Star Alliance / Krisflyer Elite Gold Frequent Flyers Face Increased Frustrations

[SQ380]

Singapore Changi International Airport is well reputed for its world class services and efficiencies, for which it had won numerous prestigious awards. As a Singaporean, who frequently travels abroad for business, I feel great pride when foreigners praise our country and our airport as one of the best gateways in South East Asia.

Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SATS) is the ground handling agent of Singapore Airlines. Its Airport Services operations facilitates check-in services, which is only a part of the many other business offerings by SATS to airlines. At Singapore's Changi International Airport, Star Alliance Gold and Elite Gold frequent flyers are assigned Row 7 for their Singapore Airlines flight check-in at Terminal 3.

Unlike other Star Alliance carriers that allow Star Alliance Gold members to check-in at Business Class counters, Singapore Airlines encourages Star Alliance Gold and its Elite Gold members to check-in at the dedicated Star Alliance Gold / Elite Gold counters when in Singapore. Business class check-in counters usually re-direct Star Alliance Gold and Elite Gold passengers back to Row 7, if Row 6 is used instead.

As a frequent business traveller and Singapore Airlines Krisflyer Gold member based out of Singapore, I am very much aware of these "rules of engagement". My main frustration was that check-in at Row 7 on 19th of May 2013 was extremely understaffed. With only three counters open, staffs were unable to efficiently clear the long queue of passengers checking in for their flights. For the passengers that morning, the entire check-in process for a Singapore Airlines flight took an estimated 25 minutes, significantly longer than the usual average. Whilst I acknowledge that the delays cannot be faulted on SATS's check-in counter staff, how can this operational deficiency arise, considering the decades of experience that SATS has?

SATS must be fully aware that Singapore Airline's daily peak morning travel are for destinations to the Americas, South West Pacific, South East Asia, and North Asia. Yet, on 19th of May 2013, at 0800 hours, SATS Airport Services only scheduled three staffs to man the check-in at Row 7, frustrating the many Star Alliance Gold and Elite Gold passengers. On the contrary, Economy Class counters at Row 2 and Business Class counters at Row 6 were sufficiently staffed to clear the similarly long bee line of passengers, checking in for their flights.

Other than a formal response to this matter, I strongly urge SATS (Passenger Services) and Singapore Airlines to work together closely and implement workable solutions to ensure that Elite Gold members of the Star Alliance global program are not greatly inconvenienced.

On a separate, but of greater significant concern, Singapore Airlines needs to urgently dedicate resources and address the numerous inefficiencies that the travelling public have voiced over its Internet website. This matter is long overdue since such concerns surfaced since your "new and improved website" was launched in 2011. Similarly, technical failures were also experienced with the mobile app tool launched in late 2012. Like many other travellers, I have provided survey feedback on my flights. Other than a standard "we are looking into the matter" response, more needs to be done to assure your frequent travellers that Singapore Airlines values our feedback and Management is serious on improvements. Only then, will Singapore Airlines have a myriad of "services that other airlines talk about".

=======

SATS Response:

Thank you for your feedback.

I had checked and would like to apologise for the lapse in service.

We had initially deployed four staff to service KFEG members in the morning of 19 May but as there was a sudden surge in number of passengers in the other rows, we had redeployed one of the staff to that row leaving only 3 KFEG counters and the resultant lapse in service.

We are sorry for this lapse and moving forward, we have informed our staff to maintain at least four KFEG counters during the peak.

Once again my apologies.

=======

My Response:

Thank you for your response to my concerns.

Whilst I am sure that SATS have done multiple timing studies, and surely, this meets CAG's standards, I doubt that greater efficiency would be achieved by deploying four staff (instead of three) to man the KFEG counters at peak hour.

As I had pointed out in my original note, more than four counters were manned to clear EYCL (Row 2) and JCL (Row 6) passengers during the peak hour on 19 May 2013. Further, the "sudden surge" theory was not isolated to just EYCL and JCL check-in counters. From pictures submitted earlier, there was also a long queue at the KFEG (Row 7) counters.

