British Airways or Singapore Airlines?

[december2020]

We have a bit of a once in a lifetime trip to SE Asia and looking to book business class flights and unsure which way to go. I know this is a first world problem.

It is either Singapore Airlines on a A350.
I know the reputation is out of this world, the seats however need to be manually converted into lie-flat mode. From reading online reviews, this came up consistently as a con, which made me hesitate.

The other is British Airways.
Flying out would be the 777 new Club Suites (which I've travelled in before with work) but the flight back is the higgledy piggledy A380, which looks quite cumbersome.

I just booked the British Airways flights and now hesitating on whether I should go with Singapore Airlines. I have about 20 hours to cancel and get my money back and pick the other flight.

So this poll and all your reviews and insight is very much appreciated and needed in urgency!

The whistleblowers are regarding both the 777s and 787s
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68775413

I see you've changed your flights now so this is a bit moot!
90% time service I've received on BA has been great. But if there are options to avoid the horrendous ying Yang business seating do so. There is also something stupid going on with food now and offering brunch over lunchtime. BA really do need to invest in customer experience.

And this happened Tuesday on a 777 leaving London for Costa Rica
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/passengers-endured-a-9-hour-flight-to-nowhere-after-a-boeing-777-developed-a-problem-over-the-atlantic/ar-AA1tkBgK

Really? 3 years ago
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/23/us/boeing-aircraft-engine-fail-tuesday/index.html

“The investigation into the engine failure of a Boeing 777 could take more than a year, officials said, but already the picture is becoming clearer about what happened to the United Airlines flight on Saturday.
According to investigators, the Pratt & Whitney engine failed minutes into United Airlines flight 328, headed from Colorado to Hawaii, leaving a mile of debris in its wake. After the incident, United grounded all of its Boeing 777s powered by PW4000 series engines.”

Luckily it failed right after take off so the pilot was able to land in a way that saved all the passengers and crew.

I read about this it was a minor water leak. The plane was not in any danger just easier to fix in Heathrow than in Costa Rica. Very annoying for the passengers yes.

stop scaremongering

Oh come on. Yes it does happen that very occasionally plane engines fail. You know what? Car engines fail all the time. It’s years, probably decades since any passenger plane crashed due to an engine failure. They are designed to keep going with one

of course there are serious concerns with Boeing but that’s another thread

Singapore every time. BA, in my experience, are not good at all.

I have never flown Qatar, but friends just did to Perth via Doha and raved about their business class.

@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice

I’m retired now but have several thousand hours flying 777s so maybe I can help on the safety comments:

Luckily it failed right after take off so the pilot was able to land in a way that saved all the passengers and crew.

Not sure what the significance is of the “right after takeoff”, the T7, like most big twins, is certified to operate on one engine for at least 180 minutes.

Probably of much more significance is the fact that none of the BA 777s are powered by the type of engine that went in this case, that was Pratt and Whitney engine, For info BA use either Rolls Royce or General Electric engines of various variants of their T7s, I can’t recall what SQ use.

As for the London-Costa Rica flight…. Sometimes, as the article points out, for a problem that doesn’t effect flight safety but might be difficult to fix at destination it would be entirely permissible to return to base…though obviously sub-optimal for many of the passengers.

Personally I'd go Finnair, but if it has to be between BA or Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines every time.

No disinterested can also mean uninterested.

No to BA.

That’s the thing with technical failures due to shoddy maintenance and using the cheapest spare parts- you can be lucky and no one die, or you can be unlucky and everyone dies. Luck always runs out in the end.

I’m not sure a minor bathroom water leak is going to kill anybody. The flight didn’t even do an emergency landing it was just diverted back to base. You’re scaremongering, again.

anyway none of this helps the OP who I believe is now sorted.

It’s years, probably decades since any passenger plane crashed due to an engine failure

A quick google will tell you that it’s only been a few months - since you’re expanding it to ‘any passenger plane’.

