Who would win if there was a 'South Asia' category?

J343 wrote:

ANA 3rd place..really? I have flown their Y product and I must say, it was one of the worst, if not the worst! Very narrow and uncomfortable. Very shoked to see CX falling down the rankings, they have always been the best airline I have ever flown with, their Y product is possibly the most comfortable I have ever been on.i found SQ's Y product to be very uncomfortable.

To judge if an Airline is 5* or not, you cannot rely on the experience of a flight in Y.

I have flown ANA quite a few times in J class and every time, it was an amazing experience. No "bling bling" cabin with fake marble, gold everywhere and pretentious service.
They propose a clean,fresh and spacious cabin with lie flat seats, good privacy, and a thin futon which adds a lot to the sleeping comfort. The service is outstanding: the flight attendants are discrete, but very aware of everyone's needs. Empty your water bottle in the middle of a night flight and go back to sleep without telling anyone. If you open your eyes five minutes later, there will be a new bottle there … it's a tiny detail, but it shows you how professional they are. Service is there throughout all the duration of the flight. From an operational point of view, they are also very reliable, despite the 787 engines mess.
They truly deserve their place in the top 5 and I wonder what LH is doing in the top 10

timtam wrote:

I had an interesting experience with this survey in the past.

I was flying Singapore Airlines on two legs from Australian to Europe. On the first leg the level of service was outstanding. There were loads of staff on the flight, the catering was excellent and they were regularly offering extras. It was the best service I have experienced on a flight. Later in the flight, I was handed the survey form and gave Singapore Airlines a glowing review.

Next leg, the complete opposite,. The staff have disappeared and they seem badly understaffed. After being spoilt in the first leg, the second leg was one of the worst service experiences I have had on a flight. Obviously there was no survey form in that leg of the flight and I would have given Singapore Airlines quite a different review.

I can relate to that experience, as I had such opposite experiences on several SQ flights... plus their ground staff in SIN is often useless and snobbish...

When SQ gives a textbook performance, they are top, but so is CX and NH to me.

ahj2000 wrote:

With the exception of Lufthansa's score, they all actually look reasonable.
Why LH is suddenly a 5-star, #7 airline is beyond me...

People always forget that a large portion of the marking also comes from ground service, i.e. airport terminals. LH is certainly providing an outstanding and rather seamless product at its home bases... while FRA was never a great airport to fly from, MUC is all the more pleasant... to me, MUC T2 is even better than most asian airports, incl. Changi.

seb76 wrote:

J343 wrote:

ANA 3rd place..really? I have flown their Y product and I must say, it was one of the worst, if not the worst! Very narrow and uncomfortable. Very shoked to see CX falling down the rankings, they have always been the best airline I have ever flown with, their Y product is possibly the most comfortable I have ever been on.i found SQ's Y product to be very uncomfortable.

To judge if an Airline is 5* or not, you cannot rely on the experience of a flight in Y.

I have flown ANA quite a few times in J class and every time, it was an amazing experience. No "bling bling" cabin with fake marble, gold everywhere and pretentious service.
They propose a clean,fresh and spacious cabin with lie flat seats, good privacy, and a thin futon which adds a lot to the sleeping comfort. The service is outstanding: the flight attendants are discrete, but very aware of everyone's needs. Empty your water bottle in the middle of a night flight and go back to sleep without telling anyone. If you open your eyes five minutes later, there will be a new bottle there … it's a tiny detail, but it shows you how professional they are. Service is there throughout all the duration of the flight. From an operational point of view, they are also very reliable, despite the 787 engines mess.
They truly deserve their place in the top 5 and I wonder what LH is doing in the top 10

LH is there because of exactly what you wrote about ANA.
On all my flights with LH in J, E and Y my empty water got replaced after a short time without the need to tell the crew. Additionaly they also offer a spaceous cabin, lie flat, a futon, attentious but not obtrusive service...
And they also don't have 9 abreast in a 787

trijetsonly wrote:

seb76 wrote:

J343 wrote:

ANA 3rd place..really? I have flown their Y product and I must say, it was one of the worst, if not the worst! Very narrow and uncomfortable. Very shoked to see CX falling down the rankings, they have always been the best airline I have ever flown with, their Y product is possibly the most comfortable I have ever been on.i found SQ's Y product to be very uncomfortable.