In view of the above, I would encourage you to please have your team look into this better.

On a separate note, had the Singapore Airlines Internet Website been better maintained, with bugs from 2011 fixed, travelers would not have been inconvenienced, and the check-in process better self-managed. This, I acknowledge is beyond SATS area of management, and will be a matter for SIA to respond.

Thank You.

=======

SATS Response (Clearly Inadequate):

We will certainly review the numbers especially during the coming school holidays.

=======

My Response:

Thank you for agreeing to review the situation over the school holidays.

Whilst I agree that the travel season does spike abnormally during June and December, Corporate travelers should not be held "hostage", inconvenienced from the lack of service staff being deployed to process check-in.

I am confident that the Singapore Airlines Management team will also look at ensuring that sufficient staff are contracted, enabling ground handlers to cope with the passenger loads.

Thank you.

=======

SIA Response

Thank you for your email to me and Mr X, Senior Vice President, Apron and Passenger Services of SATS.

Do accept my sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused to you as a result of the delay in your check-in. Just as Mr X has assured you in his reply, SATS and Singapore Airlines will work together to review our resources so that we can create a better synergy and facilitate a smooth and efficient check-in experience, especially for our premium passengers like yourself.

I am also concerned to learn of your sentiment about our website and mobile application. The shortcomings relating to our website are acknowledged and we have been working hard to bring it back to a satisfactory level. We have made good progress and recorded significant improvement in successful transactions under commercial and redemption bookings during recent months. I also understand that our passengers expect a quick and seamless navigational experience whenever they access our various applications. We will continue to rectify outstanding issues affecting our customers' experience on the website and mobile application and hope to restore your confidence in our online products in the immediate future.

It will be useful for us to gather more information on the specific technical difficulties you have experienced. With your permission, I would like to arrange for one of my staff to contact you about this.

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback with us. We look forward to serving you better in the future.

=======

My Response:

Thank you for your response to my concerns.

I am glad that Singapore Airlines has acknowledged that work is being done to rectify its website and mobile applications issues. I am sure that many passengers, regardless of their Star Alliance / Krisflyer tier status have informed your colleagues of their frustrations that were constantly faced following the website's launch in 2011. The enhancement that was intended unfortunately became a downgrade.

I am sure you must agree that human behavior patterns are that when we repeatedly voice the same concerns through different communication channels, regardless of the platform, ie. face-to-face; inflight survey forms; online Customer Services feedback etc; and when nothing seems to get resolved for a good 24 months (or more), everything, after some time becomes a lost-cause.

I would like to take this opportunity to further highlight that recent actions by Singapore Airlines on its boarding sequence have created much stir amongst the Star Alliance / Krisflyer Elite Gold community.

Since Q1 2012, passengers of this tier status are no longer able to queue at the Priority lanes but instead are made to queue at normal EYCL lanes. Boarding of Star Alliance / Krisflyer Elite Gold passengers is, at best, "disguised" to be "prioritized", as we board before EYCL passengers, but after PPS, PCL, and JCL passengers have boarded the aircraft.

From your information systems records, you will be able to note that I had been in contact with your Customer Services colleagues on this matter. As a follow-up on this matter, I must highlight that the public relations team could have done better on managing and communicating these changes to the Star Alliance / Krisflyer Elite Gold community. It also seems odd that only Singapore Airlines, and no other Star Alliance carrier has decided to differentiate itself in this regard. Though it has been "packaged" to look as though "priority boarding" still prevails, being made to queue at the "normal" lane does in reality, suggest otherwise; and does contradict with the "priority boarding" pledge of the Star Alliance program. I am sure that Singapore Airlines had no intentions to communicate the wrong signals, but this has somehow been taken aboard by Star Alliance / Krisflyer Elite Gold community as appearing discriminatory when compared to the PPS and Solitaire gods and goddesses.

