SQ vs UA: guess who wins?

[liteswap]

SQ vs UA: how does SQ do it?

I've just taken two long-distance back-to-back flights, one in a Singapore Airlines A380 from SIN to LHR, and a second the next day in a much older 767-300, from LHR to CHI. Both, alas, were in steerage.

Here's a few comparison points I'd like to share:
1. On SQ, the cabin crew distributed hot towels to refresh and clean before the meal service. UA's CC didn't. Given the dehydrating and disturbingly unhygienic nature of aircraft interiors, this matters.
2. SQ's CC come round with water/juice trays every 30 minutes or so, UA's don't. This keeps you hydrated and makes you feel much better by the end of a 14-hour flight.
3. On SQ, the seat pitch is 32 inches, UA's is 31 inches. Small but size also matters when there's so little of it...
4. SQ give you metal implements to eat with (and with which I could of course have chosen to go crazy and attack the pilot) while UA's were nasty, cheap, bendy, breakable plastic. Much safer, I'm sure.
5. UA's CC came round hoovering up the empty meal trays before I'd even finished my main course (not the first time I've experienced this). Just as well I hadn't planned on eating any more of UA's food, because....
6. ...SQ's meal options had variety, and the food was tasty, nutritional, and clearly used better ingredients, while UA's meals were unimaginative, tasteless and reeked of cost-cutting. Horrible.
7. UA charges for wine with the meal, SQ doesn't. Just penny-pinching.
8. I'm sure the UA CC work hard and mean well but the SQ CC seemed so much happier in their work...
9. Plus there was a whole bunch of positives resulting from the A380 being newer hardware: it has four engines (I know, I know, but given a choice, I prefer a higher level of redundancy), I get a power point for my laptop, bigger overhead bins, it's much quieter, much better IFE.....

None of this will come as a surprise to many SLF here, especially those who fly business / first -- if only my company would pay for it. The contrast is not even surprising to me as I've flown both airlines before but the culture shock between the two flights with a time separation of little more than 24 hours was huge.

So how does SQ manage it?

[Skipness One Echo]

So how does SQ manage it?

They're not a bankrupt legacy US carrier which is heavily unionised with a cost base to match. Singapore are a relatively new carrier with a much lower cost base from a company which actively discourages older less glamorous cabin crew as it doesn't fit with the brand. Try doing that at a US legacy carrier.

Culturally, United has been a company in relative decline for many years now, with a decreasing long haul fleet and a retrenchment from key markets. That rubs off on the attitude of the staff I think.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

If you have time, read some of the reviews ... in HERE. (http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/seats.htm)

Filter with care [all classes are listed together] but essentially SQ is rated 5-star and UA is rated 3-star.

i think SKP1E sums up the reasons pretty neatly. ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

Man Utd vs the Old Crown pub sunday morning team

Guess who wins ;)

[TightSlot]

So how does SQ manage it?

...Fear...

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ TightSlot - so I had read in other places on PPRuNe. However, at the risk of starting the CC debate here as well, could other words/phrases such as 'discipline' and 'cultural differences' be used? That, combined with a policy that does not, as I understand, encourage SQ CC to make it a life-time career?

I am not trying to be contentious, but there are surely many factors involved.

[liteswap]

TTB: Think you may have hit it on the head. None of the SQ CC were over 30 while the UA crew were mainly middle-aged. Frankly, while slim young ladies are nice to look at, it's not something that would make me change airlines.

What would is UA's penny-pinching, especially when it comes to the quality (not) of their meals.

[WHBM]

I have never understood how the cabin crew who, by a long chalk, are the highest paid in the world (US legacy carriers with their long-serving crews) give some of the worst service in the world.

These crews are apparently undismissable - and it shows.

