http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/t ... passengers
Text can be found on https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comm ... il_to_wow/

Apparently, the privacy on SQ's new suites on the A380 is considered insufficient by some passengers, especially when the doors are open.

Those who have flown in the A-380's ultra first-class Suites, since the new-look aircraft made its debut on the Singapore-Sydney route in December, have complained of a lack of privacy, especially during meal times when the sliding doors are kept open. And when the door is closed, it rattles loudly, especially during take-off.

It is a clear unobstructed view between Suites across the aisle, they say. There are six Suites on the revamped A-380s.

An SIA spokesman told The Straits Times: "We received some feedback regarding noise from the Suites' doors but it has since been resolved. Some customers also shared that when the doors are open during meal times, they will be able to see inside the other Suite across the aisle.

I guess you start minding such small things when you pay $15.000 for a return ticket.
If this photo shows the view of a sitting passenger, I can imagine you'd be staring at the passenger across the aisle when the doors are open.

You'd think SQ would have thought this through considering the time it took them to get these... they even got the 2 - 2 - 2 window config on the upper decj done specifically for this setup. Lets hope they can fix this hastle free.

They did not test this before putting paying customers in it???

mxaxai wrote:

Apparently, the privacy on SQ's new suites on the A380 is considered insufficient by some passengers, especially when the doors are open.

Mindblowing.

When the door is open I really don't see what the problem is, if you want privacy close the door! Now with the door closed there should be privacy. Is there a reason that they cannot take the wall all the way to the ceiling of the aircraft? I don't like that, it seems like someone could look over the top and it also doesn't really stop any sound from getting out. If I want to have sex with someone in that bed you don't want someone looking over the top and with how short that wall is I would imagine that even if you are both completely quiet the other passengers would be able to hear the breathing and other sounds associated with getting it on! I personally wouldn't care, I'd do it in the aisle in front of everyone and it wouldn't bother me but there is obviously going to be other passengers who don't want to hear that and not everyone is like me so they might be embarrassed if other people know what they are doing in there!

ual747den wrote:

When the door is open I really don't see what the problem is, if you want privacy close the door! Now with the door closed there should be privacy. Is there a reason that they cannot take the wall all the way to the ceiling of the aircraft? I don't like that, it seems like someone could look over the top and it also doesn't really stop any sound from getting out.

Crew often look over the partitions, especially to ensure that passengers are buckled in when the Fasten Seatbelt sign turns on.

If I want to have sex with someone in that bed

Make alternative plans, like waiting until you arrive at your destination and doing it in a hotel room.

SQ seems to be becoming more like LH. An organization that is so hierarchical that it fails to see diverse viewpoints, and filled with "yes men and women".

Not surprised.

Saludos,
Alex

ual747den wrote:

When the door is open I really don't see what the problem is, if you want privacy close the door!

You can't during mealtime. Did you read the article or even the summary of it? Nobody wants to stare at somebody else while they eat. Not even economy passengers have to do that, and they're paying a lot less.

If I want to have sex with someone in that bed

I always shake my head when people think this is the point. I'm not saying it never happens, but not many people are having sex in those beds. For one thing, if you're traveling with somebody you want to have sex with, presumably you will also be with them when you get off the plane, and can do it in a much more comfortable bed somewhere. Airplanes are about the least romantic place to have sex that I can think of, and that includes suites like these. There's too much noise, too many people walking around, not enough room.

I say that as someone who has flown in first class suites with my wife. It's just about the last place either of us would want to do it. And I've never seen (or heard) evidence of other people doing it. Most people flying first class are doing so solitary to begin with.

These privacy concerns come from people who are spending $10-$15k on a ticket and don't want people leering at them while sleeping. Also, many famous people travel this way and they don't necessarily even want other people to know they're on the plane. Say a celebrity is flying in one of these suites, and somebody sees them through the open door of their suite while boarding or during meal service when the curtain (and suite door) is open. There's nothing physically preventing that person from then also walking up to the FC cabin and peering over the wall of their suite while they're asleep or watching a movie. They'd probably even be able to get a quick photo before they were chased out by the FA's.

I love these ridiculous first world problems.
Sounds like pupils in school : "NO, you can't peep over my shoulder, no way !"

Apparently, the privacy on SQ's new suites on the A380 is considered insufficient by some passengers, especially when the doors are open.

You could say the same about public toilets. #closethedoor

Yes, one could always close the door to get some privacy. Just not during the meal time. FA will have passengers leave it open for smooth flow of service, and they can't help but stare at each others through the open doors.
Wouldn't inverting the order of suites in either row solve the problem though? Make 1A a single suite and 2A/3A a double bed one, so that the doors can be in a staggered arrangement instead of being aligned to each other.

I personally think this wouldn't be such a big matter as it is right now, but we're talking about SQ's suite I guess..