To judge if an Airline is 5* or not, you cannot rely on the experience of a flight in Y.

I have flown ANA quite a few times in J class and every time, it was an amazing experience. No "bling bling" cabin with fake marble, gold everywhere and pretentious service.
They propose a clean,fresh and spacious cabin with lie flat seats, good privacy, and a thin futon which adds a lot to the sleeping comfort. The service is outstanding: the flight attendants are discrete, but very aware of everyone's needs. Empty your water bottle in the middle of a night flight and go back to sleep without telling anyone. If you open your eyes five minutes later, there will be a new bottle there … it's a tiny detail, but it shows you how professional they are. Service is there throughout all the duration of the flight. From an operational point of view, they are also very reliable, despite the 787 engines mess.
They truly deserve their place in the top 5 and I wonder what LH is doing in the top 10

LH is there because of exactly what you wrote about ANA.
On all my flights with LH in J, E and Y my empty water got replaced after a short time without the need to tell the crew. Additionaly they also offer a spaceous cabin, lie flat, a futon, attentious but not obtrusive service...
And they also don't have 9 abreast in a 787

Amongs all major airlines in Europe, I found LH to deliver the most consistent service up in the air and on the ground. Yes, ratings dont just come from flying Y or their Y product but NH's J class isn't exaxtly bling bling as I actually enjoyed their J product more than SQ. Y on the other hand, CX has wider seats, crew are fantastic and IFE is great. I know CX service has gone downhill recently, I still find them better than NH and of course I think JL is miles better than NH.

XAM2175 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

SQ made its last flight with the 744 a bit over six years ago, in April 2012. While I can understand that even at that point in time the lack of personal video would have been disappointing on a long-haul aircraft, basing your entire perception of the airline on it would be a bit like me basing my impression of Qantas entirely upon one experience aboard one of the B734s they inherited from TAA.

I remember flying to New York on SQ in 2001 and IIRC they had individual seat-back screens even then! I seem to remember they were industry leaders in rolling it out...

Philippine747 wrote:

I am quite curious to where the "pay to get the star" comes from. I understand the Hainan Airlines example, but I want to see other examples if ever....

I flew Hainan Airlines from London Heathrow to Changsha on Business Class back in May.
It was the best Business Class experience I've ever had. (and I flew quite a few business classes). This is despite of their antiquated Business Class hard product.
The service on board was simply A.M.A.Z.I.N.G. !!
They totally deserve to be a top airliner.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

XAM2175 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

SQ made its last flight with the 744 a bit over six years ago, in April 2012. While I can understand that even at that point in time the lack of personal video would have been disappointing on a long-haul aircraft, basing your entire perception of the airline on it would be a bit like me basing my impression of Qantas entirely upon one experience aboard one of the B734s they inherited from TAA.

I remember flying to New York on SQ in 2001 and IIRC they had individual seat-back screens even then! I seem to remember they were industry leaders in rolling it out...

In fact my first ever flight with in-seat IFE in Eco was on a SQ 744 in 1997.

KL001 wrote:

What is so special about Bangkok Airways that they rank 21st? Looks like nothing special to me.

They are a great little airline - one of my favourites.

Singapore Airlines: 787s
Qatar Airways: 787s, 10-abreast 777s
ANA: 787s, 10-abreast 777s
Emirates: 10-abreast 777s
EVA: 10-abreast 777s
Cathay Pacific: 10-abreast 777s
Lufthansa: horrendous seat pitch
Hainan: 787s

Value of this rating: 0

Meanwhile JAL with 8 abreast 787 is not in top 10

downdata wrote:

Meanwhile JAL with 8 abreast 787 is not in top 10

Exactly. Nor Delta, nor Finnair, nor SAS...

SO how do we make sense of this when Airline Ratings and others have a completely different rating? Surely the answer is this rating is not worth the paper it is written on. Just a promotional tool by those who chose to play the game with Skytrax as opposed to those who chose to play the game with Airline Ratings or any other rating agency. It amazes me that thee ratings get the mileage they do on this website. Not worth spending much time on IMHO.

timtam wrote:

I had an interesting experience with this survey in the past.

