Travel & Leisure: 2012 World's Best International Airlines

[gilboman]

Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, are all very expensive places, that's where most of these expensive airlines are based.

It's the mentality - Asia still has the concept of customer service... unfortunately in North America, we want everything fast and cheap (i.e. Walmart / Macdonalds).

WTH are you talking about? expensive places doesn't mean labour is expensive lol
no employment or equity standards also help

[gilboman]

Obvious you never flew Cathay Pacific if you think they're staffed by low-waged mainlanders. lol if you think Emirates pay their workers crap. Your conjecture about Korean and Taiwanese conglomerates show how clueless you are about their airlines. You probably didn't know that EVA Air was founded against all obstacles without any support and everyone thought it would fail.

they're staffed by unemployable grads who can't find jobs in financial sector.

[gobbledygoo]

In N. American senior union members have priority to choose their desire route to fly which is to overseas. These senior unions members are most likely in their 40's and 50's and they work by the union rule book.

On the other hand, Asian airlines pick the best looking hostess to fly over seas.

Out of that list of top 10 I've flown: Singapore, Korean Air, Cathay, Asiana, Thai and Eva; and I must agree with the above comment that they do have a more "careful" hiring process which typically results in better/more cheery service which in turn equals higher customer satisfaction (versus the more common North American practice of senior union members getting the best routes which are the international ones).

I used to know someone that worked at an Asian airline and they all have unofficial limited shelf life - after they're past a certain age they are strongly encouraged/commonly understood (by the more senior cabin crews while mentoring the junior ones) to either apply for a different position (ground crew, training officers, anything but flying basically) or look for another job. While I don't quite think that's fair or right, I can't really argue with the end results...

[elmst200]

The real hurdle for more applicants, I think, is the requirement for English proficiency.

I say cabin service jobs arre good, attractive and competitive job is primarily based on the salary levels. The flight attendants' starting salary is 1.5 times of the starting average salary for university graduates.

45 applicants per opening, not exactly an outrageous number nor is it any indicator of people flocking to be flight attendants.

[elmst200]

so you equate "better service" with "younger age" and "attractive face"?

I used to know someone that worked at an Asian airline and they all have unofficial limited shelf life - after they're past a certain age they are strongly encouraged/commonly understood (by the more senior cabin crews while mentoring the junior ones) to either apply for a different position (ground crew, training officers, anything but flying basically) or look for another job. While I don't quite think that's fair or right, I can't really argue with the end results...

[truel1111]

"younger" and "attractive" for sure is part of better service. Don't you agree ?
Do you prefer someone in their 40's or 50's and un-attractive to server you ?

I prefer older, un-attractive to serve my someone else.

[Aristophanes]

"younger" and "attractive" for sure is part of better service. Don't you agree ?
Do you prefer someone in their 40's or 50's and un-attractive to server you ?

Agreed.

That's the reason why I hate flying transatlantic with LH or any of the legacy US airlines. All old grandmas that can't be bothered to smile anymore. With SQ, they are young, yes, but they definitely have more energy and make an effort to do their job.

[gobbledygoo]

Agreed.

That's the reason why I hate flying transatlantic with LH or any of the legacy US airlines. All old grandmas that can't be bothered to smile anymore. With SQ, they are young, yes, but they definitely have more energy and make an effort to do their job.

Yep... I agree that's the reason: they're fresh, not as jaded/overworked, so they're in general more energetic which in turn typically translates into better service attitudes. Part of the excitement is also that on their layover they get to visit a foreign city they may otherwise not be able to or desired to go. Yes of course there are many cabin crews on all airlines that just genuinely love what they do year after year but at least from what I've seen, that seems to be the exception not the norm and thus, like alot of other service industries, they have to rely on turnovers and new batches of young recruits for these frontline staffs (both male and females).

Some other examples for my point above I think are: Apple Store representatives/Geniuses, amusement park ride attendants, restaurant wait staffs, etc

[coolspot]

WTH are you talking about? expensive places doesn't mean labour is expensive lol
no employment or equity standards also help

It's not like an uneducated maid is going to be servicing the plane. Mechanics are probably paid roughly the same as in North America (skill trade). Pilots - I'm sure they're paid the same or better than their North American counterparts. Also, international airlines have to pay for maintenance, fuel, food, all over the world. I really don't think labour factors much into this discussion.

As for the airline attendants, their salary - especially in Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand will be inline with North America, perhaps only slightly cheaper - but not enough to make a significant difference.

Service comes down to the mentality of these companies. If you don't believe me, fly one fo these airlines and you'll see what I mean.

