Comparison: Business Class Singapore vs United
 

Two weeks ago, I traveled SQ Brisbane to Singapore and return Bangkok to Singapore onto Brisbane again. ( I used, for scheduling reasons, Thai to get up to Bangkok on the forward journey but, as there is precious little good I can say about the TG A300-600 SIN-BKK service and seating, I will not say anything .)
The longer sectors on SQ were around 8 hours each.

I have not traveled SQ in 777 J for some years now and was keen to try out SQ’s “legendary” service and cabins.

I hope that it may be interesting to you for me to compare them with United.

On the ground
The SQ check in was fast but was undertaken by a non SQ contractor (name like “Skytrax” or similar).She did not cope with my e ticket very well (needed to refer to her little notebook in her handbag and did not understand the meaning of TG code on the connecting flight to Bangkok??) Eventually she realized this and told me to recheck for Thai in Singapore. (Where, I asked, do I do that – she didn’t know). I suspect that these agents do not solely service SQ and that may explain her confusion. (after all, if you look after several other airlines as well, you can get a bit confused)
I was only going for 3 days so packed lightly with no hold baggage. The agent insisted on weighing my carryons, gave me a lecture about SQ maximum carry on weight being 9 kg. At this stage, I was going to ask to see a real SQ rep but, eventually, as I had a computer in one of my 2 carryons, she felt able to justify the extra weight and allowed me to board with them. Surely, as I was in paid J and my Mileage Plus 1K number) was in the system, I expected her to have been more accommodating? (United would have been - I’ve seen their pax carrying their entire household contents into the cabin)) As well as this, that 777 aircraft was only a third full in Y for what I could see and only had some 7 seats occupied in J.
Coming back,check in at Bangkok was busy but it worked and there were no issues re my carryons. The layout and lounges at Bangkok are chaotic and “grotty” but as the airport is changing location later this year, the situation was not unreasonable. The check in and boarding agents were in fact Thaiair staff and they knew from my Mileage Plus number that I was Star Gold.

My impression is that I have had better experiences from UA in the US and even from their contractors in Sydney. Of course, all the SQ lounges were better than the RCC in Sydney but not as good as the SFO domestic terminal RCC.

So far on the journey, the 2 carriers were neck and neck.

Boarding and Deplaning
All locations for SQ had 2 boarding gates (one for premium classes).This was very convenient and saved the “hordes” boarding thru our hallowed accommodations ( Don’t you hate some snotty kid staring at you while you are enjoying a liquid pick me up ? I love the ones who say to mum why can’t we sit here ?). On arrival, a nice touch which I wish United would copy is to block economy pax from exiting until F and J is off. It saves the pushing and shoving we experience coming down the upper deck stairs on the 747 and all the pax are merging and rushing to join the immigration queue and then wait at the baggage carousel and then to join the customs queues.
Arrival in Singapore and Brisbane were both delayed by unavailability of a gate – this can happen to anyone though.
All flights were on time and I do think that United is getting better on this front.

Cabin and Seating
I have traveled Raffles class in a 747 early last year on the short hop Bangkok to Singapore and the seats were just great as was the high capacity entertainment system. The ones on offer in the SQ 777s were old style and tired ( not that I am saying the ones on United are any different but I see United as a “wolf in wolf’s” clothing – at least with United, you know what you are going to get .) I missed the United lumbar massager. The seat adjustments were not much different in either of the business class seats though the SQ ones were powered. It was surprising to have such a disparity in seating quality between SQ’s 747 and 777s.

Impression, United’s offering on its 747 not much different to the SQ 777.

Everything on SQ worked the way it was supposed to – the lights, seat movements, plugs, headsets etc. It is unusual for me to do a United flight and find everything in working order.

