SQ Tips, Trips and Tales

[Quickstatus]

connection via AC.

What is AC? - you mean Air Canada?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What is AC? - you mean Air Canada?

yeah, aeroplan/air canada

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Is a 50 min connection in SIN on separate tix advisable?

For context - looking to book HYD-SIN-MEL (SQ519, SQ247) with a 50 min connection via AC.
AC only shows each segment as available, but not the entire journey (could be an issue with MCT on their end).

No. The risk is too great.

Even on the same ticket, depending on where the flights arrive and depart, it’s a brisk connection. And they’d have staff to assist you.

Separate tickets and it’s cutting it too fine.

 

[mel-world]

That’s the thing. Two flights in a row. DXB-SIN connecting SIN-SYD.

The first flight the seatbelt sign was on for 30 minutes after takeoff, despite - as it turned out - perfect flying conditions. Resulting service harried given full flight and short flying time. The second flight the seatbelt sign went off quick enough, but then came on at least half a dozen times during the flight. Nothing more than the occasional light bump. The sign went on around 90 minutes prior to landing, meaning a hot coffee to wake up was out of the question. As was changing out of PJs as the WCs were out of use.

Haven’t had that problem on a dozen previous SQ sectors. But now I know it’s a risk, it does factor in to my choice of carrier.

It’s not an issue… until it is.

We have been through this before on AFF.

If you do not believe in 'clear air turbulence', I guess that is your problem. I can only say that I put my trust in the people 'driving the bus' even if it mean I miss my coffee or last glass of wine.

For SIN arrivals, turbulence can be a real issue over the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea so SQ often err on the side of caution during the last hour of the flight from the Sub-continent or Europe.

If your new choice of carrier is happy to potentially have crew, particularly, getting injured if unexpected turbulence should be encountered then it it is not something I am willing to accept.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

We have been through this before on AFF.

If you do not believe in 'clear air turbulence', I guess that is your problem. I can only say that I put my trust in the people 'driving the bus' even if it mean I miss my coffee or last glass of wine.

For SIN arrivals, turbulence can be a real issue over the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea so SQ often err on the side of caution during the last hour of the flight from the Sub-continent or Europe.

If your new choice of carrier is happy to potentially have crew, particularly, getting injured if unexpected turbulence should be encountered then it it is not something I am willing to accept.

No… because on SQ the vast majority of use of the seatbelt sign doesn’t apply to crew. They are advised they may ‘continue duties with caution’. So the conditions aren’t such that they could lead to injury.

Only Qantas requires all passengers and crew to be seated when the seatbelt sign is on.

While the last hour into SIN may warrant revised service due to the potential for turbulence, it’s hard to apply the same for two hours prior to arrival into Sydney. If all airlines applied the same level of caution for the slightest of bump wed have no service at all on domestic flights on the east coast.

The change in SQ policy was because of SQ321.

 

[mel-world]

No… because on SQ the vast majority of use of the seatbelt sign doesn’t apply to crew.

Only Qantas requires all passengers and crew to be seated when the seatbelt sign is on.

I've had the SQ crew instructed to stop service and take their seats on numerous occasions. With good reason most times.

I guess that takes QF and SQ off your list of preffered carriers then.

You are welcome to your opinion.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I've had the SQ crew instructed to stop service and take their seats on numerous occasions. With good reason most times.

I guess that takes QF and SQ off your list of preffered carriers then.

You are welcome to your opinion.

Not at all… QF has the correct approach. If the seatbelt sign is on, all pax and crew should be seated.

Per your comments you would not accept an airline that allows crew to be up and working while the seatbelt sign is on… which SQ allows.

But to clarify the scenario for my observations. They are in relation to the reactive use of the seat belt sign. That is when there is the slightest bump and the sign comes on in response.

Not taking about situations pilots determine there may be bad conditions ahead and have all pax and crew seated… ie the proactive use of the sign.

 

[Quickstatus]

On our flight from Dubai the seatbelt sign was left on - in perfect conditions as it turned out - until we reached cruising altitude.

How do you know that it was not a proactive pilot decision?. Maybe they were concerned?

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Blah blah blah MEL - you just wanting to argue with people or wanting to actually achieve something?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Blah blah blah MEL - you just wanting to argue with people or wanting to actually achieve something?

This thread is about experiences flying SQ. I’m setting out the context of my experience, and passing on information others may wish to take into account when choosing their carrier.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

This thread is about experiences flying SQ. I’m setting out the context of my experience, and passing on information others may wish to take into account when choosing their carrier.

100% correct and you have relayed your experience several times - others can readily absorb and assess - repeating it over and over is getting a bit echoey IMO - but YVMD

 

[lovestotravel]

This thread is about experiences flying SQ. I’m setting out the context of my experience, and passing on information others may wish to take into account when choosing their carrier.