I was flying Singapore Airlines on two legs from Australian to Europe. On the first leg the level of service was outstanding. There were loads of staff on the flight, the catering was excellent and they were regularly offering extras. It was the best service I have experienced on a flight. Later in the flight, I was handed the survey form and gave Singapore Airlines a glowing review.

Next leg, the complete opposite,. The staff have disappeared and they seem badly understaffed. After being spoilt in the first leg, the second leg was one of the worst service experiences I have had on a flight. Obviously there was no survey form in that leg of the flight and I would have given Singapore Airlines quite a different review.

Seems like you got a SPS survery (Station performance survey). Its allotted from Singapore and is given to randomly selected passengers. The survey has nothing to do with Skytrax but for internal audit from SQ.

Ziyulu wrote:

huaiwei wrote:

CantbeGrounded wrote:

Hand it to Singapore - Best Airport and Best Airline.

Skytrax awards are based on reviews, so you can't decline to participate. It's not a survey.

Thank you. Despite Singapore's reputation, this is actually the first time both airline and airport are #1 in skytrax concurrently.

There is indeed a survey online. Always wondered how they filtered out non-travellers who could simply lie their way through the profile section...if they even bothered to do so.

Ziyulu wrote:

When I last flew with SQ, they didn't even have individual screens at each seat, but their service was just about average. Nothing good to brag about. So I think they are overrated.

That situation does not exist on any SQ plane unless there is a tech issue. I suppose you cant differentiate an MI or Scoot plane from SQ's? No wonder SQ decided to merge MI back in!

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

SQ innovated PTV in the airline industry and it was the 744 that was the launched aircraft with the new system so what are you talking about? Did you base your review on a flight from the 1970's?

blooc350 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

huaiwei wrote:

Thank you. Despite Singapore's reputation, this is actually the first time both airline and airport are #1 in skytrax concurrently.

There is indeed a survey online. Always wondered how they filtered out non-travellers who could simply lie their way through the profile section...if they even bothered to do so.


That situation does not exist on any SQ plane unless there is a tech issue. I suppose you cant differentiate an MI or Scoot plane from SQ's? No wonder SQ decided to merge MI back in!

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

SQ innovated PTV in the airline industry and it was the 744 that was the launched aircraft with the new system so what are you talking about? Did you base your review on a flight from the 1970's?

Nope, it was a flight in the early 2000s. I flew on AA's 777 and they had screens. And back then, I truly thought in my heart that AA had better service than SQ. But today, AA is down the toilet.

workhorse wrote:

Singapore Airlines: 787s
Qatar Airways: 787s, 10-abreast 777s
ANA: 787s, 10-abreast 777s
Emirates: 10-abreast 777s
EVA: 10-abreast 777s
Cathay Pacific: 10-abreast 777s
Lufthansa: horrendous seat pitch
Hainan: 787s

Value of this rating: 0

B/c Skytrax has always been F & J centric rather than all you peeps back in Y? What kind of service you really expect in Y anyway?

And seriously, there's only 1 and only airline in the world that still has 8-abrest 787 (JL). Get over it, it's not coming back.

zakuivcustom wrote:

B/c Skytrax has always been F & J centric rather than all you peeps back in Y?

Then they should call it "Best airlnes for business and first class passengers".

The vast majority of passengers fly in Y.

zakuivcustom wrote:

What kind of service you really expect in Y anyway?

Very simple: a service where my back and my legs do not hurt for hours after the flight. I can pass on the caviar and champagne.

zakuivcustom wrote:

And seriously, there's only 1 and only airline in the world that still has 8-abrest 787 (JL). Get over it, it's not coming back.

You're right. That's why the simple presence of the 787 in an airline's fleet is enough reason for it to be excluded from the list of premium airlines.

Ziyulu wrote:

blooc350 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

SQ innovated PTV in the airline industry and it was the 744 that was the launched aircraft with the new system so what are you talking about? Did you base your review on a flight from the 1970's?

Nope, it was a flight in the early 2000s. I flew on AA's 777 and they had screens. And back then, I truly thought in my heart that AA had better service than SQ. But today, AA is down the toilet.

