Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Start of another round of cost-cutting?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Got off SQ288 SYD-CBR-SIN and SQ970 SIN-BKK in C two weeks ago. To be all honest - and being a very infrequent SQ flyer nowadays - I don't see too much cost cuttings.

    Granted the sandwich given in SYD-CBR sector can be just left with a bottle of water instead.... With the 7-Eleven packaging it only cheapens the otherwise good product.

    Michael

    Comment


    • In today's CNA article, SIA claims that they have removed the salt and pepper packets in the EY meal trays since November 2018, as its initiative to "reduce food wastage" and to contribute to "greener skies". Tis is in contrast to what looks more like cost cutting instead in EY.

      Comment


      • https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...astic-11808518

        Comment


        • Which other airlines give more for EY - although almost all airlines do give free alcoholic drinks in EY now with exception of a handful
          https://www.msn.com/en-sg/lifestyle/...cid=spartandhp

          Comment


          • Wonder SQ can find other ways to pack the business class blanket instead of using the plastic bag? Something similar to those pouch for packing the headsets?
            For kids toys, they said that they are removing the plastic packaging but I think the plastic bag for the blanket is more wasteful.

            Comment


            • Honestly, something's got to give with the airline's financial results the past few quarters and the bleak global outlook. It's a fine balancing act they have upon themselves. Continue with the pampering and there would be no improvement in your expenditure costs. Take it away too much and you might lose customers with the competition breathing down your neck.
              I personally feel they can cut expenditure by concentrating elsewhere. For a start, they can look at their fleet and consider downsizing their endangered dugongs fleet size.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by boing View Post
                I personally feel they can cut expenditure by concentrating elsewhere. For a start, they can look at their fleet and consider downsizing their endangered dugongs fleet size.
                The A380? But why? SQ is probably one of the few airlines for which the A380 makes a lot of sense and can be operated profitably. Singapore is a major financial hub with good premium demand that warrants the A380 capacity, especially to constrained airports like LHR, FRA and PEK. It's the best aircraft for the moment that meets SQ's needs. There's no secondhand market for the aircraft, which makes even more sense for SQ to hold onto them and squeeze more value out of the assets until they are fully depreciated.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by boing View Post
                  I personally feel they can cut expenditure by concentrating elsewhere.
                  It took this Forum (incl me) almost 10 month to discover that the salt/pepper in Y is gone. Most of us are also not taking measurement of the wet towels. How many people in this Forum can tell how many wet towels are distributed during flight?
                  This are the easy things which I would say 90% would not even realise that there is a change. Easy saving. Not big but if you cut the small things here and there....

                  Other airlines are looking at increasing the revenue. LH just intoduced seat reservation fees in PEY. Do you think is will hurt them? Maybe for a few month.

                  Comment


                  • Took SQ967 CGK-SIN on 4 Sept and didn’t receive hot towel service. On 24 Aug took SQ968 SIN-CGK still received hot towel service. As usual for both sector, pillow and blanket are not provided on seat.

                    Comment


                    • Someone posted the meal photos of SQ600 (5hrs 55 mins flight) in facebook group and commented:
                      航空膳食藝術坊 Art Home of Aviation Catering
                      https://www.facebook.com/groups/1384...22420/?fref=nf
                      Singapore Airlines SQ 600 (depart 8:00 am, arrives 3:35 pm) Singapore to Seoul
                      "Despite an 8am flight, lunch was offered two hours after takeoff! They used to serve brunch after takeoff and then refreshment prior to arrival! The Korean meal was nice but no soup was offered!"

                      Someone commented in the post: Cost cutting measures going to the extreme.

                      Wow...if you take this flight, you going to be hungry when the plane lands in Seoul at 3.35pm!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SQ025 View Post
                        It took this Forum (incl me) almost 10 month to discover that the salt/pepper in Y is gone. Most of us are also not taking measurement of the wet towels. How many people in this Forum can tell how many wet towels are distributed during flight?
                        This are the easy things which I would say 90% would not even realise that there is a change. Easy saving. Not big but if you cut the small things here and there....

                        Other airlines are looking at increasing the revenue. LH just intoduced seat reservation fees in PEY. Do you think is will hurt them? Maybe for a few month.
                        actually did noticed it during my flight to Mel and vv. Both times did see a few pax asking for the salt mainly. With this tiny cut, it adds a fair bit of additional work for the cabin crew who are already busy during the meal service. Think SIA need focus on more meaningful cuts instead of micro focussing even on salt n pepper. For one major saving would be the aircraft tankering of fuel as have observed that SQ planes do tanker enough fuel for its return journey for a 2 - 3 hour flight. Have seen like SQ A380 from SIN-HKG and without refuelling at HKG, which would meant that instead of flying with 5 hours of fuel, its carrying nearly 10 hours of fuel and thats alot of deadweight. However looking at other airlines esp the budget carriers, even like Air Asia even their flights from nearby KUL would refuel in SIN before heading back. Fuel is very heavy for an aircraft in terms of weight and adds significantly to the fuel burn of the flight. This adds up to thousands and even millions of dollars a year lost in tankering fuel.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by vsepr View Post
                          "Despite an 8am flight, lunch was offered two hours after takeoff! They used to serve brunch after takeoff and then refreshment prior to arrival! The Korean meal was nice but no soup was offered!"

                          Someone commented in the post: Cost cutting measures going to the extreme.
                          Iam not quite sure when the chap has flown the last time on SIN-ICN. I have taken numerous flights on this route since 2014 but on all these flights only one meal was served, in Y as well as in J.

                          Originally posted by vsepr View Post
                          Wow...if you take this flight, you going to be hungry when the plane lands in Seoul at 3.35pm!
                          Which is great, you can head to the city and go straight for dinner and have proper food.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by flyguy View Post
                            Think SIA need focus on more meaningful cuts instead of micro focussing even on salt n pepper. For one major saving would be the aircraft tankering of fuel as have observed that SQ planes do tanker enough fuel for its return journey for a 2 - 3 hour flight. Have seen like SQ A380 from SIN-HKG and without refuelling at HKG, which would meant that instead of flying with 5 hours of fuel, its carrying nearly 10 hours of fuel and thats alot of deadweight. However looking at other airlines esp the budget carriers, even like Air Asia even their flights from nearby KUL would refuel in SIN before heading back. Fuel is very heavy for an aircraft in terms of weight and adds significantly to the fuel burn of the flight. This adds up to thousands and even millions of dollars a year lost in tankering fuel.
                            We do not know, but I would guess that SQ-Management is not entirely stupid and that they made their math.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SQ025 View Post
                              We do not know, but I would guess that SQ-Management is not entirely stupid and that they made their math.
                              Well not too sure about that although few years ago SQ did do a bad job of fuel hedging and as a result lost a considerable amount. Dont think other airlines esp the budget carrier like Air Asia are wrong in their calculaion of fuel burn and tankering as they are more careful on costs.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by flyguy View Post
                                Dont think other airlines esp the budget carrier like Air Asia are wrong in their calculaion of fuel burn and tankering as they are more careful on costs.
                                If this is definitely happening, I would agree it should stop. I can understand in a small number of circumstances such as if a plane is heavily delayed and they want faster flight times or turnaround to recover the timetable, but not under regular circumstances.

                                If the removal of salt & pepper is being marketed as a "green" initiative against food waste, I would be far more impressed by any airline that I fly taking reasonable steps to reduce carbon emissions through decreasing fuel burn than rescuing tiny packets of salt from going to landfill. I'm smart enough to know which one will do far less environmental damage.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X