Qantas or Singapore Airlines FF program?

[singsling]

I'm a newbie at flying around so i wonder if you can help: my husband, 2 kids (aged 2 and 4 months) aand I are about to move from Melbourne to live in Singapore. Hubbie will be travelling a fair bit in Asia and I will be travelling with the kids between Melb and Singapore about 4 times per year (mostly without hubbie). Which FF program would be better for us? I hear that SQ has better service for kids but it may be that more points can be earned on one or the other to enable more free flights home to Melb. What can you advise? Thanks, SS

 

[QF WP]

For your husband's flying it may depend on his company travel policy - I'd look at these points:

1. Do they have contracts with either OW or *A carriers?
2. What is the company travel policy for class of travel (i.e. all flying in economy unles he's middle or senior management; or perhaps under 3 hours in Y, over 3 in J)?
3. What cities is he likely to have to fly to (long-haul or short-haul)?
4. What frequency of travel (once per week/month)?
5. What type of tickets (point-to-point return or multi destinations)?

The first two points will inevitably sway his decision to having the majority of his flying in one alliance, then it's a matter of the answer to points 3 to 5 will help to fine tune the selection of program. He may end up flying on both alliances (as some flying to certain cities might necessitate, because of say flight times, travelling with one carrier) and thus joining one program in each.


Until we know the answers to these questions, it is hard to be able to categorically show which Alliance or program would be better.

Prior to knowing these, here is a bit of a preamble:

If he is going to fly mostly economy and on *A carriers, I would plump for United Mileage Plus. UA does have good earning rates on all *A carriers almost irrespective of fare class (unlike Singapore Airlines) and excellent (read low points required) for redemptions.

If mostly Business (or First) on *A carriers; then Singapore Airlines may be the best (given their PPS club for regular J & F pax on SQ flights).

If he is going to fly mostly lower-discount, high volume economy and on OW carriers (mostly QF or CX), then I'd plump for American Airline's AAdvantage and look to put him onto a Platinum Challenge (using your first flight MEL/SIN). It would depend on the fare basis of CX tickets bought.

If mostly high-discount, high-number of economy flights and on OW carriers (QF and CX); then the QF program beings to win hands-down. CX earning on all fares bases through the QFF program is excellent, whilst on AA is bad (only full Y class gets status).

If he is flying J regularly, then a couple of short-haul return flights will get him AA Plat; whilst it will take a while longer on QF. AA's Plat benefits are better (auto upgrades to J on mid-priced Y tickets, redemptions, etc) than QF's at present, particularly with the changes to the QF program effective 25 May 2005.

One strategy if h is flying very regularly in J (or F) on O carriers, then I'd look at getting both QF and AA. Start with putting all flights on QFF until he gets Platinum (hopefully before the end of the year). Then stop putting to QF, join AA and put him on a Platinum Challenge - one decent flight in J (SIN/LHR) will get him AA Platinum (using the Challenge) and as it is likely to be after 1 July 2005, he'll have Plat status until 28 February 2007. Then re-focus on the QFF in early 2006 until he re-quals and then put all flights back on AA Plat. He will be getting the best of both worlds, all flights are credited at +100% mileage.

Again, with your travel (and your children), it will depend on the class of travel you will pay for. It is likely to dovetail into the same Alliance (if not program) as your flights may be the cheapest economy and only your 2 y.o. will probably have a seat bought for them at present (but definitely join them up to the FF program as well, if they are allowed).

You don't want to be in one Alliance with him in the other if you can help it. If you do any travel together, you want to be able to use the benefits together.

 

[shillard]

I'm a newbie at flying around so i wonder if you can help: my husband, 2 kids (aged 2 and 4 months) aand I are about to move from Melbourne to live in Singapore. Hubbie will be travelling a fair bit in Asia and I will be travelling with the kids between Melb and Singapore about 4 times per year (mostly without hubbie). Which FF program would be better for us? I hear that SQ has better service for kids but it may be that more points can be earned on one or the other to enable more free flights home to Melb. What can you advise? Thanks, SS

No contest - if you want pretty hosties who will smile and pretend they think the sun shines out of your cough, fly SQ.

If you want to survive to make it home to your family - fly QF.