And up till now, it is still up in the air whether you actually flew on a SQ frame when all of SQ's planes have PTVs for decades.

workhorse wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

B/c Skytrax has always been F & J centric rather than all you peeps back in Y?

Then they should call it "Best airlnes for business and first class passengers".

The vast majority of passengers fly in Y.

zakuivcustom wrote:

What kind of service you really expect in Y anyway?

Very simple: a service where my back and my legs do not hurt for hours after the flight. I can pass on the caviar and champagne.

zakuivcustom wrote:

And seriously, there's only 1 and only airline in the world that still has 8-abrest 787 (JL). Get over it, it's not coming back.

You're right. That's why the simple presence of the 787 in an airline's fleet is enough reason for it to be excluded from the list of premium airlines.

I actually do not feel the survey is front-centric. If it is, some horrid airlines from North America which only focuses on service up front will be ranked higher!

As for your complains about seat width...that's a typically Western-centric complaint. Can't argue with biology that the vast majority of Asians happen to be smaller in size physically, and hence have far less issues with either seat width or pitch.

And with Asians becoming ever more prolific flyers compared to the West, you can expect that they will increasingly dictate market trends.

huaiwei wrote:

I actually do not feel the survey is front-centric. If it is, some horrid airlines from North America which only focuses on service up front will be ranked higher!

Which one specifically? US3 service overall would just not be up to par on average, but part of it also has to do with the fact that they fly a ton more flights every single day.

huaiwei wrote:

As for your complains about seat width...that's a typically Western-centric complaint. Can't argue with biology that the vast majority of Asians happen to be smaller in size physically, and hence have far less issues with either seat width or pitch.

And with Asians becoming ever more prolific flyers compared to the West, you can expect that they will increasingly dictate market trends.

I found this ironic, as those East Asian airlines on top of the ranking offered more legroom on average compare to "western" carrier. Not to mention, JL is the only carrier that offered 8-abrest 787, and Japanese frame size are definitely relatively small compare to "westerner".

huaiwei wrote:

As for your complains about seat width...that's a typically Western-centric complaint. Can't argue with biology that the vast majority of Asians happen to be smaller in size physically, and hence have far less issues with either seat width or pitch.

And yet, Asian airlines have been the last ones to succomb to greed and reconfigure their 777s to 10 abreast. And yet, the only airline to still fly 8 abreast 787s is Asian.

KL001 wrote:

What is so special about Bangkok Airways that they rank 21st? Looks like nothing special to me.

I've flown them a few times and it's always a pleasure. Amazingly friendly staff, great on-board product and lounge access for all.

Ziyulu wrote:

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

All of SQ's 744s had PTVs. SQ hasn't had aircraft without PTVs for, I'd say, about 20 years.

huaiwei wrote:

And up till now, it is still up in the air whether you actually flew on a SQ frame when all of SQ's planes have PTVs for decades.

He's just trolling. He's obviously never flown SQ.

workhorse wrote:

huaiwei wrote:

Asians happen to be smaller in size physically, and hence have far less issues with either seat width or pitch.

And yet, Asian airlines have been the last ones to succomb to greed and reconfigure their 777s to 10 abreast.And yet, the only airline to still fly 8 abreast 787s is Asian.

But... the only two airline group(s) flying 9 abreast 330s also happen to be Asian
(330 is considerably narrower than the 787)

- Air Asia - Air Asia X, Thai Air Asia X, Indonesia Air Asia X; and
- Cebu Pacific

AirIndia wrote:

timtam wrote:

I had an interesting experience with this survey in the past.

I was flying Singapore Airlines on two legs from Australian to Europe. On the first leg the level of service was outstanding. There were loads of staff on the flight, the catering was excellent and they were regularly offering extras. It was the best service I have experienced on a flight. Later in the flight, I was handed the survey form and gave Singapore Airlines a glowing review.

Next leg, the complete opposite,. The staff have disappeared and they seem badly understaffed. After being spoilt in the first leg, the second leg was one of the worst service experiences I have had on a flight. Obviously there was no survey form in that leg of the flight and I would have given Singapore Airlines quite a different review.

