Solitaire Membership - service level dropping

[jjpb3]

Welcome to SQTalk, CXJAMES.

I have heaps of examples to demonstrate how the level of service has fallen dramatically.

Would you mind sharing the reasons why you feel you way you do? That would make it easier for fellow Solitaires on SQT to add to or comment on your impressions. That would also make your comment more informative for those SQTalkers like me who aren't Solitaires.

Thanks in advance, and again, welcome.

[LionCity]

As a solitaire member for 10 years, i have to say that over the past 6 months, i've noticed that the level of service has dropped dramatically. Am i alone or there are may solitaire members like myself who feels the same? I have heaps of examples to demonstrate how the level of service has fallen dramatically.

Welcome to SQTalk. Will be interesting to hear what you have to say that happened in the past 6 months. I have only been QPPS for the past 4 years and not Solitaire. Still dreaming of it!

So far I have found in general above average service in the cabin but the out of cabin experiences aren't too much to crow about and is the source of my grouses about SQ. Compared to other airlines, my personal thoughts are that SQ is still superior but the margin is now thinner (CX and Jet Airways are the other good airlines I have been on).

Whilst the attempted investment in CEA seems a good strategic move for SQ, SQ have not done well on airline investments. Partly it is due to airlines being considered as national assets. However, SQ should not forget their loyal customer base that has contributed strongly to its balance sheets that allowed her to make strategic investments. Raising PPS or Solitaire membership hurdle combined with reduced PPS benefits are not something that I as a loyal customer looked forward to.

[Tim Cusack]

As a solitaire member for 10 years, i have to say that over the past 6 months, i've noticed that the level of service has dropped dramatically. Am i alone or there are may solitaire members like myself who feels the same? I have heaps of examples to demonstrate how the level of service has fallen dramatically.

I too feel that the PPS services have been downgraded ie no access to first class lounge in Changi when you are traveling Raffles as a PPS member. Why do that?? That said, the inflight service is still very good.

[Snaffled]

I like some of the TPP benefits on the ground with access to SKL F and the supplementary card for my wife being the best.
I have not noticed any difference whatsoever in the air, particularly in J.

[kras]

Overall service quality levels down over the past few years

Guys,

I've been travelling SQ close to almost 10 years, and let me say that the level of service from the airline has been going south (progressively) in the last couple of years.

I might not be a Solitaire, but have been a QPP for the last five years, flown numerous different sectors mainly in J and EY (evenly split). In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether I am a PPS member or not, the level of service or treatment seems pretty much the same as that towards any other passenger in the same cabin.

A couple of years back, the level of professionalism from cabin crew was seemingly higher than what they are now - irrespective of what class they are working in. The typical air steward/ess would show a greater level of attention and care before, as compared to now - and I can also feel that they are somewhat careless (at times).

[Of course, the statement above is relative to the class of travel (as it always should be)]

Over the past few days, I've been on two separate flights and have seen three separate crews in action. Let me say that, overall, I was not entirely satisfied with their level of service towards the passengers in general, and the way in which the in-flight service was conducted. There was one flight, in particular, that some of the air stewardess were rather clumsy and careless with their overall practices...

It somehow seems that SQ is wanting "quantity" more than offering the "quality" that they should. Granted that doing the numbers is important in getting the bills paid, but retaining the airline's image as a quality provider should is key (given that this is what SQ is in many people's eyes).

And in final, I want to say that SQ's changes in the PPS programme are questionable in attempts to retain the good and rid of the bad. I, for one, am disappointed that they've now up'ed the bar and lowered the benefits that it offers its valued customers...

[SQflyergirl]

The chief stewardness came back about 10 mins later..snip...he too was surprised that none could be found. He then told me that they could have stopped because the flight was too short..

So was it a steward or a stewardess?

[taipeiflyer]

Dear Kras thanks for taking the time to respond. You have hit the nail. There are clear examples of SQ wanting more quantity (and in this case wanting to charge more) than offering quality (and in this case.. cutting cost dramatically)

I do have heaps of examples of how today's PPS's membership has become less pretigious and sort after (in my opinion) and ironcially while the new qualification requirements have increased drastically, the new benefits that come along with the qualification had reduced significantly.

I'm going to post these shortly. Apologies I can't do it now coz i'm on the road till end of the month.

Meanwhile let me demonstrate some examples of cost cutting this week that I expirienced that just made me loose more faith in the airline.