Also, there is a strange management perception that penny-pinching on passengers' catering and suchlike is the route to success, while the whole board of directors line up million dollar salaries and multi-million dollar pensions for themselves. Complete loss of plot

[anotherglassofwine]

Just flew mel-sin-Lhr with SQ on the a380 and the service was a shocker - mainly because it was absolutely fabulous.
First time pax with SQ but not last , I shall be dumping BA and my miles quite happily ..

[Two-Tone-Blue]

I'm pleased this hasn't become a general attack on CC, because most of them do a good job. I'm certainly not pinging BA, because others are in the same position. The CC provide the essential safety cover if things go wrong, and the rest of the time they feed and water you [variable according to company policy and finances].

The problem I see is that pax are getting more vociferous about is that "good" is not quite good enough, especially for Premium pax. The CC smiles are still there, and the safety aspects, but ... you can serve a McDonalds burger on a china plate, with real cutlery, and it's still a MaccyD burger. Some airlines do that better than others, and have reliable IFE as well [newer aircraft? recent refit?].

The problems associated with in-flight catering are huge, especially with some 300 pax in different classes, and I fully accept that. That's not the CC's fault - it's the airlines that forever push the glamorous 'comfort and service and catering and wines' images on their websites, and then completely fail to deliver what the Premium pax thus expect to see for their money. Can you blame CC for getting a bit upset when many of their Premium pax are possibly saying "WTF is this stuff?"

Perhaps it's time for new honesty in airline marketing - "Your food comes out of a tiny, overcrowded, overheated on-board galley. We don't have space to carry every possible food or wine option. We do miracles with the sh1t we have delivered by the Catering people on an ever-shrinking budget."

[parabellum]

It's not all fear Tight Slot!

Yes the cabin crew have a cut off age that depends on the rank they have achieved. Yes the Singapore system doesn't put up with indiscipline in any areas.
Yes, the youngsters know that they had to beat off a lot of competition for the job and now have the opportunity for at least ten to fifteen years of a well paid job that takes them out of Singapore and all around the world.
Yes, they know that if they display the wrong attitude they won't last long, not only the company but the rest of the crew won't put up with it.

I would like to compare the difference between what happens to the crew member when a passenger writes a letter of complaint about the attitude and service they receive from a specific crew member on a). UAL and b). SIA.;)

[PAXboy]

In another thread about another legacy carrier (guess who?!) F3G showed this link and it really is superb. It's an American consultancy who have given eminently clear graphical expression to a well known problem. They should approach UA:
Understanding the Corporate Lifecycle | Adizes (http://www.adizes.com/corporate_lifecycle.html)

[TightSlot]

OK - I'll bite (but as an individual, not as a mod, so feel free to disagree)

I'd agree, it's a culture thing: Their culture allows these kinds of behaviour, whereas the same behaviours would be unacceptable in a US or European culture.

The thing is, we want that other culture when we are consumers: We tend not to want it so much when we are on the other side of the equation. I bet that few of us from Euro/US cultures would embrace enforced early retirement, rigid discipline and dismissal for 'attitude' were it to apply to our chosen field of work?

Discuss...

[jatayu]

I would disagree in the sense that this appears to be be more a corporate culture than a country based culture. Look at McDonald's - they have the same philosophy - in every country.

I would be happy with a job that came with "early retirement, rigid discipline and dismissal for 'attitude' " so long as it was clear that it was company policy, right from the start. A lot of my CC friends (non SG) have gone on to rewarding careers later on, including owning businesses. The CC life set them up with life experiences and in many cases money as well.

That lifestyle of travelling the world and getting paid for it, lousy shift timings, fronting customers who think they are all messiahs, also works best in the earlier stages of your life.

[PAXboy]

I've never understood this obsession with youth in the cabin. Service is the ONLY factor. I've seen lousy and brilliant in equal amounts from any age - be they CC or behind the counter in a shop.

[Final 3 Greens]

The thing is, we want that other culture when we are consumers: We tend not to want it so much when we are on the other side of the equation. I bet that few of us from Euro/US cultures would embrace enforced early retirement, rigid discipline and dismissal for 'attitude' were it to apply to our chosen field of work?