The problem is that the new upper deck suites are effectively a downgrade from the old lower deck suites. Less privacy both open and closed. The old design was a mini cabin. This is a cubical with walls under 5 feet high. It’s horrible considering the cost.

Note to myself: never book first class on SIA...

Would it be possible that, if these issues aren't solved, SQ might just ditch first class on these particular A380s and put more J? At 15k a pop for a return ticket, they have to be facing considerable competition from biz jet charters for fare-paying F...

BartSimpson wrote:

Note to myself: never book first class on SIA...

I detect a whaff of satire in this post post.

In any case, Singapore Airlines has always always invested a lot in the products and updated their products regularly.

Case in point, their long-haul Business Class circa 2007. It was the first to go 1-2-1 on a large scale and it won numerous accolades. People were impressed by how massive it was but not long after, people realised it was well, too wide. One wouldn't be able to use both arm rests at once. SQ responded quickly by adding a removable rectangular support onto the seat that doubled up as an arm rest. The seat continued to be well-received otherwise but they still invested billions of dollars to redesign it for the ground up and the result was a very different 2013 Business Class seat.

The article in the opening post already stated that they had since corrected the rattling noise the door makes when opening and closing. I'm sure they'll rectify the privacy issue within a few months tops. Also only 2 planes have these "New Suites". If memory serves me right, they'll only get the third new A380 in Q4 this year.

Looking at the seat map, they are going to have an awfully difficult time redesigning they layout to make the door openings staggered. I suppose making one of the layouts of the single suite a mirror image of itself, and swapping the position of the double suites might do it, if the suite was not equally sized on each side of the door, but would that be sufficient to change the alignment of the doors to give the privacy needed?

Let's hope SQ do not need to sacrifice one fo the single suites on one side to solve this, or are forced into a redesign the galley space. It could turn into an expensive fix.

DWC wrote:

I love these ridiculous first world problems.

Given that a ticket costs more than I, a physician, make in a month, I think that dismissing F class passenger concerns as "ridiculous first world problems" is...a bit off.

DocLightning wrote:

DWC wrote:

I love these ridiculous first world problems.

Given that a ticket costs more than I, a physician, make in a month, I think that dismissing F class passenger concerns as "ridiculous first world problems" is...a bit off.

I’d agree with your point. It might sound like “first-world problems” (and actually, it is), but if I’m paying that much for a return ticket, I expect nothing less than perfection.

reffado wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

DWC wrote:

I love these ridiculous first world problems.

Given that a ticket costs more than I, a physician, make in a month, I think that dismissing F class passenger concerns as "ridiculous first world problems" is...a bit off.

I’d agree with your point. It might sound like “first-world problems” (and actually, it is), but if I’m paying that much for a return ticket, I expect nothing less than perfection.

Perfection is not the point, for that money of course. Perfection is service, I've lived or worked decades in SE-Asia, no other continent comes close. But flying in a canned suite is neither part or their culture nor an ideal to fly.

So what I question is the "no eye-contact with a human being" as criterion for perfection.

One may not agree, but Lufthansa and QR like many other airlines, purposedly maintain an open F cabin.
Enclosing oneself in a gadget-rich F cabin, the new EK Suite comes to mind, signs something very wrong in human relations.
What is even more abnormal, is that people like us below the means to travel consider that as a standard for airlines to have.
It is not only alienating, it condones a materialistic way of living for people who do not want to show their wealth - just crazy.
If someone wants full enclosure & perimeter totally secured, take a week-end in an asylum, full board guaranteed but perhaps too cheap ?.

DWC wrote:

reffado wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

Given that a ticket costs more than I, a physician, make in a month, I think that dismissing F class passenger concerns as "ridiculous first world problems" is...a bit off.

I’d agree with your point. It might sound like “first-world problems” (and actually, it is), but if I’m paying that much for a return ticket, I expect nothing less than perfection.

Perfection is not the point, for that money of course. Perfection is service, I've lived or worked decades in SE-Asia, no other continent comes close. But flying in a canned suite is neither part or their culture nor an ideal to fly.

So what I question is the "no eye-contact with a human being" as criterion for perfection.

One may not agree, but Lufthansa and QR like many other airlines, purposedly maintain an open F cabin.
Enclosing oneself in a gadget-rich F cabin, the new EK Suite comes to mind, signs something very wrong in human relations.
What is even more abnormal, is that people like us below the means to travel consider that as a standard for airlines to have.
It is not only alienating, it condones a materialistic way of living for people who do not want to show their wealth - just crazy.
If someone wants full enclosure & perimeter totally secured, take a week-end in an asylum, full board guaranteed but perhaps too cheap ?.

Don’t get me wrong, I fully agree with this.

My comment wasn’t necessarily directed to imply that perfection meant isolation - to me, perfection would be the opposite. It simply is supposed to mean that SQ is charging as much as it does for a suite that has privacy and individuality as it’s main marketing monickers. Therefore, it’s likely that customers paying for that product would not be content with anything less - which is the issue here.

