Skytrax airline of the year 10 finalists for 2010 ... no surprises

[dajop]

Skytrax have published the 10 finalists for their annual "Airline of the Year" award.

No real surprises in the list that includes:
Air New Zealand, Asiana Airlines, Cathay Pacific Airways, Emirates, Etihad Airways, Malaysia Airlines, Qantas Airways, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways.

Is skytrax Australian-centric? It just occurred to me all of these 10 airlines fly to Australia, and 7 of them (ie other than Etihad, Qatar & Asiana) have significant presence in Australia (in terms of number of flights serving Australia - these are probably 7 out of the top 8 - Jetstar being the missing one of the 8). Maybe we're just lucky in this part of the world!

 

[samh004]

According to Skytrax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia they are UK-based. It seems all the airlines they’ve given 5 stars to are from the Asia-region, but then again, Asia always seems to be big on customer service, as oppose to other regions.

 

[NM]

the lack of USA airlines makes an obvious statement

 

[StevePER]

Don't know how Asiana got on the list, I found them very disappointing. Service in J consisted of the meal service, and that's it. Glasses were taken away without asking, no further drinks were offered, and the crew didn't come around for the rest of the flight.

And no infant seatbelts either!

 

[kamchatsky]

Don't know how Asiana got on the list, I found them very disappointing. Service in J consisted of the meal service, and that's it. Glasses were taken away without asking, no further drinks were offered, and the crew didn't come around for the rest of the flight.

And no infant seatbelts either!

Asiana certainly has more to improve in this area. Somehow they have new J seats with big screens and no AVOD for SYD-ICN route (apparently I was unlucky), which annoys me greatly! The food though, is excellent especially the steak and ssambab. But they seemed to try to do everything in a rush.

Given that English is not their first language, so sometimes they may not say what they mean, even though they were trying to be polite. That's probably why SQ and NZ gets my vote.

What it also means is that most other airlines outside Asia is pretty coughpy, and we are pretty spoiled living in this region.

 

[anat0l]

the lack of USA airlines makes an obvious statement

Yeah, relative to most of the rest of the world, their airlines* suck.

* as in the ones which service a significant international market, not just USA domestic only, or USA/Canada/Mexico

 

[roego]

i really do not know how malaysia Airlines gets in there.
There service locally is no better than say air asia in regards to space of seating either for intrernal flights or short haul international. mainly use old 737 and really cram you in.
As for breakfast on Brisbane-Kl cold muffin a small yoghurt and a cuppa.

And if you have a problem well? and they ACCEPT NO RESONSIBILITY FOR ANY VALUABLES IN BAGGAGE.

 

[roego]

Bangkok airways

Bangkok Airways, theycall themselves a boutique airline, fly to a few destinations out of Bangkok.

I had the pleasure of a couple of flights withe them recently and the first time for a long time have I rally been impressed with an airline.

Maybe a tad in front of singapore airline.

Join their FF and get extra baggage. The staff is so courteous, and on board the catering is AAA.


In Bangkok they have small lounge for all passengers, with drinks and snacks.

 

[mannej]

And if you have a problem well? and they ACCEPT NO RESONSIBILITY FOR ANY VALUABLES IN BAGGAGE.

That is no different to any other airline in the world...

As for your other comment, MH has a greater seat pitch on their 734's (30") compared to Air Asia's 29 inches on their short haul fleet. 34 inches in their long haul fleet can not be beaten

 

[roego]

Firstly that is different to other airlines. Mas is a signatory to the Montreal agreement , the continuation of the Warsaw Convention. They have a rsponsibility.
They will not pay their debts. Owe me money and wil not pay.
as far as I am aware they are flying 737 on short haul local and international routes. They made a big deal the other day of offering bookings on an old airbus over to east Malaysia.

The 737 are old enough to vote in Australia. The pitch is useless to the person sitting behind. Try 9c or 10c and find out about space. It is inconsistent between seats.

And you seem to be ready to defend them against Air Asia. I was not.Do not be like MAS open your eyes and read correctly.

But at RM3600 return to Gold Coast in the sleeper seat MAS does not get in the race. Air asia includes baggage,meal, drink etc inthe price and whilst not a good sleeper seat it is a better than MAS economy seat. Far better. More pitch. leg support, leg space and supposedly prioroty baggage, but that is not true.