We do not wish for the culture, as Paxboy says, we want service.

I agree that it is age independent, in fact last week on Air Malta a 50 something purser and a 20 something crew member between them provided a super service up to Gatwick.

Your construct seems to be a zero sum equation, where that service can only be delivered by a culture based on hierarchy and punishment.

I don't agree.

Expanding on TTB's comments, when you get an airline expressing an image of high level premium class, that sets expectations for pax and crew, when the reality (we call it modelling in my world) is out of alignment with that expression, say obviously based on cost cutting - not high service, the pax will notice (and express their views) and the crew will lose trust in their management and become cynical.

If the management then rewards cynical behaviour by making people 'unsackable' and condoning some of the service I have seen on (particularly US) legacy carriers, then the whole system becomes a self reinforcing donward spiral, with little trust between management and employees.

Service in name, without even lip service in reality, never mind proper service.

Airlines are no different to any other service organization, the more the expressed mission from management aligns with the actuality delivered and the more the rewards go to the people who deliver the service well, the better the service, morale, commitment.

Not rocket science, is it?

If people do not perform, they should be given an opportunity to learn, but ultimately should be replaced.

A heavy churn of employees is not good for a business, but then again neither is no churn, since new lifeblood coming in is important, as is the opportunity to progress for existing employees, e.g. yourself.

Reinforcement (positive ranks above negative) has been proven (by observation) to be a superior motivator to punishment, but there must ultimately be a sanction.

I would say that you have missed an important aspect, which is the power of unions and the weakness of management.

The strike at BA should not be happening, but the CC union and the management (over the years) are both culpable. To have CC unions allegedly setting service levels is ridiculous.

The management have compromised on too many occasions in the past for the CC to believe they are serious this time (I believe they are) or capable of enduring a strike (it will be interesting to see what political pressure does this time.)

When I listen to the PA announcements on BA (for example), I really think that I have stepped through the looking glass, e.g. shut the overhead lockers yourself - this is a small point, but in a service organization it sends a strong message that they can't be arsed to deliver.

The better middle eastern airlines (and the eastern ones I believe) do have a different view on service and this reflects their awareness of their competition.

I really do not think that many BA CC understand this, with some very honourable exceptions, such as Jetset Lady, Glamgirl and others who post here.

My impressions of the far east (mainly India, where I have undertaken several engagements) is that society is very much more competitive and tough than the west.

The UK is living way beyond it's means currently and there is going to be a horrible adjustment over the next few years (generally), with the realisation that many of the social crutches presently in place are simply unfundable.

In this respect, I am so glad I live in Malta, where the position is somewhat different.

The BA CC strike will be seen, in future years, as a bellweather indicator of the start of the transition.

[TightSlot]

Fair points - but a couple of hanging chads (aren't there always)...

It is extremely difficult to achieve a high 'service' level within Euro/US culture these days - our society is simply not geared to produce the required results, and corporate culture simply reflects social culture. Note that I said difficult, but not impossible - there are a couple of airlines that seem to have found a way through the jungle, but it's not easy, and in the case of some legacy carriers, it may even be impossible. Euro/US social culture is one where the value of an individual is perceived to be at least as important as the value of others, where individualism is encouraged and the rights of the individual are held to be paramount: Like it or not, many people confuse 'service' with 'subservience' - Not only when providing 'service', but also when consuming and assessing it.

It is social, not corporate culture that sets the legal framework within which airlines operate. It is extremely difficult, legally, to dismiss somebody, or even sanction them: This can be demoralising for work colleagues when they have to watch a serial abuser of their employer apparently being permitted to 'get away with it'. Social culture also dictates equal opportunity, non-discrimination and ageism policy - not the employer.