Yes SQ changed their policy after that event, yes they are more careful now and use the seatbelt sign more often than before.

Would it change SQ as my preferred carrier no

Yes the product is slightly dated, small HD TV's but the aircraft as kept in perfect condition

 

[Steady]

100% correct and you have relayed your experience several times - others can readily absorb and assess - repeating it over and over is getting a bit echoey IMO - but YVMD

Pot, kettle? Seems both of you have repeated your opinions over and over…..

Can’t you both have different experiences/perspectives and both be right? Isn’t that what YMMV means?

A recent flight from NRT-SIN, the seatbelt sign was on most of the flight without any noticeable turbulence or inflight service and it changed my SQ fanboy status.

Having just flew SQ J for the first time (revenue return to Japan) and separately from the seatbelt sign being illuminated without noticeable turbulence, I really wasn’t impressed with the tiny cubby hole for my feet (I tried to change to one of the bulkhead seats as recommended here but couldn’t). I wasn’t impressed after flying SQ F and R (that I loved) and didn’t think SQ J was as good as QF J, but SQ was cheaper via SIN than direct with QF or JAL and I was a fanboy. If I were paying again and SQ J was a lot cheaper than QF/JL I would still choose SQ, but if it wasn’t I wouldn’t. SQ F & R a different matter.

That was my perspective and it doesn’t matter if others have had different experiences as this was mine. I do however understand others see all this differently as theirs was different.

 

[burmans]

Yeah agree, both sides have repeated their case somewhat ad nauseum, time to move on. We get it, some people like SQ, some don’t.

 

[lovestotravel]

Pot, kettle? Seems both of you have repeated your opinions over and over…..

Can’t you both have different experiences/perspectives and both be right? Isn’t that what YMMV means?

A recent flight from NRT-SIN, the seatbelt sign was on most of the flight without any noticeable turbulence or inflight service and it changed my SQ fanboy status.

Having just flew SQ J for the first time (revenue return to Japan) and separately from the seatbelt sign being illuminated without noticeable turbulence, I really wasn’t impressed with the tiny cubby hole for my feet (I tried to change to one of the bulkhead seats as recommended here but couldn’t). I wasn’t impressed after flying SQ F and R (that I loved) and didn’t think SQ J was as good as QF J, but SQ was cheaper via SIN than direct with QF or JAL and I was a fanboy. If I were paying again and SQ J was a lot cheaper than QF/JL I would still choose SQ, but if it wasn’t I wouldn’t. SQ F & R a different matter.

That was my perspective and it doesn’t matter if others have had different experiences as this was mine. I do however understand others see all this differently as theirs was different.

Yes the tiny cubby hole makes sleeping hard, SQ J is overall better than QF J, although the QF hard product is slightly better, but the average crew food/drinks lets it down..

The new SQ J product that will start flying during Q2 in 2026 will hopefully bring a softer seat/mattress and no cubby hole..

 

[iamsuperandrew]

I hv noticed these comments about extended ‘seatbelts on’ periods but it wasn’t our recent experience. Just done Syd Sin LHR with several quite violent bumps. We had 5-10 mins of everyone down but then back to normal service in both cases. I actually had to pick up my 2 red wine glasses somewhere N of lake Eyre, but it didn’t deter my heroic efforts to assess & report on the full list of F reds onboard. For reference, the Leoville Poyferre Bordeaux, a 2005 vintage, is starting to fade. Still pretty but the fruit is nearly gone. The 21 Clonakilla O’Riiada by contrast is a strapping colt that needs more taming .. didn’t try the Palliser Pinot.

TPR’s stock of 15 Kooyong PN also looking long in the tooth - I asked if the bottle has been opened long and apparently insulted the waiter by doing so. Oh no sir, it was opened just today. We swapped to the Vajra Barbera which was great, fresh and lively.

I confess I didn’t get far down the list on the overnight to LHR but can recommend the burgundy, a Santenots 18 Volnay. Nice to have a glass of that on the ground before we left. I spose that’s what SQ can do at thr home port.. We stuck with the 2013 Compte champagne on both legs - superb.

Service and attention on both flts was fantastic, food was pretty good, things ran like a Swiss watch, UK immigration was empty and our bags were waiting for us. Good to enjoy SQ again..

Very informative, I personally love the Leoville Poyferre 2005 and for me its the optimal drinking range. When we flew from SIN-NRT last year we had the Chateau Pichon Longueville Comtesse 2006 which was divine.

I was rather disappointed that TPR doesn't offer any notable aged bordeaux wines, did they have any not listed on the menu?