I continue to harbour "grave and serious concerns" about the safety aspects of SQ's operations - and you couldn't pay me enough to set foot on one of their aircraft.

And I've flown Oxley Airlines - so that's saying a lot.

 

[thadocta]

As usual Scott, we can rely on you to make an accurate point as succintly as possible - I agree with you, BTW, SQ is not on the top of my list of carriers to fly, their CRM is a major flaw which is potentially fatal (on EVERY flight they operate, not just those with problems).

Dave

 

[singsling]

CRM?

What's CRM? and where can i read more about SQ's safety record?
Sing Sling

 

[QF WP]

Qantas's safety record (at top of page) versus Singapore Airlines safety record (at bottom of page).

Last SQ crash (according to this website) was October 2000; Qantas's 1951...now I'm not sure how QF1 BKK over-run didn't getting in there (technically not a crash??)...

 

[oz_mark]

Qantas's safety record (at top of page) versus Singapore Airlines safety record (at bottom of page).

Last SQ crash (according to this website) was October 2000; Qantas's 1951...now I'm not sure how QF1 BKK over-run didn't getting in there (technically not a crash??)...

Looking through the site and its methodologies it seems to only count accidents where there have been fatalities.

 

[shillard]

Looking through the site and its methodologies it seems to only count accidents where there have been fatalities.

The only ones that count - bad landings.

Good landing = one you can walk away from.

Really good landing = one where you can use the aircraft again.

 

[straitman]

Re: CRM?

What's CRM? and where can i read more about SQ's safety record?
Sing Sling

CRM refers to Crew Resource Management. This covers a multitude of factors which vary from human factors, human resources through to communication and many more. This is the real guts of the aviation industry these days. If you really want more details there are many books available or you could simply do an internet search.

CRM started in the Aviation Industry and now has moved throughout Industry in general and is often refered to as Customer Relationship Management.

 

[thadocta]

Agreed straitman - and it is something seemingly lacking with SQ.

From memory (and I don't have the text here with me now) but when the SQ plane decided to take off from the closed runway, the First Officer knew it was closed, but out of deference to is superior he did not say anything. Result? A bent airplane to start with, and all of the rest.

Just too many things with SQ's culture that give me the creeps.

Dave

 

[oz_mark]

From memory (and I don't have the text here with me now) but when the SQ plane decided to take off from the closed runway, the First Officer knew it was closed, but out of deference to is superior he did not say anything. Result? A bent airplane to start with, and all of the rest.

Just too many things with SQ's culture that give me the creeps.

I think this is a problem in a number of airlines not just SQ. I seem to remember a China Airlines crash where the First Officer had realised a problem but did not challenge his superior on it. It seems to be something drilled into them in their training as many of the flight crew in the airline were Air Force trained and challenging your superior is hardly encourage in that environment.

 

[straitman]

From memory (and I don't have the text here with me now) but when the SQ plane decided to take off from the closed runway, the First Officer knew it was closed, but out of deference to is superior he did not say anything. Result? A bent airplane to start with, and all of the rest.

Just too many things with SQ's culture that give me the creeps.

I think this is a problem in a number of airlines not just SQ. I seem to remember a China Airlines crash where the First Officer had realised a problem but did not challenge his superior on it. It seems to be something drilled into them in their training as many of the flight crew in the airline were Air Force trained and challenging your superior is hardly encourage in that environment.

I recall a situation about 15 years ago when we had some chinese pilots looking at our operation. These pilots were meant to have approx 1500 - 3000 hrs flying experience. We challenged this when their flying skills were not up to scratch. Turns out that they all had about 100 hrs flying experience and said they had more so as not to lose face. Wonderful BUT extremely dangerous.

Suspect that some of these other situations you are referring to fit this category also. :twisted:

 

[markis10]

Agreed straitman - and it is something seemingly lacking with SQ.

From memory (and I don't have the text here with me now) but when the SQ plane decided to take off from the closed runway, the First Officer knew it was closed, but out of deference to is superior he did not say anything. Result? A bent airplane to start with, and all of the rest.


Dave

I have yet to see any explanation why the runway lights were on a closed runway in that case, any ATC worth their salt knows you only switch active runway lights on and a dark runway may have been of assistance to the pilot!

