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.

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

[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]

Culture ..

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.