A380=disrupted travel

[sqdazz]

They could have risk it and fly us home but they didn't and play it safe....and incurred all the expenses to keep all the passengers happy...i cannot ask for more.


(Audio)

They wouldn't risk anything, there is a pretty set minimum standard for the equipment to be taking off.

[astroboy]

If one doesn't feel comfortable doing so, then there are many other aircraft/airlines operating on SQ's chosen routes (often at cheaper prices). I don't see the point in being angry or confrontational when the easiest option is clearly to "walk away".

Well said!

[boing]

To be fair, finding accommodation at reputable hotels for 500+ people at a short notice is not really an easy task. As SQ228 put it, it's a mammoth task and something that will put any country's hotel sector at strain. SQ can request hotels to give priority to their pax when in need, but no hotel will give a concrete guarantee. It's pretty much hit or miss.

And ALL aircrafts do go tech once in a while. It's inevitable.

[crazycrab955]

I too have flew on the A380 many times before and I am happy with the performance.....quiet and spacious.

Really, truly not trying to start a flame war here, but this type of comment about spaciousness (and there are others on this thread and throughout this board that echo it) fascinates me.

If you are comparing business class across SIA long-haul airplanes (excluding the 744, as it is phased out and has the Spacebeds), the A380 actually has the smallest cabin cross section. The seats are okay, but frankly I prefer the 77W's markedly larger cabin. Everything seems more airy and open, even the lavatories! And, in a practical matter, the overhead bins are enormous relative to the tiny ones on the A380.

The A380's upper deck is roughly equivalent to the A330 cabin cross section, which is much smaller than the 777. Being upstairs is irrelevant to me, as I board and deplane via the jetway and never go downstairs...it is as if the lower deck doesn't exist.

So, is the "spaciousness" we hear of all the time just a lot of Airbus marketing hype seeping into the consciousness of the consumer? I for one do not find it spacious in the least.

Eager to hear opinions and thoughts. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Gunnar Smithsen]

To be fair, finding accommodation at reputable hotels for 500+ people at a short notice is not really an easy task. As SQ228 put it, it's a mammoth task and something that will put any country's hotel sector at strain. SQ can request hotels to give priority to their pax when in need, but no hotel will give a concrete guarantee. It's pretty much hit or miss.

It depends on the port that you go tech in... It's quite an easy task and is a series of phone calls to hotels, generally the crew hotel is the first point of call. Organising coaches at short notice is a more mammoth task...

And what kind of priority would you expect SQ to be asking of a hotel?

[SQ_fanatic]

It depends on the port that you go tech in... It's quite an easy task and is a series of phone calls to hotels, generally the crew hotel is the first point of call. Organising coaches at short notice is a more mammoth task...

And what kind of priority would you expect SQ to be asking of a hotel?

maybe pay some form of 'insurance' with the airport hotels?... Im pretty sure with premium routes, SQ could afford it.. my 2cents...

[kelvgoh]

maybe pay some form of 'insurance' with the airport hotels?... Im pretty sure with premium routes, SQ could afford it.. my 2cents...

They can afford it by passing the cost on to passengers.

The point is this - putting a corporate hat on - why spend money when you don't need to? At the end of the day, SQ is a profit-making enterprise seeking to return profits to its shareholders. No romance about it but that's probably how it goes.

[MAN Flyer]

I knew someone would get excited about this thread.

[cscs1956]

They can afford it by passing the cost on to passengers.

The point is this - putting a corporate hat on - why spend money when you don't need to? At the end of the day, SQ is a profit-making enterprise seeking to return profits to its shareholders. No romance about it but that's probably how it goes.

This has to come back to the basic believe of a company. Whats make SQ much different from other airlines?

[kelvgoh]

This has to come back to the basic believe of a company. Whats make SQ much different from other airlines?

Sorry - but the basic belief of most companies (save for those with charitable objects) is to make money for shareholders. That's the reason why (most) shareholders are convinced to invest in the company in the first place.

[whanafi]

Since I am a Solitaire PPS, I obviously fly a great deal, with trips to Europe at least monthly, often more often. I have more than a 100 flights to make comparisons from, and I have had more delays on A380 flights than I have had with the 777 - I am not including weather, just mechanical.

The comments about having a choice of aircraft are just wrong. When SQ puts an A380 on a route, that is your choice. There are 777W routes, and there are A380 routes, and your choice is city of destination. There used to be 2 flights a day out of Zurich, now there is just one A380 flight.

Although the A380 is quieter during flight than the 777W, the seats are smaller at the bulkhead (non)window in the forward cabin. I prefer the 777W equivalent.

The comments about logistics when an aircraft fails are spot on. I would imagine any station manager would rather cut off his right hand than have to deal with 500 sudden re-bookings and hotel placements. That leads to passengers being kept on the aircraft longer in hope of repair or alternative arrangements.

[MAN Flyer]

Frequent enough.

Really ?. I find that extremely diffcult to believe. Why on earth would you fly on an aircraft that you never stop trying to tell people is unreliable and lots ot trouble ?. That would be quite bizarre.

Although the A380 is quieter during flight than the 777W, the seats are smaller at the bulkhead (non)window in the forward cabin. I prefer the 777W equivalent.

+1.

I don't like the A380 and am no fan of 777's either but given the choice of the A380 or 77W in J on SQ, give the the 77W any day.

[cscs1956]

Sorry - but the basic belief of most companies (save for those with charitable objects) is to make money for shareholders. That's the reason why (most) shareholders are convinced to invest in the company in the first place.

Is finally going to be in a cycle. If the company finally loss their customer due to poor management. The shareholders will go away.

I am sure sharedolders invested due to some unique strange of SQ. Otherwise, they could just put their money in other airlines too.

[cscs1956]

Really ?. I find that extremely diffcult to believe. Why on earth would you fly on an aircraft that you never stop trying to tell people is unreliable and lots ot trouble ?. That would be quite bizarre.



+1.

I don't like the A380 and am no fan of 777's either but given the choice of the A380 or 77W in J on SQ, give the the 77W any day.

You can see it is not just me ! But it is strange that you happen to disagree what is been a fact or choose to ignore it?

I guess my PPS status should be real. I support a airline when they really put customer as #1 consideration and not by branding. So you are right, I would take your advice to fly less on SQ.

[HUGE AL]

After missing an opportunity to get in on the Zimbabwe Thread, I'm glad this one is still open...cuz it's getting good.