Hey thats an interesting story. was the survey given to you a Skytrax one or SQ's internal survey?

It was a few years ago and I didnt pay too much attention as to who the survey was from. But it has always stuck in my mind because of the contrast in service between two legs on the same airline. They had beefed up the staff numbers and service levels for the first leg and then reduced the staff numbers in the second leg.

workhorse wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

B/c Skytrax has always been F & J centric rather than all you peeps back in Y?

Then they should call it "Best airlnes for business and first class passengers".

The vast majority of passengers fly in Y.

zakuivcustom wrote:

What kind of service you really expect in Y anyway?

Very simple: a service where my back and my legs do not hurt for hours after the flight. I can pass on the caviar and champagne.

zakuivcustom wrote:

And seriously, there's only 1 and only airline in the world that still has 8-abrest 787 (JL). Get over it, it's not coming back.

You're right. That's why the simple presence of the 787 in an airline's fleet is enough reason for it to be excluded from the list of premium airlines.

No one cares about the proles...it’s all about the wealthy...it takes real talent to make good, interesting, newsworthy reporting about the less well off...easier to write about the rich...they have the goods and they have the gadgets...which to many people are interesting in themselves and don’t need journalistic talent to enhance an article’s readership...applies in aviation like in any other domain...sad but true...


Faro

There is nothing wrong with SIA getting top marks. However Skytrax is a commercial consulting company. And sometimes the ranking gets funny. Like Lufthansa getting five stars for their -then- future business class last time.

I remember some Cathay flight many years ago when everything on board was like dress rehearsal perfect only to be handed over some Skytrax questionnaire after landing. Don't get me wrong Cathay is a good airline but that day was pre arranged to get absolute top marks.

The skytrax survey is a joke. No way is Lufthansa better than Garuda. No way is Lufthansa a top 10 airline. No way is Hainan a top ten airline.

Coal wrote:

huaiwei wrote:

And up till now, it is still up in the air whether you actually flew on a SQ frame when all of SQ's planes have PTVs for decades.

He's just trolling. He's obviously never flown SQ.

How do you know my personal life? Sounds like you're the one trolling. I definitely flew with them, but I did not find service to be better than AA. I flew from LAX to NRT to SIN in the early 2000s.

These surveys and the data they produce are in fact, quite subjective. There is no way anyone on the outside (like us) would have any way of verifying the data.

I once had an abysmal flight on Westjet and a few days later received a request to fill out of survey. I responded honestly ... on time, 10/10, clean aircraft, 10/10, but the rest varied from 1/10 to 6/10. When asked if I would fly them again, I filled in "not likely'. Westjet got back to me with the message "As you appear to have issues with Westjet, we are disregarding your survey"! So ... it's not hard to be "the best" when you ignore the surveys that say otherwise.

Lufthansa, is an excellent example. But I think they deserve merit. Clean, well maintained aircraft. Punctual. Very consistent service. And I know the flight is operated safely. These may not mean much to people on the "outside", but I prefer it over menus in economy, young pretty Flight Attendants or any of the other trivia I find reason for airline selction quoted here!

I have flown Singapore a few times. Very good flghts, but I found All Nippon or Cathay better. Just my (subjective) opinion. So I would really like to know how the data from these surveys is compiled and if these ratings really are "purchased".

CantbeGrounded wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

CantbeGrounded wrote:

...
Skytrax awards are based on reviews, so you can't decline to participate. It's not a survey.

This must be the joke of the day. Reviews and posts can be deleted or edited on agenda editors' discretion.

I don't see the evidence this is happening, though. For the most part, everyone agrees the winners are the winners. Why aren't that terrible airlines and airports on the top of this list? Is SQ buying their way to the top or earning it? I get it's not transparent, but I don't see the 'oh we all know' graft going on.

British Advertising Standards Association warned SkyTrax about their claims about numbers/validity of verified reviewers. There are threads on TripAdvisor and others about SkyTrax edits to customer reviews without permission.

No airline can buy this service forever. When the underlying service quality takes a nosedive, no rating agency can edit thousands of bad reviews to improve airline ratings, at least not without paying a lot more money. That is the reason this list changes drastically, even without any significant change to product and service quality

moa999 wrote:

workhorse wrote:

huaiwei wrote:

Asians happen to be smaller in size physically, and hence have far less issues with either seat width or pitch.