MAS must have someone sitting at a computer all day voting Skytrax

 

[mannej]

Excuse me sir, I was not defending MAS, I was offering an opinion based on experience and fact.

All airlines I have dealt with waive their liability in regards to Valuables in checked luggage. If you go onto the MH website, this information is available under the baggage section, and it clearly defines that they are not liable for valuables in checked in luggage.
http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/uploads/en/downloads/common/Baggage-Information.pdf

Malaysia Airlines will not accept liability for valuables, fragile or perishable articles
including money, jewellery, cameras, video and electronics equipment, silverware,
negotiable instruments, business documents, samples, antiques, paintings, furs,
manuscripts or similar items, computers and medication.

So in that regard (and not knowing what the valuable was) according the to T&C's you agreed to by purchasing the ticket, MH specifically waive their liability when it comes to valuables in checked luggage.

As regarding to opening my eyes and defending MH, I was just offering a fact that contradicted your statement. 1 inch may not be an awful lot, but it still is a greater seat pitch than Air Asia. As for comparing a sleeper product with an economy product, apples and oranges really, you can't compare the two.

I am sorry I disagree with you, but IMO, any valuables left in your checked-in baggage is done at your own peril considering that most airlines waive their liability in regards this. My challenge to you is to find one airline who does not waive this liability in their T&C's.

 

[serfty]

...

All airlines I have dealt with waive their liability in regards to Valuables in checked luggage. If you go onto the MH website, this information is available under the baggage section, and it clearly defines that they are not liable for valuables in checked in luggage.
http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/uploads/en/downloads/common/Baggage-Information.pdf


So in that regard (and not knowing what the valuable was) according the to T&C's you agreed to by purchasing the ticket, MH specifically waive their liability when it comes to valuables in checked luggage. ...

... I am sorry I disagree with you, but IMO, any valuables left in your checked-in baggage is done at your own peril considering that most airlines waive their liability in regards this. My challenge to you is to find one airline who does not waive this liability in their T&C's.

Actually in relation to the carriage of checked baggage that is subject to the Montreal Convention, airlines cannot specifically exclude fragile items from compensation. They may try to do so with clauses in their CoC's, but the Montreal Convention overrides any clause with which it may conflict.

See this post from FT:

Originally Posted by KVS

From http://AirConsumer.DOT.gov/rules/webnotice_04012009.pdf

"We have become aware of tariff provisions filed by several carriers that attempt, with respect to checked baggage, to exclude certain items, generally high-cost or fragile items such as electronics, cameras, jewelry or antiques, from liability for damage, delay, loss or theft. A typical provision found in carrier tariffs and disclosed on carrier websites states that the carrier does not assume liability for loss, damage, or delay of "certain specific items, including: . . . antiques, documents, electronic equipment, film, jewelry, keys, manuscripts, medication, money, paintings, photographs . . . ."

Such exclusions, while not prohibited in domestic contracts of carriage, are in contravention of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention (Convention), as revised on May 28, 1999. Article 17 provides that carriers are liable for damaged or lost baggage if the destruction, loss or damage” occurred while the checked baggage was within the custody of the carrier, except to the extent that the damage "resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage." Article 19 provides that a carrier is liable for damage caused by delay in the carriage of baggage, except to the extent that it proves that it took all reasonable measures to prevent the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures. Although carriers may wish to have tariff terms that prohibit passengers from including certain items in checked baggage, once a carrier accepts checked baggage, whatever is contained in the checked baggage is protected, subject to the terms of the Convention, up to the limit of 1000 SDRs (Convention, Article 22, para.2.). Carriers should review their filed tariffs on this matter and modify their tariffs and their baggage claim policies, if necessary, to conform to the terms of the Convention. In addition, carriers should ensure that their websites do not contain improper information regarding baggage liability exclusions applicable to international service."​

UK reference: The Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2002

 

[roego]

Excuse me sir, I was not defending MAS, I was offering an opinion based on experience and fact.

All airlines I have dealt with waive their liability in regards to Valuables in checked luggage. If you go onto the MH website, this information is available under the baggage section, and it clearly defines that they are not liable for valuables in checked in luggage.
http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/uploads/en/downloads/common/Baggage-Information.pdf


So in that regard (and not knowing what the valuable was) according the to T&C's you agreed to by purchasing the ticket, MH specifically waive their liability when it comes to valuables in checked luggage.