I accept your point about 'modelling' and expectations, but would argue that it is to some degree irrelevant. In fact, most of us have learned to assume that we are being marketed at (lied to?) by most kinds of companies providing most kinds of service. The fast food burger never looks like the image of itself on the wall; The call centre never supplies the promised level of support; The happy, smiling, sexy couple and their delightful children in the commercial simply don't exist - we've learned to ignore all this and manage our expectations accordingly. Europe's biggest and most successful airline promises its' customers absolutely nothing except safe air transport, and prides itself on so doing - they set very low expectations and then meet their target - customers lap it up.

I admire SQ for what they do. They rule their crew with an iron hand and behave in a way that is acceptable within their culture. They also use sex as a marketing tool, albeit discretely. In doing so, they expose and exploit weaknesses within Euro/US service cultures since customers have little visibility of the processes involved, only of the end result - an attractive, smiling, young, diminutive Singapore girl bobbing gracefully through the cabin of an ultra-modern clean and quiet aircraft. The same is true of the middle-eastern carriers, which is largely why EK, EY & SQ are so dominant.

I guess that all I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for. When a Euro/US carrier gets it right, I'd rather travel with them: Democracy, and all the messiness that goes with it, is not easy (and shouldn't be) but is, in my view, preferable. Democracy is also what is not available to the people of Singapore, or at least not as we would recognise it. As always, the Singapore face presented to the world masks something more complicated behind - but that's another story.

I'll avoid going down the BA discussion route: Those militant crew members have done for the reputation of CC in general what Foot & Mouth did for dairy herds, and I don't propose to further promote them in here.

[radeng]

There's no doubt that service on US airlines has, in general, gone down over the last 20 years - perhaps, I'm afraid with the exception of US Air, who, in my opinion couldn't have dropped any further if they tried. American Airlines is noticeably worse these days, especially in Business and First - in fact, I rate their transatlantic First as worse than BA Club World. Domestic American Airlines First has gone down even further.

In the early 90's, I found BA long haul very poor, and American good, but that situation seems to have reversed itself.

Not all fares have gone down, employee benefits have gone down, service to customers has gone down, but pensions and remuneration for those at the top haven't gone down - the reverse, if anything!

[ozineurope]

I have recently flown both SQ and UA business on long sectors.

In the unlikely event that I had to evacuate an aircraft with the help of CC I would pick UA anyday. My experience with SQ is that they pay more attention to the cosmetics of the industry than the realities and the REAL reason we have CC, to get us off the aircraft in an emergency and survive.

By the way my UA meal IAD to FRA was the best I have ever had.

[Load Toad]

What empirical observation is that based on? Were SQ staff found wanting when things went wrong in Taipei?

I've flown UA - service with at best a lousy attitude. SQ - great service. (Not saying either were unsafe or otherwise). What causes each - I neither know nor care because I'm a paying passenger. So I choose where to spend my $$ when I have the choice.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Greetiings, and apologies for being late on parade, so to speak. And thanks, TightSlot, for contributing as yourself: your experience makes those inputs extra valuable.

I'll just comment on a couple of those 'hanging chads'.

I agree entirely with TS's comments on the Singaporean culture. I lived and worked there for a few years, and 'impenetrable multi-cultural complexity' would be an understatement! Likewise the 'democracy' - Lee Kuan Yew allowed a degree of democracy only on the basis that nothing was going to damage the future prospects for Singapore. Any echoes with Willy Walsh there? ;) But Singapore's success was built on everyone pulling together for the common good, and acceptance that life ain't ever going to be perfect.

[B]TS also said "I bet that few of us from Euro/US cultures would embrace enforced early retirement, rigid discipline and dismissal for 'attitude' were it to apply to our chosen field of work?" I guess that's where I'm in the minority, after a career in the UK military! All those factors applied then, and still do. It is a disciplined workplace, where 100% delivery of 'management expectations' is the norm - and it still functions with today's British 'yoof', doing amazing things in nasty sandy places. And I'd do it all again from the beginning if I could! Since my slightly early retirement [voluntary redundancy offer I couldn't refuse] I've had to operate in the amorphous, unstructured and ill-disciplined world of 'civvy street', where even getting my email answered is regarded by me as a major success. In consequence, in many respects I'm less happy ... which takes us back to 'expectations', of course.