And yet, Asian airlines have been the last ones to succomb to greed and reconfigure their 777s to 10 abreast.And yet, the only airline to still fly 8 abreast 787s is Asian.

But... the only two airline group(s) flying 9 abreast 330s also happen to be Asian
(330 is considerably narrower than the 787)

- Air Asia - Air Asia X, Thai Air Asia X, Indonesia Air Asia X; and
- Cebu Pacific

Ever heard of Air Caraibes? 9-abreast A330 and 10-abreast A350s. Air Transat and (former) Monarch Airlines also have 9-abreast A330. Then there is Ukraine International Airlines and Thomsonfly (and Thomas Cook) with their 8-abreast B767.

P.S. The actual ranking itself, for me, just doesn't matter much other than for showing off. Is #1 (SQ) really that much better than #2 (QR) or #3 (NH)? Personally I don't think so. We can, however, agree that for the most part, those Top 10 airlines are better than, let say, US3 (Ok, I'm a UA FF, and they definitely deserved their low ranking).

Ziyulu wrote:

How do you know my personal life? Sounds like you're the one trolling. I definitely flew with them, but I did not find service to be better than AA. I flew from LAX to NRT to SIN in the early 2000s.

I hate to break it to you, but nothing you've said is coherent. Let's take a look at what you've posted

Ziyulu wrote:

When I last flew with SQ, they didn't even have individual screens at each seat, but their service was just about average. Nothing good to brag about. So I think they are overrated.

Ziyulu wrote:

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

Ziyulu wrote:

Nope, it was a flight in the early 2000s. I flew on AA's 777 and they had screens. And back then, I truly thought in my heart that AA had better service than SQ. But today, AA is down the toilet.

Ziyulu wrote:

I also flew with MH around the same time, they also did not have individual screens, but their service was a lot better than SQ. I generally don't base my reviews based on entertainment; my main focus is on food. On a flight from SIN to KUL on SQ, you only get a cup of juice. On MH, you get a drink and snacks.

Okay so let me put that together.
When you last flew Singapore Airlines, they did not have individual PTVs.
You first said it was "several years ago" but later contradicted yourself by saying it was in the early 2000s, and that it was on a 744.
The latter is impossible because all of their 744s had PTVs from way before "the early 2000s" (or "several years ago" if you will).
When numerous other posters pointed that fact out to you, you then shifted the focus to the flight attendants, saying that PTVs didn't really matter after all, it was the service where SQ wasn't up to par
You obviously just don't like SQ for some irrational reason. But so be it, just say you don't like them.
You don't have to conjure up a narrative that doesn't make any sense because that's annoying

I fly Garuda Indonesia most of the time and I have to admit their cabin crew service are the best in the world and there's a reason they won that again for 5 years in a row. Their in flight products and foods also fantastic especially for international routes.

infinit wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

How do you know my personal life? Sounds like you're the one trolling. I definitely flew with them, but I did not find service to be better than AA. I flew from LAX to NRT to SIN in the early 2000s.

I hate to break it to you, but nothing you've said is coherent. Let's take a look at what you've posted

Ziyulu wrote:

When I last flew with SQ, they didn't even have individual screens at each seat, but their service was just about average. Nothing good to brag about. So I think they are overrated.

Ziyulu wrote:

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

Ziyulu wrote:

Nope, it was a flight in the early 2000s. I flew on AA's 777 and they had screens. And back then, I truly thought in my heart that AA had better service than SQ. But today, AA is down the toilet.

Ziyulu wrote:

I also flew with MH around the same time, they also did not have individual screens, but their service was a lot better than SQ. I generally don't base my reviews based on entertainment; my main focus is on food. On a flight from SIN to KUL on SQ, you only get a cup of juice. On MH, you get a drink and snacks.

