Agree, It was a clear mishandling of the situation by SQ onboard. The fact is that SQ was not prepared for this and had no contingency plan. Franlky, when they announced a delay I thought I was going to see how professionally SQ deals with it. Nothing like this happen. The crew was stressed and pax were angry.
Of course it is better to have a delay or not to fly at all than to fly on the broken airplane.
If this was really some part coming from Switzerland , then you can be rest assured SQ crew know exactly how long it will take to arrive , and to assemble it back on to the plane - and an exact contingency plan for it . In this case - easily 5 hours , in my estimation . And , since this did not happen , it was not a question of a part . If then , it was as I suggested , there is no contingency plan for this - just have to play it by ear . Could be OK'd for take-off in 10 minutes , or 10 hours .
Kimshep - if they know that it's part X from Switzerland - they know exactly how much time it's going to take - barring any exceptions . They have programs for all of this . Most of your points would apply , if they did not know how long it would take .
Why do you continue to say SQ is being a 'budget airline'. Boy can I tell you that is wrong... you got served chips, something a budget airline would make you pay for, and a budget airline would probs just cancel the flight, and leave you stranded. I believe SQ handled the situation quite well. And if you look at the points kimshep made, it will all make sense.
As many people have said, mechanical issues aren't rare in the airline industry. They're part of the industry.
Could SQ have handled it better? Maybe. Do you deserve at least some compensation? Absolutely. But step in operations' shoes for a minute. As far as they knew, that plane could've been fixed at any point in those six hours, and de and re-boarding the passengers would've cost extra time. It was well within their contract of carriage with you. And as someone pointed out, at least they didn't cancel the flight, and served some form of snacks. They don't just have extra food lying around.
At the end of the day, I ultimately believe you should receive some form of compensation, maybe 1000 miles. But I would be surprised if it was more than that.
SQ didnt handle the situation at all - they simply transferred all the risks on passengers. They have no contingency plans for such situations. Passengers pay for their poor planning.
They could have moved to passengers to the terminal. After 2 hours of delay and the detail enroute from Switzerland - it was quite an apparent thing to do. If they had contingency plan - they would provide hot meal either in the terminal or onboard (a350 is not that large airplane). They could have informed passengers that they would be rebooked on their connecting flights. They could have promised some compensation for inconvinience while the situation was developing.
Yes SQ had to do some homework in advance to be ready for the above.
Non of it was done - they just kept passengers 6 hours onboard the grounded plane.
I can see MikeZs point, and had the flight been departing from Singapore rather than Moscow, they may have had a better chance to get people back into the terminal. Being in Moscow I guess they dont have any clout and have to live with what happens. Pretty ordinary just the same.
aviwil
aviwil
Member since 08 Nov 2011
Total posts 8
MikeZ - if it was something like I suggested , nobody will ever tell you so .
MikeZ
MikeZ
Member since 24 Jan 2017
Total posts 26
Agree, It was a clear mishandling of the situation by SQ onboard. The fact is that SQ was not prepared for this and had no contingency plan. Franlky, when they announced a delay I thought I was going to see how professionally SQ deals with it. Nothing like this happen. The crew was stressed and pax were angry.
Of course it is better to have a delay or not to fly at all than to fly on the broken airplane.
aviwil
aviwil
Member since 08 Nov 2011
Total posts 8
If this was really some part coming from Switzerland , then you can be rest assured SQ crew know exactly how long it will take to arrive , and to assemble it back on to the plane - and an exact contingency plan for it . In this case - easily 5 hours , in my estimation . And , since this did not happen , it was not a question of a part . If then , it was as I suggested , there is no contingency plan for this - just have to play it by ear . Could be OK'd for take-off in 10 minutes , or 10 hours .
kimshep
kimshep
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 11 Oct 2014
Total posts 412
Er .. there are a multitude of reasons that SQ would choose to keep pax onboard. Most relate to cost.
aviwil
aviwil
Member since 08 Nov 2011
Total posts 8
Kimshep - if they know that it's part X from Switzerland - they know exactly how much time it's going to take - barring any exceptions . They have programs for all of this . Most of your points would apply , if they did not know how long it would take .
Packetman21
Packetman21
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 28 Jul 2016
Total posts 68
Why do you continue to say SQ is being a 'budget airline'. Boy can I tell you that is wrong... you got served chips, something a budget airline would make you pay for, and a budget airline would probs just cancel the flight, and leave you stranded. I believe SQ handled the situation quite well. And if you look at the points kimshep made, it will all make sense.
AB__CD
AB__CD
Member since 29 Mar 2014
Total posts 23
As many people have said, mechanical issues aren't rare in the airline industry. They're part of the industry.
MikeZ
MikeZ
Member since 24 Jan 2017
Total posts 26
SQ didnt handle the situation at all - they simply transferred all the risks on passengers. They have no contingency plans for such situations. Passengers pay for their poor planning.
They could have moved to passengers to the terminal. After 2 hours of delay and the detail enroute from Switzerland - it was quite an apparent thing to do. If they had contingency plan - they would provide hot meal either in the terminal or onboard (a350 is not that large airplane). They could have informed passengers that they would be rebooked on their connecting flights. They could have promised some compensation for inconvinience while the situation was developing.
Yes SQ had to do some homework in advance to be ready for the above.
Non of it was done - they just kept passengers 6 hours onboard the grounded plane.
Frank
Frank
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 09 Sep 2013
Total posts 107
I can see MikeZs point, and had the flight been departing from Singapore rather than Moscow, they may have had a better chance to get people back into the terminal. Being in Moscow I guess they dont have any clout and have to live with what happens. Pretty ordinary just the same.