It all comes down to marketing. You can’t sell “a space that’s all yours” (actual words from SQ) when this isn’t actually the case and be surprised when customers complain.

tullamarine wrote:

You could say the same about public toilets. #closethedoor

Except the issue is a fundamental design flaw in the cabin. The only set up that allows for meal service is to sit in the chair facing out towards the opposite suite and the door to remain open as otherwise the crew can’t serve you.

You therefore end up with this view:

Curtesy of Lucky@onemileatatime

There is no other first or business class layout in the world that has you eyeballing other passengers (at least without choosing to)

VFRonTop wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

You could say the same about public toilets. #closethedoor

Except the issue is a fundamental design flaw in the cabin. The only set up that allows for meal service is to sit in the chair facing out towards the opposite suite and the door to remain open as otherwise the crew can’t serve you.

You therefore end up with this view:

Curtesy of Lucky@onemileatatime

There is no other first or business class layout in the world that has you eyeballing other passengers (at least without choosing to)

DL's old 777 interior lets you look at their feet when you eat

AAs flagship suite took a much better approach. You faced out the window to use he main desk/table. It was an amazing experience to have a comfy chair and a large table facing out into the world. That table stayed there the whole time. If you didn’t want to face out, another table would swing around and you could face forward to eat or work. The genius was that you had multiple surfaces. You could leave your laptop or work on the desk and still eat or what have you.

If you were traveling with someone, you could choose the middle row seats and then have dinner at a table where you faced each other (partition down).

The flagship suite was such a great product. I only got to fly it once but it was the best international F/J design I’ve ever been on. Maybe not as luxuriously appointed, but functionally, it was great.

VFRonTop wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

You could say the same about public toilets. #closethedoor

Except the issue is a fundamental design flaw in the cabin. The only set up that allows for meal service is to sit in the chair facing out towards the opposite suite and the door to remain open as otherwise the crew can’t serve you.

You therefore end up with this view:

Curtesy of Lucky@onemileatatime

There is no other first or business class layout in the world that has you eyeballing other passengers (at least without choosing to)

I think this picture helps visualise the problem.
In a typical cabin configuration, from Economy to First, there are more people around you but here are only 2 passengers and they are directly facing each other at that. Plainly awkward.

I might be on this Suite on SQ 322 in December this year and if they haven't rectified this issue yet, I'd ask to have my meal from the bed (botom left corner, folded in this picture) instead of the seat to avoid awkwardly staring at another passenger while we eat!

I have to agree that the SQ suite design is awkward. SQ's a great airline but this suite design doesn't seem to have any clear advantages over Etihad's apartment despite being more spacious. Its certainly less private.

Have not tried it yet but sounds like the designers got it wrong. (Don't they do trial flights
in ground mockups?)
The current version has a major flaw, and that is.. no air! It's so stuffy I cannot sleep unless
I leave the door and windows open.
(It does seem that unlike 747's and 777's which always have a torrent of fresh air, Airbus wide
bodies economise with aircon flow)

ual747den wrote:

If I want to have sex with someone in that bed you don't want someone looking over the top and with how short that wall is I would imagine that even if you are both completely quiet the other passengers would be able to hear the breathing and other sounds associated with getting it on! I personally wouldn't care, I'd do it in the aisle in front of everyone and it wouldn't bother me but there is obviously going to be other passengers who don't want to hear that and not everyone is like me so they might be embarrassed if other people know what they are doing in there!

OMG, one of the most hilarious posts I've seen on A.net in a long time - I love it! Yes, how about some consideration for the sexually active on board airliners? The details are a scream - having sex with "someone" (anyone I suppose) and doing in the aisle (what's the big deal folks?) - too funny.

Thank you ual747den for making my day. I hope SQ considers your comments in redesigning the suite!

When they were advertising the suites before the introduction of the A380 it gave the impression of total privacy. And the occasional adventurous passenger (perhaps not so occasional) would expect that what he payed for to be totally worth the experience and not just a prudish product. But then,not even the mighty Titanic had bulkheads that went all the way up...

The PROBLEM is during meal service. Each suite's armchair is swiveled toward the open door, allowing a person in another suite to look directly at another passenger eating. (Who want's to be watched while they're eating?)

I spotted this problem from the beginning because the SQ New Suites armchairs do not swivel ENOUGH. They swivel towards the left to view the flat screen above the bed, to 90° relative to the forward motion of the aircraft, and not much else. A better solution would have the armchair swivel through 135° so that it can face forward (for meal time), face port/starboard for relaxing and getting ready to turn in (with the suite doors closed), and swivel ~135° relative to the aircraft's travel in order to view that large articulated flat screen. Obviously, recline would have to be limited at some of these swivel angles. Problem solved.

A privacy door isn't hard to make quiet. Ball-bearings, baffling, and those quiet self-closing door stops. Easy.