Okay so let me put that together.
When you last flew Singapore Airlines, they did not have individual PTVs.
You first said it was "several years ago" but later contradicted yourself by saying it was in the early 2000s, and that it was on a 744.
The latter is impossible because all of their 744s had PTVs from way before "the early 2000s" (or "several years ago" if you will).
When numerous other posters pointed that fact out to you, you then shifted the focus to the flight attendants, saying that PTVs didn't really matter after all, it was the service where SQ wasn't up to par
You obviously just don't like SQ for some irrational reason. But so be it, just say you don't like them.
You don't have to conjure up a narrative that doesn't make any sense because that's annoying

BOOOM! MIC DROP!!!!!

infinit wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

How do you know my personal life? Sounds like you're the one trolling. I definitely flew with them, but I did not find service to be better than AA. I flew from LAX to NRT to SIN in the early 2000s.

I hate to break it to you, but nothing you've said is coherent. Let's take a look at what you've posted

Ziyulu wrote:

When I last flew with SQ, they didn't even have individual screens at each seat, but their service was just about average. Nothing good to brag about. So I think they are overrated.

Ziyulu wrote:

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

Ziyulu wrote:

Nope, it was a flight in the early 2000s. I flew on AA's 777 and they had screens. And back then, I truly thought in my heart that AA had better service than SQ. But today, AA is down the toilet.

Ziyulu wrote:

I also flew with MH around the same time, they also did not have individual screens, but their service was a lot better than SQ. I generally don't base my reviews based on entertainment; my main focus is on food. On a flight from SIN to KUL on SQ, you only get a cup of juice. On MH, you get a drink and snacks.

Okay so let me put that together.
When you last flew Singapore Airlines, they did not have individual PTVs.
You first said it was "several years ago" but later contradicted yourself by saying it was in the early 2000s, and that it was on a 744.
The latter is impossible because all of their 744s had PTVs from way before "the early 2000s" (or "several years ago" if you will).
When numerous other posters pointed that fact out to you, you then shifted the focus to the flight attendants, saying that PTVs didn't really matter after all, it was the service where SQ wasn't up to par
You obviously just don't like SQ for some irrational reason. But so be it, just say you don't like them.
You don't have to conjure up a narrative that doesn't make any sense because that's annoying

Stop putting words into my mouth.

1. Several years can mean anything over two years so the early 2000s is several years ago.
2. When did I say anything about flight attendants?
3. My flight did not have PTVs in the early 2000s, but a similar flight on AA did.
4. I never said I didn't like SQ. I just said they were just an average carrier.

Are we still giving any credibility to something published by a paid company? The same one who gave 4 stars to Ethipoian Airlines once? Really? This again?

Ziyulu wrote:

infinit wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

How do you know my personal life? Sounds like you're the one trolling. I definitely flew with them, but I did not find service to be better than AA. I flew from LAX to NRT to SIN in the early 2000s.

I hate to break it to you, but nothing you've said is coherent. Let's take a look at what you've posted

Ziyulu wrote:

When I last flew with SQ, they didn't even have individual screens at each seat, but their service was just about average. Nothing good to brag about. So I think they are overrated.

Ziyulu wrote:

No, it was a regular scheduled flight, but it was also several years ago on a 744.

Ziyulu wrote:

Nope, it was a flight in the early 2000s. I flew on AA's 777 and they had screens. And back then, I truly thought in my heart that AA had better service than SQ. But today, AA is down the toilet.

Ziyulu wrote:

I also flew with MH around the same time, they also did not have individual screens, but their service was a lot better than SQ. I generally don't base my reviews based on entertainment; my main focus is on food. On a flight from SIN to KUL on SQ, you only get a cup of juice. On MH, you get a drink and snacks.

Okay so let me put that together.
When you last flew Singapore Airlines, they did not have individual PTVs.
You first said it was "several years ago" but later contradicted yourself by saying it was in the early 2000s, and that it was on a 744.
The latter is impossible because all of their 744s had PTVs from way before "the early 2000s" (or "several years ago" if you will).
When numerous other posters pointed that fact out to you, you then shifted the focus to the flight attendants, saying that PTVs didn't really matter after all, it was the service where SQ wasn't up to par
You obviously just don't like SQ for some irrational reason. But so be it, just say you don't like them.
You don't have to conjure up a narrative that doesn't make any sense because that's annoying

Stop putting words into my mouth.