Yes, thank you for suggesting a call to facilitate further discussions. I will be glad to take this up at a convenient timing to be arranged by your colleague at Customer Services. My contact details are below.

Thank you.

[CarbonMan]

Some of you may already know that Changi is trying to sell the idea of self-check-ins to various airlines through some monetary incentive. I hope they are not purposefully making the "manual" check-ins longer to push the machines.

[TSC]

Well done SQ380. Krisflyer is pretty bad compared to other airlines. KFG does not have priority queue for boarding. I was surprised when I first saw it. Cathay Pacific, silver status is enough to allow you to check in at their business class counters as well as get priority boarding. I am not saying that KF should be like CX, but seriously, gold should be good enough for priority boarding. Oh BTW, CX silver, has access to all lounges already. KFS gets nothing virtually.

[SQ380]

27 May 2013: SIA Customer Services and I had a chat for over 30 minutes.

In brief, the airline's representative had confirmed that feedbacks received about its Internet website were not new. I too, confirmed likewise, that her responses, on behalf of her employer were not new, and frankly the airline needs to do something about it. Clear action plans needed to be formulated; and not just sweeping customer service feedback under the carpet.

System incapabilities were basic. On a good day, a simple step had to be repeated twice, before the system could register the queries, such as checking for available flights; booking of tickets; flight redemptions etc. At other occasions, paid flight bookings that had e-tickets already issued could not be located, and the "618" ticket number re-entered. Simple tasks such as seat selections, meal selections couldn't be fulfilled. The list was endless.

I also informed her that Senior Management should urgently address these (and potentially more) matters, and that SIA had no luxury of time. Bugs needed to be fixed. IT needs to be consulted urgently.

In large MNCs, heads would have rolled. At Apple, for example, the Company had fired a Senior individual when its maps application failed to deliver up to expectations and caused an international uproar. Noting these, she apologised again, and said that SVP Products and Services will be informed accordingly and would consult with the relevant persons on the next steps. Needless to say, I told her that these words need to be translated into actions, and the real report card will be issued by us, individuals who travel extensively for business reasons.

I added that I was very disappointed with SATS SVP's responses to my concerns, and informed her that SIA needs to work closely with its ground handlers to ensure that sufficient counters are staffed, regardless of class of travel; and more importantly for its premium travellers. This meant that SIA needed to re-examine its pricing model with SATS, and the costs involved to ensure that the ground handler could commit to having suficient resources being scheduled to handle the crowds at check-in (surge or no surge). Clearly, the responses from SATS was disappointing and not up to my expectations. The sudden surge explanation was theoretical nonsense; and the upcoming school holiday "assurance" proved inadequate.

I further reiterated that the "Priority" lane, not being made available to Star Alliance / Krisflyer Elite Gold passengers was also a joke. Singapore Airlines was the only Star Alliance partner airline that was not keeping to the "Priority Boarding" pledge.

Before ending the call, I informed her that I wanted a formal reply to my concerns, and the subsequent steps that would be taken to address the inadequacies. She confirmed that the request will be communicated to SVP Product and Services.

2 June 2013: Am still awaiting the follow-ups from SQ, post their call on 27 May 2013.

[Wan1dap]

Do they know who you are? They should do after that barrage. Lighten up.

[sqdazz]

How about relegation to gold lounges with no showers at their HUB. That's the reason I dont fly them anymore.

[SQ380]

Do they know who you are? They should do after that barrage. Lighten up.

I am sure they have checked out my records. Would'nt be surprised. Seriously, it's about time they wake up. Two years with a crap Internet website is unforgivable. That's just one of the numerous issues with SIA today.

[Wan1dap]

I am sure they have checked out my records. Would'nt be surprised. Seriously, it's about time they wake up. Two years with a crap Internet website is unforgivable. That's just one of the numerous issues with SIA today.