I was flying from Taipei to Singapore on Wednesday ... and on Business Class, they were serving tap water. I asked the cheif stewardess what this was so and she shared with me that they had under catered for water on that flight!.. to make the situation worst.. business class was 30% filled!

Then I was flying from Singapore to KL on Thursday on First class. Having arrived home very late the night before .. all i wanted to do on this flight was to catch as much sleep. So I asked for some eye shades and asked that i not be disturbed throughout the flight. The chief stewardness came back about 10 mins later.. looking really embarassed because there were no shades throughout all classes.. he too was surprised that none could be found. He then told me that they could have stopped because the flight was too short..

Too short a flight??.. does that mean that in short flights.. passengers cannot have the choice to shut their eyes from the bright cabin in the air, forgo whatever refreshments that may be served and just rest?

A classic example of SQ not acknowledging the needs of passengers today.. if fact i doubt if these new policy makers in SQ even know the needs of a frequent traveller today. I suspect they are very much in the dark.

When i decided to just observe the number of passengers in First class who felt like me.. i decided to count the number who didn't want any refreshments on the flight and dozed off during the entire flight.. there were about 6 of us out of the 28 seats (if i counted correctly) that's over 20% of passengers who value their short nap.. no matter how short it was... vs getting some service on board.

Doesn't SQ see the need to provide some comfort to these passengers who clearly pay quite a sum just for the shortest sector most profitable sector on SQ?

This is the first time i have asked for eye shades on the SIN-KL-SIN sector on SQ and was denied of one.

I have many more recent examples of these cost cuts in SQ that are frankly begining to annoy me.

SQ seems to be moving in the direction of the other airlines..while more airlines.. having seen the value of premier customers and cranking up their service levels to meet those of SQ in the past.

For those of you reading this.. Is it just me or are there many of us out there feeling the drop in fine touches of SQ? I ask that you simply respond "yes" or "no" so that we can get a poll going...

I'll prepare a more concised post on why its quite clear in my mind that PPS membership is gradually becoming less wanted in the eyes of its many members.

James

sorry james, but i call bulls*&t

[MAN Flyer]

sorry james, but i call bulls*&t

It's a slightly better attempt than last time, although that wouldn't be difficult.

[KeithMEL]

Dear Kras thanks for taking the time to respond. You have hit the nail. There are clear examples of SQ wanting more quantity (and in this case wanting to charge more) than offering quality (and in this case.. cutting cost dramatically)

I do have heaps of examples of how today's PPS's membership has become less pretigious and sort after (in my opinion) and ironcially while the new qualification requirements have increased drastically, the new benefits that come along with the qualification had reduced significantly.

I'm going to post these shortly. Apologies I can't do it now coz i'm on the road till end of the month.

Meanwhile let me demonstrate some examples of cost cutting this week that I expirienced that just made me loose more faith in the airline.

I was flying from Taipei to Singapore on Wednesday ... and on Business Class, they were serving tap water. I asked the cheif stewardess what this was so and she shared with me that they had under catered for water on that flight!.. to make the situation worst.. business class was 30% filled!

Then I was flying from Singapore to KL on Thursday on First class. Having arrived home very late the night before .. all i wanted to do on this flight was to catch as much sleep. So I asked for some eye shades and asked that i not be disturbed throughout the flight. The chief stewardness came back about 10 mins later.. looking really embarassed because there were no shades throughout all classes.. he too was surprised that none could be found. He then told me that they could have stopped because the flight was too short..

Too short a flight??.. does that mean that in short flights.. passengers cannot have the choice to shut their eyes from the bright cabin in the air, forgo whatever refreshments that may be served and just rest?

A classic example of SQ not acknowledging the needs of passengers today.. if fact i doubt if these new policy makers in SQ even know the needs of a frequent traveller today. I suspect they are very much in the dark.

When i decided to just observe the number of passengers in First class who felt like me.. i decided to count the number who didn't want any refreshments on the flight and dozed off during the entire flight.. there were about 6 of us out of the 28 seats (if i counted correctly) that's over 20% of passengers who value their short nap.. no matter how short it was... vs getting some service on board.

Doesn't SQ see the need to provide some comfort to these passengers who clearly pay quite a sum just for the shortest sector most profitable sector on SQ?

This is the first time i have asked for eye shades on the SIN-KL-SIN sector on SQ and was denied of one.

