Question for SQ experts regarding SQ avoiding weather
 

It's not strange, it's just not discussed.

Without getting too far into it, yes that's pretty much the long and the short of it. I know a lot of SQ pilots and they've all alluded to the fact that company policy is more or less to get there without delay and without spending money on irrops / accommodating passengers at outstations unless it's absolutely necessary. It's the culture of the company.

This one you'll really like.

You would have though that the incident with turbulence during meal time on an SQ flight would have made some impact on the latitude SQ management gave to pilots... but it's not surprising that it didn't.

Hopefully someone doesn't actually have to die on an SQ flight due to turbulence before they do impliment changes. But it likely that just like with many other airlines it's gonna be business as usual if taking a longer route would mean delays or more costs.

Except that path really flown by tonight's SQ221 was according to FR24 much lower and exactly same as TG475, QF24 etc... Are you suggesting that all of them did not give damn about the weather, @DLATL777?

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...bbbca597ce.jpg

Interesting discussion.

Pretty much what Phaze said. Pilots are subject to varying pressures including passenger comfort, timeliness, safety, operational needs, and budget.

Where you on this specific flight and experienced discomfort?

From the armchair it looks like its heading into the storm, but you'll be surprised how close you need to be to the eye for winds to be strong. Even if it flew directly adjacent to the edge you'd hardly notice being inside the cabin.

It did not fly even remotely close to what OP claimed. OP's screenshot was taken before FR24 had real data and is "estimated" route, based on pre-filled route... The real route is seen on the screen capture that I have posted which is way away from the storm and using same route as many other airlines...

Sadly, this thread went the wrong way-it went about focusing on one flight, on one screen shot, and one example to prove a right vs wrong. Thats not even remotely the point.

This is a general discussion citing one example. @Phaze-thank you for your contribution. Do you feel given your experience here that SQ is better, worse, or inline with other Asian carriers in this regard? We all know US carriers are the most sensitive which Ive always felt in part is due to thier paranoia of an injury due to Turbulence.

I personally think that SQ is no worse, nor better than any other airline I flew on. One thing that drives me nuts though is that SQ tends to switch on "Fasten the Seat belts" sign more often than any other airline, often without any resulting turbulence and that they also make loud announcements about it every time, including at times when people try to sleep...

Company policy is more or less to get there without delay? That sounds like my preference and priority as well.

Hah, welcome to the SQ board. It's characteristic of this sub-forum. The fiercely loyalist cheerleaders always pop up eventually, to spin and twist everything to defend this above-average carrier to the hilt.

I can't compare them to US carriers, but of all the full-service Asian carriers I fly regularly (which is pretty much all of them apart from VN, KE, OZ and every mainland Chinese carrier) SQ definitely likes to look weather in the face more than any of the others. I do a lot of sectors to Europe and then usually head eastwards from Singapore on the way back - to Japan, Korea and the southern tip of Australia. After a while it was certainly noticeable enough for me to mention it in passing to a few friends at SQ, but I doubt the average customer cares because most people just don't fly that much and will simply put it down to unavoidable inclement weather.

Context of the thread; acquire it ^

I think it is very simplistic to say "they don't care and fly though it because it is safe to do so". From my discussions with one A380 captain over the last three years, he says that when they notice that there may be some not so nice weather on their screens, they generally try to avoid it. Obviously safe flying is always their priority however he goes on to say there are so many factors and variables in play that can affect any decision to deviate, even if they are able to do so. For example, deviating requires more time and sometimes the arriving airport may not even have landing slot available for them if they were having a (non-emergency) delayed arrival. SYD is known for being a heavily congested airport plus with restrictive curfews, so any changes to arrival time may be not accepted by SYD. Any changes to flight direction/level requires authorisation (in non-emergency events) and that said airspace may be so busy that they may not be allowed. Now, assuming they deviate, the cloud system may be so terrible and wide, that deviating may still result in the similar levels of passenger discomfort (let alone the chance of clear air turbulence that does not reveal on the radar systems either), plus deviating may require more crew working hours (again which again is heavily regulated and potentially may be illegal in certain jurisdictions).

Now I have asked this said pilot, why the seat belt light comes on and stays on (for what seems like forever) even though there is absolutely smooth flying - and his response is that they see "lots of red paint" on their radar screens so thus they put the signs on, and sometimes they are lucky enough to fly through a narrow corridor of "red paint" that might be two kilometers wide, that is relatively smooth flying. Now he says, if they are 1 km off either side and the flight could experience serious bumps.

There's more to it, I'll be back.