So why keep flying with them? I can guarantee nothing will change because of your lecturing. Much better to simply fly others because of course they don't have any of these terrible problems. I'm sure you'll be much happier.

[Dickson]

So why keep flying with them? I can guarantee nothing will change because of your lecturing. Much better to simply fly others because of course they don't have any of these terrible problems. I'm sure you'll be much happier.

I admire your persistence but I agree with the comments above.

The sad truth is that SIA don't give a damn about Krisflyer Elite members. They just created that category (half-heartedly) to capture Y class frequent travellers. At first, their intention was to give certain priveleges like access to SIA J lounge and boarding priority. Then the J class lounge became too crowded and actual J class pax start complaining that the boarding queue is too long. At the same time, J lounge and queue also got crowded with Star Alliance members. So they created a separate lounge for Krisflyer Elite and Star Alliance members. Unfortunately, they screwed up big time by not putting a shower there (probably, lack of space). And they've now screwed up further because they raised expectations of Krisflyer Elite members only to pare down their benefits in recent years.

As I said, SIA is now very bottom-line oriented and its all about $$. Even PPS members are valued for their PPS-Value$ that year. Once they drop out, they drop out forever, even though they've been loyal frequent flyers for years.

You'll probably be valued more in other FF programs. If I were you, I'd switch.

Heads have already rolled for the website debacle. Unfortunately, they could not fix all the problems - I don't know why but I think it has something to do with the basic design. I think they did consider switching back to the old system (which was working well) but unfortunately, there's the issue of database compatability between new vs old database and the risk is judged to be too great to attempt. So they console themselves that they've made "improvements" and problems are being solved. Problem is : they're looking at this from their perspective, not the customer's. The customer does not care if the website has improved from 2/10 to 3/10 ... they are used to a 7/10 or 8/10 level satisfaction which they do get from other websites.

[yflyer]

So why keep flying with them? I can guarantee nothing will change because of your lecturing. Much better to simply fly others because of course they don't have any of these terrible problems. I'm sure you'll be much happier.

Wan1dap: You have raised a very valid question...why keep flying with SQ.

I think on balance, SQ does a very commendable job, given the tough business environment (apart from their 3rd rate website...).

That said, I do believe that SQ fundamentally has forgotten how to to capture and retain a customer's loyalty and advocacy, the way they did in earlier years, when they were on their way to becoming the market leader. These days, my impression is that SQ takes loyalty for granted, not realizing how much this has been eroded over the years by cutbacks and reductions in benefits.

Apart from QPP, TPP, LPP members, who have seen their benefits eroded, there are also whole swathes of other customer segments, e.g. KF Gold members, for whom SQ has not done much to foster their loyalty.

I fly SQ a lot, mainly in Y. For many years, I flew only SQ. I have been KF Gold practically from the first year the Krisflyer programme started. Over the years, I flew more and more, to the point where, in terms of mileage, I qualified for Gold several times over in a single year. But because I fly mainly in Y, KF Gold is all I get. In early years, I used to receive a complimentary companion ticket once a year if I booked a paid ticket for myself, but that stopped too.

A couple of years ago, I wrote in to SQ customer service with a request: given my spend on SQ, surely there could be more they could offer in terms of their loyalty programme. Nope, after several exchanges, the inevitable result: your feedback is noted, but nothing can be done as programme rules are rules. I am pretty sure none of my correspondence made it past the bottom one or two levels of their customer service operation.

Obviously my loyalty to SQ had been only one-way up till that point.

Since that time. I have changed my travel patterns, and I have become much happier.

I still fly SQ a lot. I enjoy, and am quite satisfied with, the benefits that KF Gold / Star Alliance Gold provide.

SQ have my complete loyalty each requalifying year, until I hit 50K miles and qualify for Gold. For me, that happens in 3-4 months more or less.

Then for the rest of the year, apart from SQ, I also explore the delights of QF, AA, CX, JL, EK, BA, AF, MH and everyone else that I was previously too blinkered in my blind loyalty to try, and guess what, they have all impressed me in many different ways.

