I've just had a run-in with SQ's ground service last week for SIN/PVG that is truly unbelievable, and wonder if this has happened to other FT'ers.

I did an internet check-in, and the print-out said to verify visa details at the airport check-in. The check-in lady frowned and said that my APEC card had a different passport no. on it (my old passport was clipped with my current one) without noticing that I'd handed her both. Having realised it was there, she then decided to check with her supervisor. I showed my China entry/exit stamps in my current passport, which has no Chinese visa, but "we have to follow procedures" and "I need to do as my supervisor tells me" was the reply. And inevitably, he decided she should check with his supervisor.

When I pointed out to him that my current passport has China entry and exit stamps without a China visa, so clearly using the APEC card on an old passport is not be a problem, the reply was a) "yes, yes, but we have to follow procedures", and b) that I should let the check-in lady do her job. By this time I was starting to get irritated as this has happened to me before, so he decided to head off with the check-in lady to find his supervisor. The 3rd lady at the counter explained a) "we have to follow procedures" and b) SQ is liable if passengers are refused entry. I told her about the Chinese stamps in my passport and started counting the no. of entries into China on my APEC card on my old passport - 21 so far in under a year. When I suggested that SQ gets their rules and procedures changed if they need to follow everything to the letter, she told me I should write in. This really made my day and my blood temperature headed north rapidly.

By this time the supervisor and check-in lady had returned. They'd failed to find his supervisor so they were energetically flipping through manuals, presumably to find the exact phrase "passengers with APEC cards referencing an older passport are allowed into China if they bring their older passport with them". Finally the Duty Manager turned up. He was apologetic, but by this time I was seriously irritated and simply told him that it had taken 4 of them 15-20 mins to sort out something that common sense could have fixed. And that if rules have to be amended it should be them doing it, not me writing in.

It's the second time this has happened to me, but on the first occasion initiative/common sense intervend before we spiralled down to this level of blind process obedience. I'm doing this route again next week, and it'll be on CX/KA instead even though it's an extra 2 hours.