Re: SQ222 (SYD-SIN) ordered to divert to Darwin by family court

[thegoons]

I flew SQ (SIA) for the first time last month SYD-SIN-NRT-SIN-SYD and am
over the moon with the fantastic service, a far cry from QF. Was I just
lucky or are they really that far ahead? Hot towels, plentiful drinks,
bathroom-amenities, Wisemen-individually-controlled-entertainment system and
a friendly attitude are the things that come to mind. I have been
anti-Star-Alliance for a while (after losing Ansett FFP's) but I think they
have really got me back now after that sweetner - I might get bagged but
could probably say the service even beats CX.

"GB" > wrote in message
...
> This is an interesting one. The Family Court ordered
> yesterday's SQ222 to divert to Darwin while it was
> en-route from Sydney to Singapore so that a passenger
> (a 3yo boy) could be prevented from leaving Australia.
>
> http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/11/1063268522896.html
>
>
> SIA have taken a nice approach to dealing with problems
> caused by the stopover too, even if it's not their fault
> to start with:
>
> "In the case of customers whose travel arrangements
> are disrupted, Singapore Airlines will seek to re-accommodate
> them on the next available flight and will meet their
> disruption costs."
>
> The flight was apparently operated with a B747-400.
>
> G

[Scott Howard]

In aus.aviation GB > wrote:
> Don't forget too that in the period from about 1997 to 2000,
> Singapore Airlines lost three hulls and 190 lives (that
> might be 189 dead - I'm not actually sure if there were two
> POB the Lear, or three). In two of those three accidents,
> all persons on board died. Not a great record in my book.

In fairness, the breakup of the 3 crashes is :
* July 1997 - Learjet 31, all 2 crew killed, no passengers on board.
* December 1997 - Silkair Boeing 737, all 7 crew and 97 passengers killed
* October 2000 - Boeing 747, 4/20 crew killed, 79/159 passengers killed

The first was a Lear, so can hardly be compared to a large passenger jet.

No cause was ever confirmed for the 2nd, but all indications point towards
the pilot committing suicide. This is something which it's always going to
be difficult for an airline to avoid. Technically this was SilkAir not
SQ, but that's largely irrelevant. (SilkAir is to SQ what QantasLink is to
QF)

The 3rd was definitely, at least in part, a result of the crew. Exactly
how much blame went to the crew, how much to ATC and how much to the
airport depends on who you ask, but realistically there's little doubt
the pilots paid a major part in causing the accident.

Scott.

[Manuel Freitas]

"thegoons" > wrote in message >...
> I flew SQ (SIA) for the first time last month SYD-SIN-NRT-SIN-SYD and am
> over the moon with the fantastic service, a far cry from QF. Was I just
> lucky or are they really that far ahead? Hot towels, plentiful drinks,
> bathroom-amenities, Wisemen-individually-controlled-entertainment system and
> a friendly attitude are the things that come to mind. I have been
> anti-Star-Alliance for a while (after losing Ansett FFP's) but I think they
> have really got me back now after that sweetner - I might get bagged but
> could probably say the service even beats CX.

I've flown SIA on many different routes: to Kathmandu, Shanghai,
Frankfurt, London, NYC, etc, and my experience is that basically they
try to "beat" the competition. I suspect they have a lot of very good
competition on Japan to Singapore and Australia flights so you'll
probably find the best service there.
To put it into perspective, the Kathmandu and Shanghai flights for
instance, well their service was, well, just barely a service :-)
Their European service, again, it was very good.

- Manuel.

[JMS]

"GB" > wrote in message
> "thegoons" > wrote in
> > > I flew SQ (SIA) for the first time last month SYD-SIN-NRT-SIN-SYD and
> > am over the moon with the fantastic service, a far cry from QF. Was I
> > just lucky or are they really that far ahead?
>
> Yes, and no. The girls are pretty, the Nintendo and the
> movies are a nice distraction, and the hot towels every time
> you turn around are nice too.
>
> If that's all you look for in an airline, then SQ are brilliant.
>
> What makes me really jumpy about SQ is the endless stream of
> bad stories about them. Cabin crew that go to pieces anytime
> something slightly out of the ordinary happens - useless in
> any sort of emergency situation. Pilots who never, ever go
> around or divert, yet are all at least as good as Boeing test
> pilots (you just ask them). Aircraft that are run into the
> ground, then returned to the lessor just before major maintenance
> is due. An Asian concept of maintaining face that will see a
> First Officer sit on his hands, silent, while his Captain does
> something stupid that risks a serious incident before he would
> dare open his mouth or step in. A corporate culture that
> encourages and maintains that attitude.
>
You seem to forget that many pilots flying SQ are in fact foreigners. many
Australian and British pilots with a good helping of other non Asian
entities.