Food and Drink
Singapore’s wine offering was ok but some of their French “unknowns” to me were a bit “off”. The champagne was a vintage and eminently drinkable – indeed too drinkable. United has a far wider range of wines, often only one bottle of each but there range of non French wines is much better and often drinkable (if only they would budget more than $5-10 per bottle .)
I am fascinated that it takes SQ ( or NZ or Qantas etc) just 10 minutes or so after take off for the seat belt signs to be turned off and drinks being prepared and yet you can wait over an hour on United for this to occur - ?? different safety regulations. Anyway , I was having a glass of champagne within 15 minutes of leaving the ground looking out at drought stricken north east Australia .Nuts were handed out in a small packet ( one only)- nowhere as good as the mixture to be found in the ramekins on United. The main course out of Brisbane offered a steak choice and it was just terrific – good size, juicy, accompanied by potatoes with cheese and broccoli – a perfect match with the champagne (but isn’t everything?).
Coming back on the shorter sector Bangkok – Singapore (2 hours) dep 1830, the wines were the same but food offerings much leaner and less interesting for a Westerner – eg no meat choice. The offerings – two spicy Thai dishes and one of tasteless garoupa fish with a weak cheesy milk sauce. I decided to hold back and wait for the offerings on the Singapore to Brisbane sector departing 2345 hrs.
Boy was that a mistake – you get a meal choice on this flight – believe it or not, either a light meal after departure (and I mean light – toasted ham and cheese sandwiches and small fruit plate) OR wait until 2 hours pre arrival and have a hot or cold breakfast. There was no option for both! Even United has not got this cheap yet!

Staff attitude and Service
I have heard SQ FAs referred to in the past as “automatoms” – they do what they have to do and never veer from some strict “path” .They seem to lack personality and individuality .Not that they weren’t courteous or helpful – they just lacked that certain feeling you get sometimes that the FAs genuinely want to look after you and are grateful you have chosen their airline. United has both types but their good ones really shine and just cannot imagine that happening on SQ.
Of course , most of the Singapore cabin crew were on the better side of 40 unlike the international J FAs on United who clearly would look on wrong side of 60 were it not for their most recent face lift.

Entertainment
The TV system in the SQ 777 is very basic, non interactive and with a limited range of feature films mostly “unknowns” to me .The screen seems slightly bigger than United's. The audio choices were surprisingly limited with different genres sharing the same tape – eg easy listening and Spanish melodies – clearly the system has limited capacity .To be fair, SQ has a far wider range of nationalities flying with them so there are a lot of interests to be covered. On SQ, no option for listening into the pilots and traffic control. Surprisingly enough, I was unable to set the SQ system up so that I could listen to music and watch the flight map at the same time – a good feature on United.
There was not the constant announcements you get on United (eg respect the curtains, the next film is about to start in economy, the main course will be chicken or meat etc) and that was appreciated. Surely, the United attendants can keep the announcements to the minimum as they do on other carriers or at least be able to confine them to the cabin to which they apply.

Amenities and Toilets
Restrooms as you call them (although I fail to see how you can rest there) were spotlessly clean with a range of colognes and lotions as well as toothbrushes and razors. (handy as I had in fact left my shaving gear at home).The toilet space on the 777 seemed bigger than those I remember on United. The latter are just so bare!

Discussion and Conclusion
It is hard to know how to fairly compare these 2 airlines.
All have different aircraft and some routes are clearly more commercially important than others. (after all, have you heard of Brisbane,Australia?) It seemed to me that 8 hour intercontinental flights were maybe not strictly comparable to my regular transpacific runs say Los Angeles-Sydney but could be compared to say ORD to LHR. United does seem to run similar internal cabin configurations and service in both. If I had flown the newer SQ 747s then I suspect that my conclusions may have been different but who knows.

United still has many faults but does have its good parts too – the nuts ,individuality of the cabin crew, ability to be able to upgrade, Channel 9 ,always a beef steak choice on long flights.
Sure, a lot of improvements will cost money but some come so cheap – eg letting front cabin pax off first, clean the toilets occasionally, more care over minor maintenance issues, offer a better and more consistent range of non French wines.

Overall, I was under whelmed by SQ. I certainly had expected more and was a little disappointed in what I got for what my sponsor had paid.

Maybe the devil (ie United) we know is not as bad as we think.

Ozflier, thanks for that very interesting report.

It sounds like the route was serviced by the "short haul" J product and not the long haul Raffles product with the Spacebeds. Comparing UA long haul C to SQ short haul J are far too different to offer any useful comparison.

