First, the terminal looked like the patched-up zinc house we used to live in in the 1960s and 1970s. Granted, the building needn't be state of the art, but at least some tasteful decorations or a decorative theme, which wouldn't have strained the bottom line of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, would have helped.

More important, the 'software' was missing. There weren't enough eateries, and signs were not in places that matter. For example, there was no sign to tell passengers where to drop their odd-size baggage. Once, there were no staff manning the conveyor system. After scouting for help, all I received was a curt reply from an officer telling me to look around the conveyor system for a foot pedal to transport my baggage to the handling station.

How was I supposed to know how to do this with no signs to guide me?

It is hard to understand the double standards applied to the main terminals and the Budget Terminal. The notion that budget travel equates to 'budget' service seems all too apparent in the way staff at the Budget Terminal treat passengers.

With other cities in the region making known their ambition to compete with Singapore as a budget air hub, we risk losing out due to complacency. Perhaps the only mitigating factor for passengers who use the airport is Singapore's fortuitous geographical location.

However, with advances in technology, planes are more comfortable and fly faster. Passengers have the luxury of choosing a hub that gives them better value for their money.

It would be foolish for us to think we have arrived and start to neglect the most basic service standards.

Tan Teck Wei