1. Several years can mean anything over two years so the early 2000s is several years ago.
2. When did I say anything about flight attendants?
3. My flight did not have PTVs in the early 2000s, but a similar flight on AA did.
4. I never said I didn't like SQ. I just said they were just an average carrier.

You never flew SQ.

blooc350 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

infinit wrote:

I hate to break it to you, but nothing you've said is coherent. Let's take a look at what you've posted









Okay so let me put that together.
When you last flew Singapore Airlines, they did not have individual PTVs.
You first said it was "several years ago" but later contradicted yourself by saying it was in the early 2000s, and that it was on a 744.
The latter is impossible because all of their 744s had PTVs from way before "the early 2000s" (or "several years ago" if you will).
When numerous other posters pointed that fact out to you, you then shifted the focus to the flight attendants, saying that PTVs didn't really matter after all, it was the service where SQ wasn't up to par
You obviously just don't like SQ for some irrational reason. But so be it, just say you don't like them.
You don't have to conjure up a narrative that doesn't make any sense because that's annoying

Stop putting words into my mouth.

1. Several years can mean anything over two years so the early 2000s is several years ago.
2. When did I say anything about flight attendants?
3. My flight did not have PTVs in the early 2000s, but a similar flight on AA did.
4. I never said I didn't like SQ. I just said they were just an average carrier.

You never flew SQ.

You're wrong then. You know more about my life than myself?

blooc350 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

infinit wrote:

I hate to break it to you, but nothing you've said is coherent. Let's take a look at what you've posted









Okay so let me put that together.
When you last flew Singapore Airlines, they did not have individual PTVs.
You first said it was "several years ago" but later contradicted yourself by saying it was in the early 2000s, and that it was on a 744.
The latter is impossible because all of their 744s had PTVs from way before "the early 2000s" (or "several years ago" if you will).
When numerous other posters pointed that fact out to you, you then shifted the focus to the flight attendants, saying that PTVs didn't really matter after all, it was the service where SQ wasn't up to par
You obviously just don't like SQ for some irrational reason. But so be it, just say you don't like them.
You don't have to conjure up a narrative that doesn't make any sense because that's annoying

Stop putting words into my mouth.

1. Several years can mean anything over two years so the early 2000s is several years ago.
2. When did I say anything about flight attendants?
3. My flight did not have PTVs in the early 2000s, but a similar flight on AA did.
4. I never said I didn't like SQ. I just said they were just an average carrier.

You never flew SQ.

You never flew SQ in the early 2000s because you did not even know they didn't have PTVs in some of their planes back then.

And I'm not saying SQ is worse than AA, which today, they are truly better.

Ziyulu wrote:

blooc350 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Stop putting words into my mouth.

1. Several years can mean anything over two years so the early 2000s is several years ago.
2. When did I say anything about flight attendants?
3. My flight did not have PTVs in the early 2000s, but a similar flight on AA did.
4. I never said I didn't like SQ. I just said they were just an average carrier.

You never flew SQ.

You're wrong then. You know more about my life than myself?

You never flew SQ. SQ first B744 was delivered in 1989. They all had this configuration.

Was that photo from 1989? From my understanding, it was in the early 2000s that all planes were equipped.

Here is my photo of being on SQ. I guess you can't tell if there are PTVs.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... ed9440d0bf

blooc350 wrote:

You never flew SQ. SQ first B744 was delivered in 1989. They all had this configuration.

The early SQ B747-400s were not delivered with PTVs. They introduced KrisWorld in 1997 and also introduced new First, Business and Economy cabins around that time.

Remember the "Tropical" Megatop?



It was unveiled to mark their new cabin products.

Quit the bickering over SQ. They deserve the Top 10 spot, but I'm not sure why JL is supposedly worse than NH or LH.

Lufthansa is supposedly five star because it is reliable??

Holiday inn express is reliable. Reliable = ***

SGAviation wrote:

blooc350 wrote:

You never flew SQ. SQ first B744 was delivered in 1989. They all had this configuration.

The early SQ B747-400s were not delivered with PTVs. They introduced KrisWorld in 1997 and also introduced new First, Business and Economy cabins around that time.

Remember the "Tropical" Megatop?

It was unveiled to mark their new cabin products.

Thank you for confirming my actual trips!