Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SQ girls vs MH girls

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by TerryK View Post
    You mean MH pays less than SQ, while SQ pays less than CX/EK/QR? Surprising, to me.
    EK pays cabin crew more than SQ does and provides free accommodation as well. I have lots of friends who jumped from SQ to EK a couple of years ago.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nykelaz View Post
      Yes, I agree. During the split up, MH chose to concentrate on regional routes and gave up all their international routes, jet planes, and uniforms to SQ. I think till now, it is still inarguably one of the worst decision made in aviation. Should MH hold on the their routes and uniform, SQ won't be what they are now.
      I believe SQ did not don its girls Kebaya uniforms well until several years after the split. So the original MSA uniform was not Kebaya, was it?

      Both girls are very friendly as much as I can tell. I only flew with MH 6 times (4 on long hauls) and (2 on short hauls to MES). I found the girls were just as good as SQ girls long haul - I even had a good long chat with one on the way to AMS. On the 2 short haul flights to MES, they were very rude and almost to the point of condescending - but those flights were tough because it was way too short to do any service.

      Comment


      • #18
        Are SQ girls allowed to wear cardigans/sweaters in flight like this?

        http://www.johnnyjet.com/image/Pictu...LJJWithFAs.JPG

        To my understanding, this is part of MH's uniform so it's fine for their FAs to wear them on board. But what about SQ? I'm not sure whether they have another cardigan other than the long purple coat for them to wear on land during winter. So, can SQ girls wear cardigans or sweaters on board? If no, how are they going to keep themselves warm if they are feeling cold?
        Last edited by nykelaz; 29 August 2007, 12:39 PM.
        We put labels on people and fight wars over them. If we truly want harmony, we have to get past the labels.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by nykelaz View Post
          Are SQ girls allowed to wear cardigans/sweaters in flight like this?


          To my understanding, this is part of MH's uniform so it's fine for their FAs to wear them on board. But what about SQ? I'm not sure whether they have another cardigan other than the long purple coat for them to wear on land during winter. So, can SQ girls wear cardigans or sweaters on board? If no, how are they going to keep themselves warm if they are feeling cold?
          The SQ girls IIRC can wear a scarf during winter time. I've never seen that MH cardigan before and it looks pretty cheap and nasty to me. Regarding SQ and MH girls, I prefer SQ staff but I think MH crew is very good too. SQ girls are just more polished, and have more attention to detail. Consistency leans my opinion towards SIA also. I also prefer the original Sarong Kebaya to the MH imitation. The SQ girl uniform was the original MSA kebaya, and since MSA headquarters was in Singapore, SIA got to keep the international routes, jets, and uniform while MAS wanted to focus on regional and domestic service. MH had their own kebaya designed for them from the Mara Institute of Technology's fashion school in Malaysia in the 80s. So the MH uniform is the imitiation while the SQ girl's is the real deal.
          Last edited by sqforever; 29 August 2007, 12:20 AM.
          Such a way about you, My Singapore Girl. Wouldn't go away without you, My Singapore Girl.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by UMD View Post
            I believe SQ did not don its girls Kebaya uniforms well until several years after the split. So the original MSA uniform was not Kebaya, was it?
            http://img77.photobucket.com/albums/..._BeginSIA5.jpg

            Well, according to Asia Finest Discussion Forum:

            ....The name was changed to Malaysia-Singapore Airlines when Singapore left the federation. At the same time, the sarong kebaya uniform was introduced by Pierre Balman....Singapore got the international route rights in return for the planes that the had. They also got rights to the original sarong kebaya which they use to this day.

            So I believe the current Sarong Kebaya uniform has been inherited from the old Malaysia-Singapore Airlines.
            Last edited by nykelaz; 29 August 2007, 12:40 PM.
            We put labels on people and fight wars over them. If we truly want harmony, we have to get past the labels.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by nykelaz View Post
              Are SQ girls allowed to wear cardigans/sweaters in flight like this?
              The long overcoat (which you've seen some SQ girls wear in a station where it's cold) may also be worn in the galley during quiet periods in a long flight where the galley temperature is low, but only in the galley, they can't wear it out into the cabin.
              Last edited by SQflyergirl; 28 August 2007, 11:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by nykelaz View Post
                http://img77.photobucket.com/albums/v235/malaccan/SGstory_BeginSIA5.jpg



                ....The name was changed to Malaysia-Singapore Airlines when Singapore left the federation. At the same time, the sarong kebaya uniform was introduced by Pierre Balman....Singapore got the international route rights in return for the planes that the had. They also got rights to the original sarong kebaya which they use to this day.