Both SQ and QF have had only one incident in recent times if you exclude Silk Air (which I believe was a suicide), SQ fly 50% more route miles than QF international and have 30 more long haul aircraft which I hope puts things into perspective from a statisical point of view. I would happily fly both in comparison to other options and I believe their FF programs both have merit, you just need to join the one that suits the intended travel.

 

[thadocta]

Don't forget the tail scrape at AKL - which was not "just a tail scrape", it was a major incident due to shoddy calculations as to Vr.

Dave

 

[Russell Corr]

Not trying to defend SQ but in all reality they have a very good safety record and would have to be considered in the top 10 airlines when it comes to safety.

Of course by the same token you cannot knock QF on this at all as they are also A1. Let's hope Jetstar and Australian keep this in tact.

As for the issue of Captain - First Officer relationship onboard I also don't think this is just SQ. You only have to go back to a few disasters and examine them to see it is a common theme. KLM at Tenerife is another example of this when the Captain should have been overuled.

I don't even think this is just an airline problem but a general working problem. how many people out there never question their Supervisor, manager etc on a daily basis in professions across the board. I suspect the answer would be quite a few.

 

[markis10]

At least with SQ you might have a chance to get home rather than your flight being cancelled because the crew were too busy decking each other :http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...ighting-outside/2005/03/29/1111862392103.html

 

[straitman]

Russell Corr wrote:

I don't even think this is just an airline problem but a general working problem. how many people out there never question their Supervisor, manager etc on a daily basis in professions across the board. I suspect the answer would be quite a few.

Agreed however the Aviation Industry in general has progressed significantly with CRM training. SQ appears to be one of those dragging their feet in this area.

I have friends who fly for a variety of airlines and you'd be surprised who are high/low on the totem pole of CRM and associated safety.

 

[thadocta]

Just to drag this back on topic, the incident in BKK where the QF 744 decided to play a round of golf happened whilst the flight crew were following both Qantas AND Boeing mandated procedures. They did nothing wrong, apart from deciding to stay within mandated procedures rater than exceed them.

The incidents in TPE and AKL with SQ were easily preventable with a half-way competent flight crew - and I would regard an FO who allowed these sorts of things to occur to be incompetent.

Now, these are just the occasions which resulted in an "incident", what about the other occasions where something *might* have happened, but didn't?

FWIW, I checked with a mate who is an FO with QF, and they are actually encouraged to challenge captains when they think the decision is wrong. During SIM sessions, they will often have the caption deliberately make a wrong decision, just to see what the FO will do and say. Can't see this happening with SQ>

Dave

 

[Russell Corr]

[Agreed however the Aviation Industry in general has progressed significantly with CRM training. SQ appears to be one of those dragging their feet in this area.

I have friends who fly for a variety of airlines and you'd be surprised who are high/low on the totem pole of CRM and associated safety.

The key here is the aviation industry has to progress, as without this improvement lives are at risk.

Bill, I'd be interested in the results if you want to send a PM. I am very interested in this area.

thadocta wrote
FWIW, I checked with a mate who is an FO with QF, and they are actually encouraged to challenge captains when they think the decision is wrong. During SIM sessions, they will often have the caption deliberately make a wrong decision, just to see what the FO will do and say. Can't see this happening with SQ>

Dave while I agree with what you are saying about QF in general, I would think it is a lot easier to challenge the Captain during a SIM session. Lets hope they would do it if the worst ever occured.

Also with the 744 at Bangkok. What happened to the QF pilots? Were they "retired".

Cheers,
Russell

 

[dajop]

To put things in perspective, I recently flew SQ to BKK and back. Now I'm well aware of the concerns others have on this board about the safety of SQ - but quite frankly it is all relative, and what scared me the most was getting to/from the airport. Travelling at speeds of 140kph, speeding up to get past vehicles when approaching roadworks that blocked a lane and required a merge .... next time I'm going to learn the Thai words for "I'll pay you 200 Baht to stay below 90km/h". I'd be just as concerned about getting to/from the airport , as I would about flying SQ, at many of their destinations. How do the odds of flying SQ compare with crossing the road (here or abroad)? Or other risky activities?