However, the sun is shining and I'm still alive! :cool:

[Final 3 Greens]

It is extremely difficult to achieve a high 'service' level within Euro/US culture these days - our society is simply not geared to produce the required results, and corporate culture simply reflects social culture.

In the case of airlines, it is driven by oversupply IMHO. Basket case airlines are bailed out and this builds the 'too big to be allowed to fail' complacency that can be seen in the sector.

Euro/US social culture is one where the value of an individual is perceived to be at least as important as the value of others, where individualism is encouraged and the rights of the individual are held to be paramount: Like it or not, many people confuse 'service' with 'subservience' - Not only when providing 'service', but also when consuming and assessing it.

Then how come McDonalds provide super service?

It is social, not corporate culture that sets the legal framework within which airlines operate. It is extremely difficult, legally, to dismiss somebody, or even sanction them: This can be demoralising for work colleagues when they have to watch a serial abuser of their employer apparently being permitted to 'get away with it'. Social culture also dictates equal opportunity, non-discrimination and ageism policy - not the employer.

Sorry, but this is typical British defeatist thinking. The legislation is a barrier, but it is by no means impossible to remove someone using a disciplinary process and this is a symptom of weak management. Some leadership is required.

I've already said that age is not important and so has Paxboy, it is competence (including the right attitude) that is the driver.

I had a lovely flight out to Atlanta, with Delta, a few years ago. I was travelling on a freebie ticket, so was in Y, the crew were 'mature' but utterly charming. Same thing recently with Swiss, three female CC in (guessing) their late 40s/early 50s, brilliant at their jobs.

Like Paxboy, I want service, not eye candy.

I accept your point about 'modelling' and expectations, but would argue that it is to some degree irrelevant. In fact, most of us have learned to assume that we are being marketed at (lied to?) by most kinds of companies providing most kinds of service. The fast food burger never looks like the image of itself on the wall; The call centre never supplies the promised level of support; The happy, smiling, sexy couple and their delightful children in the commercial simply don't exist - we've learned to ignore all this and manage our expectations accordingly.

Sorry, this is defeatist thinking. Go to Schnitzelwelt (fast food outlet) in Villach in Austria and the food looks exactly like the picture on the world, better in fact. Try Nando's, same experience, good chicken at reasonable prices, book a Premier Inn, always good vfm, I've stayed there hundreds of times, never had a bad experience.

In the airline sector, easyJet delivers what it promises in my experience and is good vfm. Air Malta usually provides good service, with the caveat that the delivery approach can vary from purser to purser, but it is still good.

Europe's biggest and most successful airline promises its' customers absolutely nothing except safe air transport, and prides itself on so doing - they set very low expectations and then meet their target - customers lap it up.

Ryanair has a clear value proposition and it delivers it. Not my preference for business travel, but I do often use the company to demonstrate strategic positioning when running seminars and MOL is a strong leader.

It is an effectively managed company, unlike most airlines, thus the difference in performance.

It is also run purely for profit.

I admire SQ for what they do. They rule their crew with an iron hand and behave in a way that is acceptable within their culture. They also use sex as a marketing tool, albeit discretely.

Agreed. I got hammered on here a few years ago for having the termerity to suggest that some asian airlines sold seats via sex.

In doing so, they expose and exploit weaknesses within Euro/US service cultures since customers have little visibility of the processes involved, only of the end result - an attractive, smiling, young, diminutive Singapore girl bobbing gracefully through the cabin of an ultra-modern clean and quiet aircraft. The same is true of the middle-eastern carriers, which is largely why EK, EY & SQ are so dominant.

I've got news for you, customers buy on experience, not underlying process.