                So I believe the current Sarong Kebaya uniform has been inherited from the old Malaysia-Singapore Airlines.
                Yes, as I said in my last post, the current Singapore Airlines uniform is the same as it was in 1968 for MSA.
                Here's a little timeline thingy :
                1. 1937-Malayan Airways registers to get permission to carry passengers for commercial service. For 10 years they operate as a domestic and regional charter service.
                2. 1947- Malayan Airways starts regular commercial service within Malaya and grows throughout Asia Pacific.
                3. 1963- Singapore joins the federation of Malaysia. Malaysia became an actual independent nation in 1957. Singapore did also, but S'Pore does not consider that year as an actual independence date. During this time Malayan Airways switches its name to Malaysian Airways.
                4. 1965- Singapore officially gains independence on August 9.
                5. 1968- Malaysian Airways is renamed Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. During this time Pierre Balmain designs the Sarong Kebaya for MSA. Thus the uniform for the future SQ is born.
                6. 1971/1972- The govs. of Malaysia and Singapore do not wish to continue MSA due to conflicting business outlooks and to help differentiate themselves from one another as independent states. So SIA and MAS are created. At this time Ian Batey comes into the picture as a teenage boy with friends who just like to advertise. Putting Batey in charge of the SIA advertising account was a riskey move, albeit it proved to be an extremely brilliant one. Little did SIA and Batey know that the Singapore Girl was to become an icon of Singapore and commercial aviation industry
                7. 1987ish?- Execs at MAS see that the Singapore Girl and uniform is bringing great success to SIA. They decide to have a Sarong Kebaya made for them so they consult a fashion school at a Malaysian university to make one, which became the MH uniform that is used today.

                I hope this little timeline of the Malaysian and Singaporean history behind MSA/MAS/SIA helps smooth out the confusion.
                So the point is, the SQ sarong kebaya is the real thing. The MAS uniform is the derivative. Both airlines are the same age, SIA and MAS are both derivatives of MSA. MSA headquarters was in Singapore so that gave the future SIA an advantage.
                Last edited by KeithMEL; 29 August 2007, 01:30 PM. Reason: refer to quoted post
                Such a way about you, My Singapore Girl. Wouldn't go away without you, My Singapore Girl.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by sqforever View Post
                  Regarding SQ and MH girls, I prefer SQ staff but I think MH crew is very good too. SQ girls are just more polished, and have more attention to detail. Consistency leans my opinion towards SIA also.
                  Polished is always better...and helps the girls as well later in life. I have noticed that girls from Singapore are harder to get to know than the friendlier Malaysian girls. However, no matter where a person (male or female) is from, the ones with the most training are usually the most sought after.
                  HUGE AL

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by sqforever View Post
                    I've never seen that MH cardigan before and it looks pretty cheap and nasty to me.
                    Well, this is where I first saw it.

                    CLICK "I AGREE" TO WATCH THE VIDEO

                    IMPORTANT NOTICE:
                    No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
                    I AGREE


                    At first, I thought it was the FA's own personal cardigan as it looked very cheap IMHO. But when I saw the same cardigan again in that photo that I've posted, I kind of guessed that it is part of their uniform. Can't be purely coincidential eh?

                    Anyway, to add on why I prefer SQ to MH, it's partially due to the uniform. I feel that SQ's kebaya brings out the FA's figure better as compared to MH's. The round neck looks better than the v neck IMHO.

                    However, to be fair, I cannot comment on other non-superficial aspects such as the service provided, as I've never taken MH. So yeah, maybe MH has better service. But outlook wise, SQ has gets my attention.
                    We put labels on people and fight wars over them. If we truly want harmony, we have to get past the labels.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by nykelaz View Post
                      However, to be fair, I cannot comment on other non-superficial aspects such as the service provided, as I've never taken MH. So yeah, maybe MH has better service. But outlook wise, SQ has gets my attention.
                      Thing is, comments that are based purely on the superficial are, IMO, unfair. Personally, I hope I base my judgments more on cabin crews' ability to meet or exceed my service expectations, rather than on how well they conform to some aesthetic standard.
                      ‘Lean into the sharp points’

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I took MH just few months back, their flight attendants are nowhere as good as CX or SQ. I prefer SQ girls anytime, they are more polished and has certain charm and grace with them, not to mention the efficiency of SQ training. I can't stand the slow-ness of MH onboard service compare to SQ, which normally is very quick and efficient. I even have to say that KL flight attendants are more efficient, although MH may be more friendly.

                        Regarding the uniform, the SQ's uniform wins hands down. MH's kebaya do not fit as well as SQ.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          In my experience, both have been equally competent and service-oriented. SQ does appear to practise stricter grooming. I actually prefer the color of the MH uniform; all that green makes it really soothing.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            MAS need to do something about those black shoes. it doesnt go well with thier kebaya.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Let's not rule out Qantas and their LHR crew base, or indeed their regional crews.

                              N

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by captnick_qf View Post
                                Let's not rule out Qantas and their LHR crew base, or indeed their regional crews.

                                N
                                That'd be for another thread as it's a different topic altogether isn't it?

                                Originally posted by jjpb3 View Post
                                Thing is, comments that are based purely on the superficial are, IMO, unfair. Personally, I hope I base my judgments more on cabin crews' ability to meet or exceed my service expectations, rather than on how well they conform to some aesthetic standard.

                                Couldn't have said that better myself.
                                All opinions shared are my own, and are not necessarily those of my employer or any other organisation of which I'm affiliated to.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X