sfflyer123 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 287 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14704 times:
I recently flew Singapore Airlines SFO-HKG business class. I usually fly United, and it was a treat to fly on SQ. I flew SQ 1 and SQ2. Both flights were on the 777-300ER. The main trip report is the video. Please see the video as the main TR.
I will also include a few photos here and some commentary, but the real meat of the trip report is in the video.
Just a few notes from someone who flies United primarily.
1) The food blows away United's out of the water, no question. It is just leaps and bounds above United's in terms of presentation, taste, service, etc. Just way better.
2) The service blows away United's, also. The cabin crew is so nice, professional, courteous, and always trying to make the flight more enjoyable. There is no attitude or grouchiness. It's just so nice to fly with the SQ cabin crew.
3) The seat. This is where I think UA has a slight edge. Yes, that SQ seat is as wide as a park bench, but it also feels like one when you sit on it. It is fairly uncomfortable and hard to sit on. The width does not make up for it. In UA, where you just push a button to lie flat, on SQ, you have to stand up and maneuver the ed to make it flat. I would have to say it, but I think I may actually prefer UA's seat!
4) AVOD, but slight edge to SQ. The SQ probably has a nicer selection--it's a much bigger selection than UA's--but the control is not as user friendly as UA's. But the selection dwarf's UA's.
5) Lounge. No contest. The SQ lounge is just great, with solid food, any type of alcohol or liquor that you could imagine, and extremely comfortable surroundings. It beats the Red Carpet Club any day.
Here are some photos to give you an idea what the video trip report is like:
Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14101 times:
Good report. The food presentation looked good too.
I would think that sleeping at an angle could be uncomfortable, especially as you mention that the seat is hard to begin with. But I suppose the angle allows for more seating in the same amount of cabin space.
AI151 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2009, 303 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14052 times:
Great video TR. I can't believe that the SQ lounge was closed despite there being an SQ flight?! It also wasn't good to see the seat in such a worn condition.
I'm not surprised by you not wanting to eat in the lounge as the food offerings were superb. Every dish looked edible and very tasty indeed. Loved the design of the salt and pepper shakers.
I love Hong Kong whenever I travel as its so vibrant and full of energy. How long were you there for? Fab take-off video at night as well and such a great way to end the TR with the stunning sunset over the Pacific Ocean.
infinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 764 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12745 times:
Nice video report!
I actually kinda like those Diamond seats. I usually ask for extra cushions and cozy up in them. I think they should just place 2-3 of those blue cushions on the seats instead of 1. But I dont like the foodrest either, wish they could do something about it.
How was the chicken rice? Doesnt look very good from the picture.
I'd love to try SQ's non-stop SIN-EWR service someday, its the longest commercial flight.. I'd probably spend a lot of time chatting with the cabin crew as usual
Yes, the angled sleeping is something that is not popularly advertised on the SQ ads. Then you realize the seats are very wide for a reason: so that you are sleeping at an angle. The pitch is actually not terribly good if you measure from seat back to the video monitor screen. But that wide seat is really to accommodate an angled flat bed.
Thank you for the reply. Yes, we were there for approximately 9 days. It was really fun. The timing was off: the SQ lounge at SFO was closed for repairs. It's okay, since we were able to experience the SQ lounge in HK, which is much bigger and probably nicer. I really also wanted to save my appetite for the flight.
The night take-off videos are always uncertain. I am glad that there were some lights behind it so that we could actually see the lift-off. I decided to throw in some statistics in there since the takeoff itself can be a little boring.
The service started quite quickly. Unlike american pilots, the SQ pilots turned the seatbelt sign off pretty quickly. Drinks were first served. Then about 1 hour into the flight, the appetizers came. Then the entree, then cheese, then dessert. The whole meal process took easily 1.5 hours. It was very efficient, but not rushed. Thanks for the reply.
I though the Singapore chicken rice was pretty good. I peeled the skin off, and I dipped the chicken into the garic/salt mixture. I thought it was very tasty. They have something similar to that here in San Francisco--but it is Chinese, not Singaporean. It is a Cantonese style chicken with the same garlic/salt mixture. It tasted just as good as it did here in SF, but not as fresh (as expected). It did not look great, but it was actually much better than the duck entree, which looked more appealing, I thought. The duck was very average, and the corn fritters and coleslaw were essentially inedible. Thank you for the comment.
EL-AL From Israel, joined Oct 2001, 1457 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 11994 times:
Very nice report, thank you!
I was watching the video, and I was thinking "is this the world famous Singapore biz class?"
With the major improvement been done on other airlines on their premium classes, Singapore needs to improve its product if they want to keep the reputation that they have today. Sleeping in an angel, for example, was not something I think Singapore C class souled have.
Thx for making it,
[Edited 2010-11-02 10:07:52]
"In Israel, on order to be a realist, one's must believe in miracles" - David Ben Gurion.
infinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 764 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11953 times:
Quoting sfflyer123 (Reply 7): I though the Singapore chicken rice was pretty good. I peeled the skin off, and I dipped the chicken into the garic/salt mixture. I thought it was very tasty. They have something similar to that here in San Francisco--but it is Chinese, not Singaporean. It is a Cantonese style chicken with the same garlic/salt mixture. It tasted just as good as it did here in SF, but not as fresh (as expected). It did not look great, but it was actually much better than the duck entree, which looked more appealing, I thought. The duck was very average, and the corn fritters and coleslaw were essentially inedible. Thank you for the comment.
Guess, I cant judge a dish by its presentation heh. I thought the duck entree looked good but it didnt taste as good.
I think I have a rough idea of which Cantonese dish you're referring to. Singaporean food is afterall a mixmash of Malaysian food with other primarily Asian influences.
Yes, I agree. I think that SQ used to be head & shoulders above everybody else, but now everybody else is catching up! Sort of like the United States and the rest of the world (especially China!). It was great back in the day, but now, it is becoming a standard. I do think the service is probably 2nd to none, however. The service was just quite incredible. Thanks for the reply.
ORDnHKG From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11590 times:
Quoting sfflyer123 (Reply 7): The service started quite quickly. Unlike american pilots, the SQ pilots turned the seatbelt sign off pretty quickly.
The downside is it seems SQ pilots even during moderate turblence still wouldn't turn the seat belt on ! And it seems it did show in one of your scene with your first meal SFO-HKG, it was shaking quite a bit.
Quoting sfflyer123 (Reply 7): They have something similar to that here in San Francisco--but it is Chinese, not Singaporean. It is a Cantonese style chicken with the same garlic/salt mixture. It tasted just as good as it did here in SF, but not as fresh (as expected).
Singapore Chicken rice = Hainanese chicken rice is actually quite popular in Hong Kong, I am surprised you didn't discover that in the 9 days in Hong Kong. You can found that even in many Hong Kong fast food restaurant like Cafe de Coral, Fairwood, and Maxim's.
Yes, I think the turbulence thing is always interesting. It's a fine balance. Personally, I am quite scared of turbulence, so I always keep my seat belt on. But I don't like how the American pilots keep it on so long that I cannot go to the bathroom.
I have had this chicken in San Francisco before. It's quite good. I agree with you; it's just some type of regular Chinese chicken (but i did not know that it was from Hainan). I think I'll get some here in SF now!