GF has a reputation for poor service and is struggling, so it is not just a regional degrees of freedom thing, you still have to gain competitive advantage.

I guess that all I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for. When a Euro/US carrier gets it right, I'd rather travel with them: Democracy, and all the messiness that goes with it, is not easy (and shouldn't be) but is, in my view, preferable. Democracy is also what is not available to the people of Singapore, or at least not as we would recognise it. As always, the Singapore face presented to the world masks something more complicated behind - but that's another story.

That statement has too many undertones of moral superiority for my liking.

Not every country wishes for or values democracy, many will argue that a benevolent dictator is a better model for them. Certainly your average Iraqi might.

I'll avoid going down the BA discussion route: Those militant crew members have done for the reputation of CC in general what Foot & Mouth did for dairy herds, and I don't propose to further promote them in here.

Not just the cabin crew or their unions. Management over the years must also answer for why this statet of affairs exists.

[TightSlot]

I don't see that expressing a preference for democracy demonstrates an undertone of moral superiority. I am personally, entirely comfortable with saying that in all cases democracy is preferable to other, less democratic processes. Indeed, your suggestion that others might benefit from such processes strikes me as unattractive in so many ways that I am, quite literally, lost for words.

I'm afraid that we shall have to courteously disagree, not only about this, but also about many of the rebuttals that you have raised above. I'm not certain that further discussion would change views on either side.

[Final 3 Greens]

TS

I am quite happy to agree to disagree.

If you spend some time in the middle east, preferably one of the more enlightened countries, you would understand my comment about the locals preferring another model to democracy.

I prefer democracy too, but am quite prepared to accept it is not a universal panacea.

These comments are not made to start off the thread again, simply to respond to your 'speechless' state and to provide some context.

[leewan]

Comparing SQ and UA is like comparing apples with oranges.
SQ is where it is today due to its governments wide ranging support in its early days. It still exists today, make no mistake about it, but in a subtle and discreet way.

SQ CCs go for a 4 to 5 months training course, which I've heard is the longest in the industry for cc training. Their interview and screening actually screens every part of their body for imperfection. And they are actually offered employment on 5 years contract, subject to renewal at the end of the 5 years. Which basically keeps them on their toes throughout their employment as their contract could be discontinued if they gave problems. And for all this, they are paid quite a handsome sum and given good benefits. They have auditors dropping in on their every now and then doing checks on their service quality making sure that service standards don't drop. For more info, you could try reading this book:
MEDIA REVIEW (http://milehiclub.sg/?page_id=608)

Now to the political part, SQ is controlled by the government of SIN indirectly and SQ's pilot union actually has a tumultuous relationship, by SIN's standards, with its management. A political member actually revoked a pilot's immigration status due to his involvement in a particular issue.
Lee Kuan Yew and SIA (http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-040314.htm)

This is not the best of democracy, but at the end, $$$$ rolls in and that's what matters most.. Bear with it and you will be rewarded. That's the underlying message to the staff of SQ :)

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ leewan .. any memories of the SIN docker's strike in the 60's? Where LKY pointed out they would be severely damaging the SIN economy? they said they didn't care ... they were going to strike anyway.

At which point LKY said, "OK, basically that's treason. Visas and passports will be withdrawn, go away to another country." There was no strike.

Strikes are a blunt instrument, that can actually go head-on against democracy. Several thousand people against a nation, causing massive damage for a selfish [and I mean that in the literal sense] cause. What price the company, or the people, or the Nation?

As many others have said, if you don't like the job and T&Cs, go and get a different one. I had 30 happy years working for a 'company' that demanded 100% obedience. In return it gave me job security, promotion prospects and a decent pension at the end. It seemed like a good deal to me, and it still does to this day. :cool:

[PAXboy]

Slightly off topic and at serious risk ...
There are many peoples in the world who do NOT want democracy in the Western 'ideal'. (Ideal, given that democracy at this stage of the Western world is fairly impure!) There are many countries that will use the front of democracy to establish the old methods of ruling. If their process is 'reset' by the West and they continue to revert to their old method - and the population let them - then there is some indication that they all like what they are used to.