I also probably spend a third of what I used to spend on SQ each year, with the rest going to the other airlines listed above.

I remain an SQ fan. It is just that instead of automatically and instinctively choosing SQ, the carrier that I know most intimately and love to fly, I now make cold, calculated decisions about which airline to fly for each trip, and what value I will get from that carrier. Not unlike how I imagine SQ make decisions on how to treat their passengers in different market segments.

So why fly SQ? Many good reasons, and some great ones. But at least for me, SQ will have to do a little more before they become an automatic first choice again.

[SQ380]

So why keep flying with them? I can guarantee nothing will change because of your lecturing. Much better to simply fly others because of course they don't have any of these terrible problems. I'm sure you'll be much happier.

Unfortunately, there are not many Star Alliance options for flights within the Asia Pacific region, and SIA provides the most flight options out of Singapore. Personally, I have flown with All Nippon Airways to JFK via NRT, and yes, the services and dining options were excellent.

[SQ380]

This Response from SIA, dated 5 June 2013, fails to impress:

Dear Mr Tan

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding our website and mobile application with my colleague, Ms X, on 27 May 2013.

Your feedback is valuable to us, Mr Tan, and we are concerned to learn that our passengers are still experiencing problems with our website and mobile application. We do seek to provide our customers with a smooth navigational experience and have requested our IT Department to look into the various issues and examples which you have highlighted. Our IT colleagues will continue to work closely with our vendor to investigate the cause of these issues and rectify them where needed.

Mr Tan, we have noted your further feedback regarding boarding priority for our KrisFlyer Elite Gold members. We seek your understanding that boarding priority is still given to our Elite Gold and Star Alliance Gold passengers, albeit in the same lane as Economy Class passengers.

Nonetheless, we acknowledge that you feel the boarding priority has been removed, and that the change in the boarding sequence was not properly disseminated to our passengers. Your sentiments have been conveyed to our Ground Services Department as we continue to review our boarding process, as well as how we can communicate better with our passengers on future initiatives.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to share your feedback with us.

We look forward to welcoming you on board our flights again soon.

Yours sincerely

Senior Manager, Customer Affairs
Singapore Airlines Limited

------
My Response:

Dear XX,

Thank you for your response below.

Your comment:

"...we are concerned to learn that
our passengers are still experiencing problems with our website and mobile
application."

Seems to suggest that SIA's Management is shocked to learn that its Customers are still experiencing inconveniences with your website.

For the record, may I highlight that the system incapabilities were basic. On a good day, a simple step had to be repeated twice, before the system could register the queries, such as checking for available flights; booking of tickets; flight redemptions etc. On other occasions, paid flight bookings that had e-tickets already issued could not be located, and the "618" ticket number re-entered. Simple tasks such as seat selections, meal selections couldn't be fulfilled. The list continues... Surprisingly, SilkAir seems to have a more stable platform than its Parent Company.

Senior Management must urgently address these matters. Bluntly put across, SIA has no luxury of time. Bugs need to be fixed. IT needs to be consulted urgently.

In large MNCs, heads would have rolled. SIA is definitely NOT a small organization, and I hope the same applies. Most of us would have heard that Tim Cook (CEO, Apple Inc) had made a Senior individual redundant when the Apple maps application failed to deliver, resulting in an international uproar.

Whilst the questions below are definitely of an internal matter, I would encourage Management to consider the following:

a) Who proposed and tabled the board paper for the system upgrade? Similar to Apple Inc, has anything been done at SIA to hold those accountable for this "costly" damage? Other than financial loss, such as "forgone online-bookings", there would also be a non-quantifiable reputation loss?

b) Did your in-house IT team perform an extensive User Acceptance Test (UAT) in 2011? This is a "Basic 101" requirement, and hopefully was one of the "many" test steps prior to the vendor being paid for services "delivered"?

c) Did the SIA IT Internal Audit team raise deficiencies and recommend action plans for remedial action?

d) The vendor clearly failed to meet SIA's standards and requirements. It likely failed to deliver, per its "Scope of Work". Has the vendor been penalized? Have actions been taken?

e) Post-2011, there have been numerous "upgrades" to your website, of which SIA had been criticized at least once, for a 48 hour downtime. Has this overhaul shown any significant improvements? My response on this is "No".