Yeah, that's what I think. This SQ "shorthaul" service should be compared to UA's "domestic" F product, which it blows away.

Not for the J premium you pay for SQ - the short haul SQ J is expensive and is only comparable to domestic J of UA - I would expect it to match PS service at a minimum.

Having done LH, SQ, and UA in "C" or Business Class.... all long-haul.

Food: UA has larger portions, SQ has better food and service, LH has better alcoholic selection. LH and SQ used real silverware, UA's knife was plastic. I'm into portions, so UA's the best.

Seat: SQ and LH are electric and lie flat. SQ goes pretty deep and can get one feeling claustrophobic while LH doesn't go that deep. UA's like a huge recliner. I'd say LH's the best.

Entertainment: SQ had a decent array, including Game Boy stuff, while UA's was strictly movies, and LH offered an unbelievable range of movies to pick from. One could fast forward, rewind while watching movies on LH. LH hands down wins the entertainment.

Service: SQ's lengendary in that department. Being an regular UA flyer (i.e., unkempt), I threw the pillow and blanket on the floor, the FA's quickly picked them all up and put them in the overhead bin. SQ's cabin's the cleanest. LH's okay, UA's usually dirty. SQ wins.

SQ's current long-haul J cabin (Raffles) now comes with AVOD that you can also rewind, ff, play, pause, etc. They boast 60 movies plus television shows from around the world, video games, informational videos on destinations, and a large audio selection, plus the beloved flight map. I've never been on LH long-haul J but SQ must now at least tie it, if not surpass it for reasons of the movie library.

I'm not sure why the short haul config 777's is used on the BNE routes. SYD & MEL seem to consistently get the 747 or long-haul 2-class 777's with spacebeds. As does AKL, IIRC. I can only guess that the BNE routes are not particularly high yielding for SQ. The loads you experienced are somewhat indicative of that.

And yes, I have heard of Brisbane. ;) A lot of my family is there and north of BNE (Noosa). I usually take the service to SYD and connect up to BNE on QF. If you're buying a MPM J ticket on SQ, you can book the QF services in J as well. Nice way to get a few SC's on QF if that is your thing. You obviously get the long haul product from SYD as well. I use the time (< 24h "connection") to see friends in SYD, but you can connect straight up to BNE as well.

I think QF used to use the VERY old 743 SIN-BNE, but it might be a A330 now a days with spacebeds. If that is the case and you need a non-stop flight, might as well take that. If you have to connect anyway though, might as well do BNE-SYD-BKK on new TG C, or QF J.

I, too, was underwhelmed by SQ, but in Long-Haul
 

Flew SQ Raffles class last spring SIN-HKG-SFO. This was my first SQ long-haul flight, and I'd been greatly looking forward to it. (I'd flown three SQ short-haul flights a week prior as well as that morning, and these did impress me; more about this below.)

I was seated in coveted 17K on the upper deck of the 747-operated flight. My first impression was: My, my, these are handsome seats, and I do like the purple color scheme of the cabin. I soon found, however, that function and comfort do not necessarily go hand-in-hand with appearance. The Spacebed was not comfortable for me either as a seat or a bed. As a seat, there were insufficient settings for me to get comfortable; as a bed, I kept sliding down, as others have reported. For me, UA's fairly adjustable C seats are more comfortable than SQ's to sit in. As for sleeping, I really can't sleep in any airline's C class (including VS/NZ/soon AC, even though the seat goes fully flat, because the "bed," being the plastic back side of the seat, is as hard as a rock!), so I don't subtract points from UA's cradle seat for not reclining further as a bed.

SQ's food was good on the SIN-HKG leg, but not THAT much better than UA's. I skipped dinner on the HKG-SFO segment because I wanted to try to sleep, but I did eat breakfast, for which I chose the Indonesian noodles. Aargh, too salty. (But let's face it, no airline does breakfast well.) I had asked the FA if I could have the dinner I'd skipped for my breakfast, but she replied that I couldn't because after so many hours the food had gone toxic. Is this true (doesn't make sense to me; after all, they store breakfast for hours), or was the FA just brushing off my request? Alas, I don't drink, so all the fine wines and liquors available in the premium cabin are wasted on me and I can't offer any comment on them. However, I do drink a helluva lot of sparkling mineral water, and I can happily report that the canned LaCroix served by UA is on par with the canned Perrier served by SQ.