As regarding to opening my eyes and defending MH, I was just offering a fact that contradicted your statement. 1 inch may not be an awful lot, but it still is a greater seat pitch than Air Asia. As for comparing a sleeper product with an economy product, apples and oranges really, you can't compare the two.

I am sorry I disagree with you, but IMO, any valuables left in your checked-in baggage is done at your own peril considering that most airlines waive their liability in regards this. My challenge to you is to find one airline who does not waive this liability in their T&C's.

Well 2 other members have pointed out legal facts re Montreal Convention here above. It seems Mas talk with forked tongue. They sign an international agreement and then try and weasel there way out of it.
looks good to help claims of 5 star airline, but in reality Air Asia and Mas about a dead heat.
Yes they supposedly have more seat pitch, but for example I have had to fly with them a few times this year and experienced the cramped seating, air con in scarce supplypoor staff etc.
I have had so many lies from them. And as i said they fly 737 not 734 on the short hauls.
Also they cheat by trying to advertise cheap flights and then ad on some of the highest taxes in the business.
i do not want to fly with Air asia either and always look for an alternative.
And their rules and regulations are just as prohibitive and restrictive as Air Asia

 

[anat0l]

And as i said they fly 737 not 734 on the short hauls.

FYI 734 is the shortform for a Boeing 737-400 aircraft.

 

[roego]

Not comparing appleas and oranges at all. but comparing what you get dollar for dollar and for around same money the Air Asia seat in Premium you get more bang for you buck

 

[roego]

FYI 734 is the shortform for a Boeing 737-400 aircraft.

Never ever ever heard that before..But undoubtedly right.. Why they put 737 on the ticket.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Skytrax have published the 10 finalists for their annual "Airline of the Year" award.

No real surprises in the list that includes:
Air New Zealand, Asiana Airlines, Cathay Pacific Airways, Emirates, Etihad Airways, Malaysia Airlines, Qantas Airways, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways.

Is skytrax Australian-centric? It just occurred to me all of these 10 airlines fly to Australia, and 7 of them (ie other than Etihad, Qatar & Asiana) have significant presence in Australia (in terms of number of flights serving Australia - these are probably 7 out of the top 8 - Jetstar being the missing one of the 8). Maybe we're just lucky in this part of the world!

An astute point, however were you expecting North Amercian, South American, Canadian and UK and European airlines to be amoung the top shelf there?

Anyone of these you expect there?

The list reflects service and commitment in the Indusrty, IMHO.

Regards

SPRUCE

 

[anat0l]

Never ever ever heard that before..But undoubtedly right.. Why they put 737 on the ticket.

I guess for customers its easier just to tell them it's a 737, not having to bother with which series it is (even though there is a marked difference between a -400 and a -800 series, for example, although again most customers would probably not care what kind of plane they are sitting in).

The IATA uses 3 letter/digit shortforms (The Airline Codes Website) for many kinds of airline systems.

 

[mannej]

Not comparing appleas and oranges at all. but comparing what you get dollar for dollar and for around same money the Air Asia seat in Premium you get more bang for you buck

You are comparing apples and oranges with the two products. You mentioned MH economy, and the D7 premium product. They are two different things, but point taken on value for money.

What I find interesting is the fact that the majority of airlines specifically mention the limit of their liability hoping that passengers are naive enough not to challenge this incase something went wrong.

I must admit I was one who would be naive enough to take the T&C's as gospel.

 

[NM]

Never ever ever heard that before..But undoubtedly right.. Why they put 737 on the ticket.

There are many different Boeing 737 models/versions that have commonly used type codes. For example IATA defines the following 737 types:

731 = 737-100 series
732 = 737-200 series
733 = 737-300 series
734 = 737-400 series
735 = 737-500 series
736 = 737-600 series
737 = any 737 series
738 = 737-800 series
739 = 737-900 series
73F = all 737 freighter models
73G = 737-700 series
73H = 737-800 series with winglets
73M = 737-200 combi
73W = 737-700 series with winglets
73X = 737-200 freighter
73Y = 737-400 freighter