I flew to Singapore with SQ in Sept & it was marvellous & flew back with BA & it was scruffy & cramped by comparison.

Business Class both ways.

Yeah I see OP has changed her tickets.
I don’t agree it is scaremongering to counter your assertions that it’s utter rubbish there is anything wrong with Boeings maintenance of their 777s when there have been enough red flags to do a line of bunting.

Components on even the best maintained aircraft break from time to time…regardless of the airline, regardless of how well funded the maintenance or how expensive the component.

To keep flights safe Boeing, Airbus and the other manufacturers have become very clever at ensuring that systems on their aircraft are designed to degrade in such a manner that usually the malfunction has little to no effect on the flight in progress, or (worse case, for example an engine failure on a twin) you retain the capability to divert to the nearest suitable airport.

Please stop scaremongering.

i never said there was nothing wrong with Boeings maintenance - there clearly are some questions.
but I’m not going to add fuel to your scarelingering

Option 1, but I’d choose 3-4 days in Singapre and 8 days in the other location. The difference in hotel prices (higher in Singapore than most other SEA locations) would allow you to upgrade hotel in Singapore, and it’s very much a stopover rather location rather than holiday destination per se.

oh stop with saying I am scaremongering.
Yes, parts fail on even the best maintained aircraft. I am quite aware.

The fact that the US Government’s FAA audited Boeing’s Manufacturing and Quality Assurance process last year and found it so severely lacking such that Boeing is currently under “aggressive FAA surveillance” for an indefinite period due to real concerns for passenger safety is not business as usual for an airline manufacturer.

It’s like an NHS trust being under special measures for failures in care.

Maybe an important point of order given the way this thread has going and we are back to Boeing having fingers pointed at it…

Once the airline has bought the airframe the routine maintenance of the airframe has little to usually pretty much nothing to do with the manufacturer, though they often provide product support, advice etc.

The nuts and bolts maintenance is usually done by the airline (some major maintenance gets contracted out), similarly for the engines which are a separate unit …support for those comes from Pratt/GE/Rolls, one or two others.

So if a P&W engine goes pop on the wing of a United 777 , or a Rolls engine fails on a BA aircraft, say a 787, that’s between the airline and the engine manufacturer..not Boeing.

Singapore every time! BA are shocking

I just think that when I’m considering what airline to book, that a manufacturer’s current systemic safety and quality assurance failures regarding their planes ( which would have affected every plane delivered to every airline) is as valid a consideration as say, how scruffy the air crew dress or how tricksy it is to put your business class seat into bed mode, or the inflight menu.

Well that’s Ok in theory if you really understand the aviation industry and flying. I wouldn’t rely on the MSM for making a safety case for flying or not flying with a particular airline

BTW I’m not sure why the 777 got dragged into the mix..it’s an aircraft which is recognized worldwide to have an excellent safety record and was designed, and many of which were built, well before the changes at management level at Boeing which led to the Max debacle.

I was recently researching this for a trip I plan next year. I decided the layover in Abu Dhabi (Etihad) or Dubai (Emirates) would be preferable to both BA or SQ based on online reviews. Im going to choose Etihad.

BAs business offering is quite poor, and the problem for me with SQ is I think their cabins look tired and some of the window seats are partially obstructed.

BA is a great airline, I have never had any problems with them in the air or on the ground. Singapore Airlines is great in the air, on the ground not so much.
I think the measure of a company is how they behave when things go wrong, not when things go well.
I booked a flight to Tokyo to attend my son's wedding on SA, when I booked I checked that my passport was valid using the IATA tool on the SA website. When I checked in online, boarding was denied as my passport had too little time remaining (Brexit rule).
I called the SA HQ and pointed out that the rule was for access to the EU only, my flight included EU airspace but not entry to the EU.
Japan was fine with it IChecked).
The person I spoke to refused to check my passport against the IATA tool on the SA website and said the U.K. government has ruled on this (not true) and I was unable to make the trip.
It took months and much effort to get my money back.
Never again!!!