As a patron of SIA, I hope that the above will be addressed with extreme urgency. SIA's report card on this matter will be evaluated by the public, and to a significant extent, by the individuals who travel extensively for business reasons.

Thank you.

[Wan1dap]

This Response from SIA, dated 5 June 2013, fails to impress:

Dear Mr Tan

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding our website and mobile application with my colleague, Ms X, on 27 May 2013.

Your feedback is valuable to us, Mr Tan, and we are concerned to learn that our passengers are still experiencing problems with our website and mobile application. We do seek to provide our customers with a smooth navigational experience and have requested our IT Department to look into the various issues and examples which you have highlighted. Our IT colleagues will continue to work closely with our vendor to investigate the cause of these issues and rectify them where needed.

Mr Tan, we have noted your further feedback regarding boarding priority for our KrisFlyer Elite Gold members. We seek your understanding that boarding priority is still given to our Elite Gold and Star Alliance Gold passengers, albeit in the same lane as Economy Class passengers.

Nonetheless, we acknowledge that you feel the boarding priority has been removed, and that the change in the boarding sequence was not properly disseminated to our passengers. Your sentiments have been conveyed to our Ground Services Department as we continue to review our boarding process, as well as how we can communicate better with our passengers on future initiatives.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to share your feedback with us.

We look forward to welcoming you on board our flights again soon.

Yours sincerely

Senior Manager, Customer Affairs
Singapore Airlines Limited

------
My Response:

Dear XX,

Thank you for your response below.

Your comment:

"...we are concerned to learn that
our passengers are still experiencing problems with our website and mobile
application."

Seems to suggest that SIA's Management is shocked to learn that its Customers are still experiencing inconveniences with your website.

For the record, may I highlight that the system incapabilities were basic. On a good day, a simple step had to be repeated twice, before the system could register the queries, such as checking for available flights; booking of tickets; flight redemptions etc. On other occasions, paid flight bookings that had e-tickets already issued could not be located, and the "618" ticket number re-entered. Simple tasks such as seat selections, meal selections couldn't be fulfilled. The list continues... Surprisingly, SilkAir seems to have a more stable platform than its Parent Company.

Senior Management must urgently address these matters. Bluntly put across, SIA has no luxury of time. Bugs need to be fixed. IT needs to be consulted urgently.

In large MNCs, heads would have rolled. SIA is definitely NOT a small organization, and I hope the same applies. Most of us would have heard that Tim Cook (CEO, Apple Inc) had made a Senior individual redundant when the Apple maps application failed to deliver, resulting in an international uproar.

Whilst the questions below are definitely of an internal matter, I would encourage Management to consider the following:

a) Who proposed and tabled the board paper for the system upgrade? Similar to Apple Inc, has anything been done at SIA to hold those accountable for this "costly" damage? Other than financial loss, such as "forgone online-bookings", there would also be a non-quantifiable reputation loss?

b) Did your in-house IT team perform an extensive User Acceptance Test (UAT) in 2011? This is a "Basic 101" requirement, and hopefully was one of the "many" test steps prior to the vendor being paid for services "delivered"?

c) Did the SIA IT Internal Audit team raise deficiencies and recommend action plans for remedial action?

d) The vendor clearly failed to meet SIA's standards and requirements. It likely failed to deliver, per its "Scope of Work". Has the vendor been penalized? Have actions been taken?

e) Post-2011, there have been numerous "upgrades" to your website, of which SIA had been criticized at least once, for a 48 hour downtime. Has this overhaul shown any significant improvements? My response on this is "No".