[NorthYorker]

It's not like an uneducated maid is going to be servicing the plane. Mechanics are probably paid roughly the same as in North America (skill trade).

As far as this particular survey goes, wages of "uneducated maids" play absolutely disproportional role. All airlines invest pretty much same amount of sweat equity into technical aspects of maintenance, performed by relatively well-paid mechanics, so this factor can be mostly (I still doubt that hourly wages for mechanics in Thailand are somewhere close to NYC, but I let you this much leeway) ignored. Nor is it a "number of technical problems" survey, which somehow reflects mechanics' effort. This is a "quality of tchotchkes" ranking, assessing things such are "Cabin comfort, in-flight service, customer service, value." Absolutely every item in this list, except "in-flight service", hinges on wages of "uneducated maids", other expenditures being, as you've said yourself, roughly equal for all decent airlines. If you pay your cabin cleaning crew $1/hour and not $15/hour, you can have 30 people hand-picking every last piece of lint from the floor, instead of two cleaners quickly sweeping the plane. Would it translate into "cabin comfort"? Darn right, it would. If you pay your phone people $2/hour and not $20/hour, your customer service is 10 times as good, pronto. And, since nobody employs 15-20 people instead of one, you can give a better value to your customer, if your ground crews are twice or thrice as numerous, but still very cheap.

I really don't think labour factors much into this discussion.

You contradict yourself. If all other factors are roughly comparable, labour cost is one of few factors allowing the airline to stand out.

Service comes down to the mentality of these companies.

Having Gulf companies in the list almost destroys the "mentality" argument. If you ever dealt with folks from that area, you know what I mean. Oh, morale does play a role, otherwise Somalese or Haitian airlines would rule surveys like this. But old military maxim still stands. "Morale and materiel". Very rarely the former outplays the latter.

[nalababe]

Thai was in top ten...flew them for the first time.

Just finished a 12 hour flight on Thai airlines from Heathrow to bangkok...did the Toronto-Heathrow flight a week earlier. There was next to no difference.

Plane 763 AC vs 340 Thai
Planes were comparable in pitch...Thai's plane looked and felt older. Seats looked worn.
Entertainment system was 10x better on AC. Thai was old, poor resolution, less choice
Thai plane was very hot (to the point if being uncomfortable). AC is usually cold
Food was better on Thai, but not for kids. Less wine on Thai.
Service was comparable...age and gender mean nothing as long as service is there. Neither stood out.
Will say lounge food was better by a bit at Bangkok then Heathrow.

have flown Singapore before on the 380s... but what stood out was the attention they paid to the kids.: the made a fuss about them, gave them toys, recommend staggering food service so that we could eat in peace afterwards....and yes the attendants were attractive, but again, don't care as long as they are friendly and helpful.

[pablonutribar]

Excessive labour availability, hardly. These places all have very low unemployment rates (under 5%). The people there are not flocking to be part of the cabin crew. I also do not see how lower wages translates to things like better in-flight service and customer service.

How long has it been since you left Taiwan? Cabin attendant positions in most places in East Asia are quite competitive. Girls have to be tall, pretty, educated, AND friendly. Like anywhere else guys just have to be......gay A salary of 40,000 or 50,000 NT a month here is considered pretty damn good these days given the state of the Taiwanese economy. The same can be said for similar positions throughout East Asia. So, yes, people ARE flocking to cabin crew positions.

[pablonutribar]

You're naive if you think mainlanders can just stroll into HK and get a job. Mainlander access to the SARs is very restricted. We're not talking about all of the Gulf countries nor are we talking about all of Asia. We're talking about UAE, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, NZ and HK which are rich places and make up the bulk of the list. So what if Taiwanese and Korean airlines are subsidiaries of big conglomerates? The rest of your post is just speculating.

By being the subsidiary of large conglomerate, an airline has access to funding and resources that it might not otherwise have. It might also have the ability to absorb more losses, as the conglomerate may be willing to allow certain business units to run at a loss longer than what might otherwise be considered prudent. This isn't to say that I think NorthYorker is right - I don't think the number of employees is the driver here. It is more likely due to the mentality and corporate culture present within successful airlines.

I agree with you about the access of airlines such as EVA, Cathay, or Singapore Airlines to foreign workers - it simply doesn't happen on a large scale. That said, wages for most positions in these airlines are often lower than their Western equivalents (but not by a huge amount).

In regards to EVA - apparently they were set up with help of a particular group of Canadians from the airline industry. EVA does well because it's a reasonably well run company with safe, well-thought-out standards and policies in place - unlike China Airlines.