s0ssos

Well, I don't know about all cultures, but most would say Germans have a good sense of "follow the rules". And yet their cars are innovative. And they seem also to have a good amount of common sense, which I would think would be lacking in a "follow the rules" culture.

KACommuter

And my guess is they would've coped with this incident rather better. But they're not one of those cultures at the extreme end.

RTWFF

To those of us for whom English is our first language, "some years" falls between "a few years" and "many years".

lokijuh

Actually one would expect any major international airline to have an SOP for "aircraft returns to terminal due to mechanical delays" ..... whether they be caused by a faulty indication lamp or blown tyres.

Irrespective of culture, I think efficient handling of situations like this is limited by the number of staff available at the time, physically there is only so much staff can do, and everything takes time to do ..... whilst at the same time in the last 5-10 years the expectations have increased incredibly due to social media. 20 years ago, people just dealt with crap, and put things down to bad luck, now they vent on social media and expect to pay as little as possible but be treated like kings, queens and emperors.

Its not hard to find complaints about poor ground handling associated with IRROPS for every airline, at the same time you can find compliments for the same airlines in different situations. Generally speaking hub = good handling, outstation = lots of complaints. Put simply handling of out of the ordinary issues is best where individual airlines have the most resource. I personally think its more related to resources than culture.

crazycrab955

If by "fair share," you mean ONE in the entire history of the airline, then yes.

YuropFlyer

No matter how neutral you try to write.. both sides will kick you

sol95

That's true even for people for whom English is not their first language. That is not being questioned by Yuropflyer. However, what is up for debate is whether 15 years is "some years ago" or "many years ago". I suspect that all depends on how long you've lived...

If you're 60+, makes sense to think of 15 years as some years. If, however, you're in your 20's or 30's, I suspect 15 years would be considered many.

BTW, English is my first language, and when I read that the SQ incident you referenced as "some years ago" was actually 15 years ago, I had a bit of a chuckle to myself because I find myself doing something similar all too frequently these days. What I think was an event from the recent past is, on closer examination, something that happened a decade or more ago.

YuropFlyer

Good explanation sol95 - I would say that's spot on, time can be perceived differently by different people.

I think in the big picture, we all know there is still some risk remaining when flying even with the safest airlines in the world.

And taking "chances", there is probably no big difference in your chance of getting hit by an accident flying SQ, Korean Air, Asiana, or a European carrier - the chance being extremely slim anyway.

Heck, even MH is still "safe to fly" compared to the risk of taking a cab to the airport..

But culture DOES play into the safety of each airline. Personally, all equal, I would probably not pay much more $$$ to fly a "safer" airline over another one - but considering there is never "all equal" in the airline industry, it's a small number in my calculations of which airline I'll choose.

My personal "safety feeling" for South Korean based airlines certainly isn't really high at the moment, but still ahead of MH, and probably TG as well. Chinese airlines are a bit of a mixed bag - their new pilots do get trained extremely well, but some of their senior pilots do have some holes in their training I do believe (but probably lots of experience on the other hand)

All in all, I always do feel safe on an airplane, otherwise wouldn't have booked it. There are a few airlines which I try to avoid, but it's not purely out of safety - for some probably more the contrary in fact (example: Saudi Arabian, EgyptAir, El Al)

KACommuter

You're forgetting SilkAir 185, which pre-dates the Germanwings suicide crash last year by 18 years. Technically not a SQ flight but certainly wholly owned and an integral part of Singapore Airlines.

KACommuter

Resources do matter and SQ probably had to rely on their handling agent. And in this case they may or may not have had the resources but collectively they did a woeful job. However I think culture compounds this to a large degree. 2 of my 3 worst SQ ground experiences were in Changi and clearly driven by the "follow rules at all costs for fear of being found at fault" mentality.

I can imagine that in this particular case SQ's ground handling agent didn't know what to do, referred to the SQ frontline, who didn't know what to do and referred it to their supervisor, and then upwards, then downwards again. That chain chews up time.

crazycrab955

Not forgotten. Just not an SQ flight, full stop.

Yes, SIA owns SilkAir. But calling SilkAir "integral" is a stretch. How many of their fleet, flight operations department, pilots, cabin crew, and front office are shared? Guess what? The answer is none.

So if you want to be pedantic, and it seems that you do, we can say that the SQ GROUP has had two accidents in its entire history. I guess for some of us, that's a "fair share." Sigh.

KACommuter

Same FFP, IT system, reservations, procurement, pilot training (until aircraft type training), coordinated network planning and sales, plus seamless passenger transfers. SQ could not sell SilkAir easily. Most people would call that integral.

crazycrab955

I guess sharing the same frequent flyer programme means that their safety record is interdependent? Okay.

Let's put it to bed, shall we?

I personally have zero safety concerns flying SQ or SilkAir, both of which (or by your definition, a single airline) are ranked amongst the safest on earth. I do, however, have major concerns flying Korean carriers, who boast atrocious safety records and, among other things, apparently cannot manage to land a 777 in sunny, clear weather.

s0ssos

No. Integral means that if SilkAir goes Singapore Air goes. You are getting the direction wrong. Integral means essential to functioning. Is Silkair the cornerstone of Singapore Airlines?

koohansen

It was not suicide, an Private Investigation was launched after they closed the case as suicide, the cause was due to a rudder power control unit (PCU) malfunction, which later led to a out of court settlement between the PCU manufacturer and the victims.