 1-hour flights. Moreover, you get reasonably well-fed even in Y, and PRG operates perfectly fine even under extremely severe weather conditions (which can't be said about LHR or MXP).


You should definitely try both of them- I haven't been on AY yet, but they both are comfortably ahead of BA within Europe, and SU is on a par with them for longhaul (OK only do one longhaul destination with an ancient A310 so it's not really their major focus).


I'm soon going to fly KE for the first time, but it looks like it's a similar story....Great reviews by most people who've flown them, but no marketing buzz around them...

On a similar note (though not directly related to Skyteam), my best airline experience ever has been on EY; they still are relatively unknown, and there is no shortage of infrequent flyers who're in awe of EK and QR...

hfly

I fully concur on the above opinions of CX and SU. I would add however that on certain routes SQ really isn;t that special and their product is sometimes worse than KE (Fly SQ to IST and you'll see what I mean)

Guava

If I were you, I will make sure my will is up to date before flying KE, the most unsafe airline in the world! That aside, KE is ancient and antiquate both its product and service delivery. They are not under-rated, they simply can't compete with other airlines in its region. To an extent Korean airlines will be perceived as less competitive due to lesser brand recognition vs. its Japanese peers but the fact is the former do not have a lot of the bells and whistles that ANA and JAL put in their premium products. The Japanese serve high quality Russian caviar in F, now have very high class and new F products rivaling the top of the world ranking and consistent great reviews on FT. KE is so far behind that not many people want to fly it and of course, the poor security track record doesn't help.

For the OP, I am not sure. To me, ST never appeals to me as a viable alternative to *A or OW. I am now leaving *A back to OW after my primary FFP will cease to exist. However, if there is one ST FFP that interests me, it's AF FB but not because it's a member of ST. Simply put, ST, aside from AF, is not worth flying, period. The Easter European carriers are o.k. if you need to fly there. Aeroflot = no way in hell, Russians are xenophobic to boot, unless you absolutely need to connect via Moscow, avoid it like pest! Overall, I think it's a question of image / brand perception. ST has serious brand issue. DL has pretty much blown up its FFP. CO was the other quality carrier in ST but is now leaving. NW is nicknamed "North Worst" for good reasons. As for Alitalia, I flew them once, YYZ-Milan Malpensa in J and I am glad I have never returned since! Like I said, the only airline that has the brand image to stand up against OW or *A is AF and only AF. KE is dangerous and with this stigma attached to you, it's hard to position yourself as an airline of quality, pretty much like CI, the other good airline with horrendous safety record.

sbm12

Their safety and reliability in the past 5-10 years is on par with any other modern, Western carrier.

mjcewl1284

I will echo some of these points but pretend that I didn't hear you say NW is "Northworst."

I label CI, BR, KE, MF, MU as airlines that don't take customer service seriously. I am not surprised in the least that CI is operating at a huge loss, given their track record and such. And they have NO ability whatsoever to provide a consistent product. They have so many configs for their premium classes and some of it is yesterday's news. And seriously, would you put your life at risk for an airline that may have forgotten to slip a washer on for a bolt and caused an airplane to explode on the runway (CI 120)? They are joking around with people's lives. (being OT) BR at least doesn't have the accident record CI has but the last time I was on, I had trouble finding anybody who could speak coherent English (including the lead flight attendant). Same goes with KE, MU. And I have heard of more than one occasion, BR cancelling flights, and not putting up passengers at hotels and leaving them in the gate boarding area overnight (end OT)

It just goes to my original point about how these airlines don't take customer service seriously and I am just wondering what ST is going to look like after they admit CI or MU.