As for service, the flight crew on the upper deck was composed mostly of men (not SQ boys), and, with the exception of one older man who joked around with me, they were competent and professional enough, if not particluarly personable. I've had better UA crews.

Of course, there's no contest between SQ and UA when it comes to IFE, so I'll just pass on this.

I must comment on the SK biz loung at Changi, however. So many FTers seem to rave about it, and I just don't get it. Yes, there's a relatively extensive array of food (including some very tasty cream of mushroom soup) in the lounge, but why is it always about the food? The lounge itself is one vast, drab, poorly lit room which is a downright unappealing place to be when it's crowded. And don't get me started on the woeful SK lounge at HKG. I'll take UA's RCC at HKG/NRT (yes, also vast, but has divided sections, natural light and decor)/FRA/SFO anyday over any SK lounge I've visited.


SQ Short-Haul C Class

Flew BKK-SIN-DPS and DPS-SIN. All flights were operated by a 2-class 777. Perhaps it was because there were only four of us in C class and therefore I had all the rows around me to myself, but I enjoyed SQ's short-haul cabin and service more than I did the long-haul. To start with, the cabin was bright, airy, pleasant and seemed new. Then there was the seat, which I loved. Purely as a seat, SQ's short-haul C seat is the most comfortable I have ever sat in. It seems to offer an infinite number of settings, and its operation is soooo smooth, intuitive and easy.

I also found the movie choices on short-haul KrisWorld to be superior to the choices offered on my long-haul flight, with a paltry difference of 60 movies on offer versus 64 on long-haul. The screen sizes were the the same.

As for food, quality and presentation were not as good as on long-haul -- and not even as good as UA domestic F in one case -- but I wasn't particularly hungry and knew I'd be offered another meal on the next flight, so this mattered little. However, when the FA saw that I'd barely touched my pasta-swimming-in-oil, she did ask me if I wanted a different entree. That has never happened on UA (where I've had to throw away filet mignon because it was obscenely overcooked).

Finally, service: Again, probably due to the small cabin, service was better overall on this flight. It was alternately attentive but slightly servile (given by the SQ girls in blue kebayas, the junior FAs), or competent and courteous (given by the SQ girls in green kebayas), or assured and personable (given by the older male pursers). My comments on this subject betray my gender. While I think SQ generally offers good service, I am just not moved (and have been turned off) by the SQ girls. As a woman I'll take experienced, professional and courteous service given by a mature FA of any gender over attentive-but-servile service given by SQ eye candy. I have received the former from some fine UA crews and thankfully never the latter.

Skytrax are now the agents for UA in Australia.

There's no question that SQ is highly overrated - it's better than average, to be sure, but most of the "hype" about SQ is really just blindness caused by the excessive "gloss" lathered on by the airline. Ditto for most of the "top" Asian carriers - with the notable exception of NH, they are, at their core, comparable to their Western airline counterparts.

Sq......................
 

^ ^ ^ Just completed a trip on Singapore airlines yesterday from Frankfurt to JFK, and on Singapore airlines on the 30th June JFK to Frankfurt both ways aboard a 747, 17K seat (upstairs business class seat) and was completely happy. The service was great, the food was great, the entertainment was more than any other airline that I have flown on, and the wine was good. The seats were great although being six foot four inches and 280 lbs it was tough to roll on my sides at flat position. Although United service with older attendants is great, and Lufthansa service is always great, I think Singapore had that extra little touch that sets it apart. The only thing I did not like was that the candies offered after meals were little wrapped red and white mints which suprised me to no end.

Would I take Singapore again after all I heard and what I experienced? Probably not. I still would stick with Lufthansa over United and Singapore for the Atlantic crossings.

I think this is a very accurate statement. I agree with this entirely.

I agree to an extent .
But are you going to say that JFK to LHR is only short haul so food amenities etc should be less than those on the SFO-Nrita run?

I guess one of the lessons I learnt was that not all SQ services carry the Space Beds or AVOD.I was a little disappointed with what i got for the price for the fare paid.