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?