As for the endless stream of bad stories, well there have been a few but
endless.... NO!


>
> Don't forget too that in the period from about 1997 to 2000,
> Singapore Airlines lost three hulls and 190 lives (that
> might be 189 dead - I'm not actually sure if there were two
> POB the Lear, or three). In two of those three accidents,
> all persons on board died. Not a great record in my book.
>
>
> Now Qantas service sucks the big one in the air, and it's
> even worse on the ground. I positively hate dealing with
> Qantas people generally. They do seem to have their wits
> about them on their flight decks though, particularly
> when compared to any Asian airline has to offer. I like my
> chances of making it out alive with an airline that (a)
> trains it's crews, and (b) has a western attitude on the
> flight deck.
>
>
> I'd rather be grumpy and alive with Qantas than pampered
> and dead with SQ!!
>
>
> G

[thegoons]

"GB" > wrote in message
...
> "thegoons" > wrote in
> :
> What makes me really jumpy about SQ is the endless stream of
> bad stories about them. Cabin crew that go to pieces anytime
> something slightly out of the ordinary happens - useless in
> any sort of emergency situation.

Please provide a link to the endless examples of cabin crew performing in
that way.

[Henry]

GB > wrote:

> I'd rather be grumpy and alive with Qantas than pampered
> and dead with SQ!!

You are willing to routinely and repeatedly put up with service that
makes you grumpy simply because there might be an infinitesimally higher
chance of being killed whilst being pampered? (Compare fatalities per
passenger-mile flown.) That makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Are you one of these people who live in fear? How can you bear to go
outside, at all? You might get struck by lightning--numerous people die
from that every year.

cheers,

Henry

[Leo Hamulczyk]

"thegoons" > wrote in message
...
> I flew SQ (SIA) for the first time last month SYD-SIN-NRT-SIN-SYD and am
> over the moon with the fantastic service, a far cry from QF. Was I just
> lucky or are they really that far ahead?

I flew MEL-SIN on SQ in July on my way to Europe with LH the rest of the
way. It was a joke. I thought I would get some sleep but by the time the
trays were collected and I store my tray table and recline and go to sleep
it was 3.5 hours into the flight. The longest meal service I have ever had.
After the negative things I have heard about LH it was quite a pleasant
surprise, though they can get a bit uptight and it depends a lot on the crew
on the particular flight.

Leo H

[Whytoi]

In article >, Leo Hamulczyk
> wrote:

> I flew MEL-SIN on SQ in July on my way to Europe with LH the rest of the
> way. It was a joke. I thought I would get some sleep but by the time the
> trays were collected and I store my tray table and recline and go to sleep
> it was 3.5 hours into the flight. The longest meal service I have ever had.
> After the negative things I have heard about LH it was quite a pleasant
> surprise, though they can get a bit uptight and it depends a lot on the crew
> on the particular flight.

But given that it's a late afternoon/evening flight (I assume), what's
the hurry to get to sleep? At least for a great majority of passengers.
Also, you'll have some 12 hours b/n SIN-FRA on LH and will arrive in
the morning Euro time, wouldn't it make far more sense to try to catch
most of your sleep on your second sector? I have a feeling that SQ
structures their service schedule around these realities. For
comparison, TG's service schedule to BKK is just about similar.

Further, completing the main meal service some 3.5 hours into a flight
isn't exactly unusual on long haul flights that's. The only slightly
quicker service in my experience has been those late evening flights.

[Christopher]

Hey GB

Sitting on hands would probably describe the Qantas Bangkok incident ?