Not saying it's good.
Not saying I'm thrilled about UK democracy (or USA for that matter) but I have chosen to stay in the UK.
Not saying we are better but western democracy is a much overated commodity, as Bush and Blair found out the hard way.

[liteswap]

As the OP, I'm with PAXboy on the democracy issue: we in the West think it's great but that doesn't necessarily apply elsewhere, and I certainly don't want my government spending my money forcing it down the throats of other nations.

Back on topic: I just got back from the US (LHR-ORD-DEN-BIS then BIS-ORD-LHR) all on United. The CC were in the main brisk and professional, although events that stick in the mind are one of them cruising up and down the aisle asking if anyone had chocolates for the cabin crew, a bellowed 'seatbelts, seatbelts!' as landing time approached, as if we were naughty schoolchildren rather than customers, but also the sheer delight in the eyes of a small boy, about six I'd guess, who after being ushered up to the cockpit of the Canadair regional jet on the BIS-ORD leg to talk to the pilots before take-off, came back with a badge. Can't imagine that happening on BA...

But the food was (as I noted) universally grim. Maybe I'm just picky about the quality of what I eat but fix that and the demands for money for anything outside the (very) basics, and UA could go some way towards rescuing its image.

[AirborneSoon]

SQ's success comes down to many things not just the age of the cc. The company obviously spends the money where it counts, catering, aircraft fitouts, uniforms, training etc. Everything about the airline is first class even in economy. When you've got a great product it's so much easier to find a sense of pride in what you do as well. Clearly SQ girls think they have a job worth hanging onto to jump through the hoops in order to keep it.

What's increasingly occuring in the west though is cost cutting down to the wire and the introduction of hard management. Nothing there to attract and keep good people beyond their own "living the dream" concept which is soon beaten out of them. It's hard to maintain impeccable service when you're serving up something you'd be embarassed to offer anyone and working in an aircraft that appears to be held together with duct tape. :ugh:

I agree that airlines need to get more from their crew but cutting t&c's until they can hardly get a decent applicant isn't the way to do it. They often market the FA lifestyle as being a drawcard into the industry. But new FAs soon discover that the much touted lifestyle doesn't exist anymore. It flew out the window with the rest of the glory days. They either need to offer good money and ask a lot for it, or offer low money but have other drawcards like decent layovers, career progression or some other compensation.

Many airlines also leave the service training to an afterthought. If you want seamless, consistent service you have to create it, then teach it. Not leave it up to the individual to figure out on the job or invent it themselves. :hmm: If it only takes 5-6 weeks to train a FA in safety procedures then clearly SQ are spending 14 weeks on service standards in their much touted 5 month training course. No wonder everyone knows what to do, when to do it and delivers it flawlessly.

I very much doubt SQ are subscribers to the churn and burn strategies so popular with crewing departments these days. When it costs the company a 5 month investment in training a new crew member alone you can bet they are hanging onto their trained staff to get value for money. To do that they must be offering a lifestyle or wage of value to their people.

[Wannabe Flyer]

Its about the law of the land.

Singapore permits a get married get fired approach, Singapore permits a get fat get fired approach, Singapore permits a get old (26) please retire policy.

Net result is there is constant fresh eager blood at such airlines that are willing to work longer, for less and better as they have chosen this career as a pit stop on their way to something else and not a place where they will grow old. Fresh blood, eager hands = better service amongst other things.

It is akin to one leasing an automobile so that they get a fresh and new one every 24 to 39 months. Off course you wont have any issues with the latest and freshest technological marvels, off course your old jalopy will give you groans creaks and moans over a period of time and off course it will not be able to compare in performance to a newer model.