I have many more recent examples of these cost cuts in SQ that are frankly begining to annoy me.

SQ seems to be moving in the direction of the other airlines..while more airlines.. having seen the value of premier customers and cranking up their service levels to meet those of SQ in the past.

For those of you reading this.. Is it just me or are there many of us out there feeling the drop in fine touches of SQ? I ask that you simply respond "yes" or "no" so that we can get a poll going...

I'll prepare a more concised post on why its quite clear in my mind that PPS membership is gradually becoming less wanted in the eyes of its many members.

James

That was 20 seconds of my life I'd never be able to get back.

[taipeiflyer]

In the old world of PPS, customer loyalty was valued deeply.

At point of renewal, even if you didn't fly as much 12 months past, as long as you took 12.5 sectors... take the total number of sectors you have flown with SQ since your 1st year of membership and divide that by the number of years of your membership and if that averages 25 sectors you'll be given a renewal.

By allowing to do so, members are encouraged to fly SQ as much possible even if they have qualified for the next year because it will benefit them should in the following year (or any year for that matter), circumstances would not allow them to fly as much.

Today regardless of how much you have travelled with SQ and how long you have been a member for, if there be a year that you many not be able to travel as much on SQ and not clock the $25K value, there goes your membership and you'll have to start from scratch.

I am close to completing the $25k value after 4 months of my current year membership and so like many I know, have started to venture to other airlines especially for my Australian, Europe and US sectors.

as a "solitaire for 10 years," you of all people should realize that you only have to cross the $25,000 PPS value threshold every other year. for a solitaire, a year in which you don't cross the $25,000 PPS threshold, you get soft-landed to PPS status, so you are wrong.

[jjpb3]

In the old world of PPS, customer loyalty was valued deeply.

At point of renewal, even if you didn't fly as much 12 months past, as long as you took 12.5 sectors... take the total number of sectors you have flown with SQ since your 1st year of membership and divide that by the number of years of your membership and if that averages 25 sectors you'll be given a renewal.

By allowing to do so, members are encouraged to fly SQ as much possible even if they have qualified for the next year because it will benefit them should in the following year (or any year for that matter), circumstances would not allow them to fly as much.

Today regardless of how much you have travelled with SQ and how long you have been a member for, if there be a year that you many not be able to travel as much on SQ and not clock the $25K value, there goes your membership and you'll have to start from scratch.

I am close to completing the $25k value after 4 months of my current year membership and so like many I know, have started to venture to other airlines especially for my Australian, Europe and US sectors.

That's not a service issue but a well-known and much-discussed change in the FFP; see this thread:
http://www.sqtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=972 .

So other than no eyeshades on the KUL shuttle , what specific aspect of the service is riling you?

[Singapore_Air]

Anzett.

CXJames, perhaps you would like to send your feedback to Singapore Airlines via your PPS Coordinator so that he or she can address your concerns. Feedback is very important to Singapore Airlines and I am sure that yours would be greatly appreciated.

[taipeiflyer]

i believe it is you that needs to get your facts straight. i know that pps is not the same as solitaire... but solitaire is nonetheless a part of the pps program. your exact words were: "Today regardless of how much you have travelled with SQ and how long you have been a member for, if there be a year that you many not be able to travel as much on SQ and not clock the $25K value, there goes your membership and you'll have to start from scratch." you thereby were saying that if you were a pps member for the past 10 years (which would definitely make you a solitaire), and you did not pass the $25,000 PPS threshold, you would be dropped out of the PPS program altogether. Solitaire is not a separate program from PPS, it is just a more exclusive level of PPS. your declaration was false.

[jjpb3]

In the past if you had 37.5 sectors in year 1 and 12.5 sectors in year 2, you have technically purchased 50 sectors from SQ and so you get the PPS service

Today if you do the same, you'll enjoy the PPS service only in year 1 and in the second year you loose that service.

How do you know there will be no unpublished averaging calculation and/or early requalification under the new rules? The new program isn't even a year old, so averaging can't be done just yet.

As for other aspects of service... you'll just have to wait till next time..

You might want to use the time until then to double-check your "facts". Or maybe post from real experience ... oh ... wait ...

[SQ LPP]

To my knowledge, averaging PPS sectors yearly was not a done deal, i.e. did not apply worldwide. It is like an unpublished benefit. So whoever got that kind of exemption should be thankful.