"GB" > wrote in message
...
> "thegoons" > wrote in
> :
> > I flew SQ (SIA) for the first time last month SYD-SIN-NRT-SIN-SYD and
> > am over the moon with the fantastic service, a far cry from QF. Was I
> > just lucky or are they really that far ahead?
>
> Yes, and no. The girls are pretty, the Nintendo and the
> movies are a nice distraction, and the hot towels every time
> you turn around are nice too.
>
> If that's all you look for in an airline, then SQ are brilliant.
>
> What makes me really jumpy about SQ is the endless stream of
> bad stories about them. Cabin crew that go to pieces anytime
> something slightly out of the ordinary happens - useless in
> any sort of emergency situation. Pilots who never, ever go
> around or divert, yet are all at least as good as Boeing test
> pilots (you just ask them). Aircraft that are run into the
> ground, then returned to the lessor just before major maintenance
> is due. An Asian concept of maintaining face that will see a
> First Officer sit on his hands, silent, while his Captain does
> something stupid that risks a serious incident before he would
> dare open his mouth or step in. A corporate culture that
> encourages and maintains that attitude.
>
>
> Don't forget too that in the period from about 1997 to 2000,
> Singapore Airlines lost three hulls and 190 lives (that
> might be 189 dead - I'm not actually sure if there were two
> POB the Lear, or three). In two of those three accidents,
> all persons on board died. Not a great record in my book.
>
>
> Now Qantas service sucks the big one in the air, and it's
> even worse on the ground. I positively hate dealing with
> Qantas people generally. They do seem to have their wits
> about them on their flight decks though, particularly
> when compared to any Asian airline has to offer. I like my
> chances of making it out alive with an airline that (a)
> trains it's crews, and (b) has a western attitude on the
> flight deck.
>
>
> I'd rather be grumpy and alive with Qantas than pampered
> and dead with SQ!!
>
>
> G

[Leo Hamulczyk]

"Whytoi" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Leo Hamulczyk
> > wrote:
>
> > I flew MEL-SIN on SQ in July on my way to Europe with LH the rest of the
> > way. It was a joke. I thought I would get some sleep but by the time the
> > trays were collected and I store my tray table and recline and go to
sleep
> > it was 3.5 hours into the flight. The longest meal service I have ever
had.
> > After the negative things I have heard about LH it was quite a pleasant
> > surprise, though they can get a bit uptight and it depends a lot on the
crew
> > on the particular flight.
>
> But given that it's a late afternoon/evening flight (I assume), what's
> the hurry to get to sleep? At least for a great majority of passengers.
> Also, you'll have some 12 hours b/n SIN-FRA on LH and will arrive in
> the morning Euro time, wouldn't it make far more sense to try to catch
> most of your sleep on your second sector? I have a feeling that SQ
> structures their service schedule around these realities. For
> comparison, TG's service schedule to BKK is just about similar.
>
> Further, completing the main meal service some 3.5 hours into a flight
> isn't exactly unusual on long haul flights that's. The only slightly
> quicker service in my experience has been those late evening flights.

It was the afternoon flight. I've flown the late evening TG and MH flights
as well as QF to NRT and the good old Ansett to KIX and I don't think I've
had a meal service quite so long. QF's seem to be short, but they're a bit
short on service anyway (they do seem to have improved compared to the last
time I flew them internationally, which was 4 years ago).

[Whytoi]

In article >, Leo Hamulczyk
> wrote:

> It was the afternoon flight. I've flown the late evening TG and MH flights
> as well as QF to NRT and the good old Ansett to KIX and I don't think I've
> had a meal service quite so long. QF's seem to be short, but they're a bit
> short on service anyway (they do seem to have improved compared to the last
> time I flew them internationally, which was 4 years ago).

Yes, service level can make a difference. I still recall my first ever
trans-Pacific flight in F. By the end of my meal service, I was already
half asleep, the courses just kept coming and coming...

Not that there could be that much difference in Y service (1 food tray
and drink top ups), although there could still be significant
differences b/n "throwing and rushing" the trays to taking it at a more
civilized pace. A key rate limiting factor seemed to be time separation
b/n delivery the tray and tray collection. Some FA would barely wait
for you to finish your last scoop of desert. A full load and being at
the end of the cabin may also make a difference.