So I guess it boils down to having a gripe with the labor laws in individual countries that tie down the hands of many operators. :oh:

[leewan]

I wasn't even born when this incident happened in the 60s, TTB:) But I do remember watching a video of it in my history class during my schooling years.

Now as much as I'm against strikes, there are times I feel they should occur. The lack of strikes or the law against them has, I feel, has actually emboldened some companies to force half-baked, ill-thought, lop-sided policies down employees throats. And they do this in the comfort that there's nothing much the workers can do. I mean, what's the worst that can happen for the company.The most they can do is go to court which SIA's Pilots union has gone to many times. And the court will actually hammer out a deal or come to a compromise between the two parties. AFAIK, it has never ruled in total favour of the workers. It doesn't punish the company for any policies, no matter how detrimental it would be to the workers. And so this, I feel, encourages the company to come up with as many evil plots as possible and see which can go through.

Having said that, the end users are the actual innocent victims in this cross fire between workers and employer. And in the case of SQ, all the reputation that they built up over the years will go up in smoke if a strike were to occur in SQ. And if the disgruntled pax take their business elsewhere, then there will be no business for SQ and staff will have to go, making the idea of a strike self-defeating. End of the day, there must be total trust and transparency between the company and workers. The workers do not want to be taken for fools or second class citizens as in the case where a company makes money, gives its management a healthy paycheck and good dividends to its shareholders, but does not want to share with its staff or even worse, squeezes them further.

Here'e a gem of a video I found on YT on this whole issue including bits of SQ cc training, enjoy :

YouTube - History Of Singapore ?????? (III) Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw0-RyBhlwA&feature=related)

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ leewan ... Selamat datang, Inche, terimah kasseh.
Sorry, I never did Mandarin!! :ok:

The basic principle everyone should try to follow is that "We are all in the same boat". Your point on education is critical - people do not have a right to say how the company should operate, and the company does not have a right to make unreasonable impositions. With a sensible approach from BOTH ends, sensible people will eventually arrive in the middle.

And, ahhh ... the customer.
Often forgotten, and thus a great risk to ANY company. ;)

[Rush2112]

My 2p worth:

SQ actually goes against general Singaporean culture - it is NOT a service-based mindset. Shop assistants treat you like a nuisance, they'll be on the phone while taking your money. If you go to one with a size L shirt and ask do you have this in XL, it'll be "No". They won't say "No, but we have an XL in this (different) colour". "Are there restrooms on this floor?" gets "No", not "No, they are the next floor." Taxi drivers won't pick you up in the rain, they don't know where anywhere is and don't care, I could go on and on.

I'm the regional COO for an insurance company and the hardest thing I have here is getting them to answer the phone properly - "Good morning, thank you for calling XYZ Company, <name> speaking, how can I help you?" is a phrase beyond all of them naturally and it takes constant training to try and instill it!

[Bigmouth]

I'll take SQ service over UA/AA/DL/BA/LH anyday.
But if a flock of geese have it in for us or a volcano decides to send an ash cloud our way, I'll change my mind in heart beat.

[EastMids]

Four long haul sectors on UA this year - LHR-LAX, LAX-LHR, LHR-SFO, SFO-LHR - and two on SQ - LHR-SIN, SIN-LHR - for me. Clearly the hard product isn't as good on UA as it is on SQ - although I don't find anything much to complain about with UA's newer business class seat, IFE etc, and if I have to travel in Y I'd take UA's economy plus over SQ economy every time. But based on my this-year experiences, as far as the crew were concerned I'd also take UA over SQ. Whilst SQ crews are undoubtedly efficient, its all a bit too clinical and detatched for me - whereas UA crews have been friendly, helpful and pleasant. Maybe its because I don't expect the cabin crew to jump everytime I ding the call bell (I'd rather get up, go to the galley and ask for another drink there rather than expect to be waited upon, even in business class), but I find that UA trans-Atlantic crews have always been good particularly if you make an effort too.

Andy