As a patron of SIA, I hope that the above will be addressed with extreme urgency. SIA's report card on this matter will be evaluated by the public, and to a significant extent, by the individuals who travel extensively for business reasons.

Thank you.

You have not and will not achieve anything with this pompous nonsense. Stop grandstanding.

[stargold]

In large MNCs, heads would have rolled. SIA is definitely NOT a small organization, and I hope the same applies. Most of us would have heard that Tim Cook (CEO, Apple Inc) had made a Senior individual redundant when the Apple maps application failed to deliver, resulting in an international uproar.

Whilst the questions below are definitely of an internal matter, I would encourage Management to consider the following:

a) Who proposed and tabled the board paper for the system upgrade? Similar to Apple Inc, has anything been done at SIA to hold those accountable for this "costly" damage? Other than financial loss, such as "forgone online-bookings", there would also be a non-quantifiable reputation loss?

b) Did your in-house IT team perform an extensive User Acceptance Test (UAT) in 2011? This is a "Basic 101" requirement, and hopefully was one of the "many" test steps prior to the vendor being paid for services "delivered"?

c) Did the SIA IT Internal Audit team raise deficiencies and recommend action plans for remedial action?

d) The vendor clearly failed to meet SIA's standards and requirements. It likely failed to deliver, per its "Scope of Work". Has the vendor been penalized? Have actions been taken?

e) Post-2011, there have been numerous "upgrades" to your website, of which SIA had been criticized at least once, for a 48 hour downtime. Has this overhaul shown any significant improvements? My response on this is "No".

As a patron of SIA, I hope that the above will be addressed with extreme urgency. SIA's report card on this matter will be evaluated by the public, and to a significant extent, by the individuals who travel extensively for business reasons.

What a load of tosh. They will most likely laugh at the letter before filing it in the circular filing cabinet.

[scooby5]

This meant that SIA needed to re-examine its pricing model with SATS, and the costs involved to ensure that the ground handler could commit to having suficient resources being scheduled to handle the crowds at check-in (surge or no surge). Clearly, the responses from SATS was disappointing and not up to my expectations. The sudden surge explanation was theoretical nonsense; and the upcoming school holiday "assurance" proved inadequate.

I further reiterated that the "Priority" lane, not being made available to Star Alliance / Krisflyer Elite Gold passengers was also a joke. Singapore Airlines was the only Star Alliance partner airline that was not keeping to the "Priority Boarding" pledge.

Two Points...... First, I arrived T3 around 7:45am for my 9:30am flight to HKG on Monday, the first working day of the school holiday. It took me more than half an hour to check in, with the *A/KFG queue extending beyond the tapes when I arrived. I was, however, lucky I didn't arrive 10-15min later because the queue extended out of the main isle and into the main thoroughfare of T3 entrance quite significantly. At current speeds, check-in would have taken more than an hour and probably much longer but I was nearly through and don't know how SQ responded.

My wife, who had arrived with me for her 10:15am Jet* flight to HKG was checked-in, through immigration and waiting for me at T1 before I was even half way through my KFG queue. She was through T1 ~20min after arrival at T3 (inc. travel between terminals) and had paid a fraction of the price for her ticket.

Since I was flying 'with' but without my wife we took a common taxi to T3 but I couldn't use JetQuay.......and I was pained that this morning was bad enough to make we actually wish I had. Ah well, next visit via JetQuay for sure.

With regards Priority Boarding, and whilst I agree with you to some extent, I normally leave the lounge a little late and make sure to arrive at the gate during boarding. The J boarding queue is usually gone quite quickly after opening, if there is one, and I will use that entrance so long as there's not too many people, ie. waiting until J passengers have boarded. The Y queue by this time is usually a snake so the counter have always taken me through.

As a frequent Y passenger on SQ and infrequent J passenger of SQ and other *A members I can see both sides of SQ's plan, but it simply doesn't work in practise.