Aero_Lima From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1125 times:
Look all of you are making such a negative deal about Singapore..ok. Singapore is a great airline you have to know that these people at the airline have lost family too. Instead of bringing this up over and over can we think of the good times this are is and has seen?? We need to have a LITTLE sympathy imagine what the families would feel like if they read this??? I would be horrified and it is very hard to fly a plane all the stress and stuff. Imagine what the crew must feel like. Well Im done plese
Qantas 747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1020 times:
First of all, I agree with the starter of this forum.
Singapore Airlines is a great airline, and thats something that nothing can change because of its excellent history.
I think D L X is making a very pathetic point by saying that SIA deserve a hard time!
A) It was not completely Singapore Airlines' fault
B) Would you blame your favourite airline with an accident in a typhoon and on the wrong runway (when directed by airport staff)
Take this into mind DLX, because you have no idea how ridiculous your post sounds.
The lights on the runway were turned on, and that's therefore the airports blame.
If you have any further questions or comments on this reply, email me at JHN747@Myrealbox.com
A student From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 993 times:
The essential problem with every crash is that we want information about it. Usually, no confirmed, safe, objective information is available until a few weeks, months or years later. Therefore, we speculate.
This happens a lot everywhere, including this website. I agree that it would be tasteless and cruel if the people that were part of the crash, or the crew, would read it. And I agree we should not blame people too early, neither airport nor crew. As far as I'm concerned, I'll wait until I read more about the entire affair in Flight International or another serious source - I generally do not like to speculate without at least a bit of a basis.
PS: No airline deserves their planes to crash, no airline deserves to be accused of negligence or other things before the causes of the crash have been determined objectively, so blaming SQ is not the right step!
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10806 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 924 times:
Are you saying it could be anyone but SQ's fault that they announce no deaths when over 80 people were killed?
If you think my post sounds ridiculous, you aren't reading very carefully. I never said that SQ deserves a hard time, but I greatly disagree that SQ deserves "a break" for no other reason than the misinformation given us when the news first broke.
I think my point of the post (which you obviously missed) was very clear: people are entitled to their opinions. If you feel that SQ should be given a break, give them one. You can't make everyone else do the same.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 917 times:
Please, please can we get away from this mentality of feeling sorry for SQ because "it's my favourite airline", most of us have NO idea as to how safely this airline conducts it's operations, all most of us will (ever) see of an airline to form a an "opinion" on whether they are "great" or "bad" is the cabin decor IFE et al...poor overall assessment really isn't it??
Whereas drawing conclusions/assumptions as to an airline's overall safety and placing the blame before one knows the ENTIRE FACTS of what occured is not professional, you can never stop people from speculating before the facts are known, it's human nature, although I would agree speculation is ultimately useless, unless it is intelligent, informed, experienced speculation.
What I can't understand, is why people bias themselves and defend an airline of their preference (which they may not have even flown) to such an extent that they start verbally abusing anyone with a slightly different opinion to them. Why?
"Singapore Airlines is a great airline, and thats something that nothing can change because of its excellent history"
That's what I'm talking about. It HASN'T had an excellent history, in fact, SQ has been involved in quite a few incidents which nearly turned into serious accidents, but they were quickly covered up. A few mid-air stalls which went unnoticed, R/W overruns etc.
They are not as squeeky-clean as many here seem to think.
I can't reveal my sources, but GF has had some serious safety problems for quite a while now, the recent accident only highlighted their problems to the public. Same with EK. One of their Airbus' nearly crashed into DXB control tower a few months ago. No one has heard anymore....
We don't neccesarily need to give anyone a break as long as they cover up the facts.
I have nothing to say about the SQ crew on-board SQ006. I wasn't there, I don't know about their training, but I will want to know why it happened.
B744 From New Zealand, joined Dec 1999, 491 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 879 times:
People will always share their opinions on forums such as this - it's why we're all here. Often, other people's opinions will differ from yours and often people will want to discuss topics that you don't. There's not much we can do about it.
Qantas747 - you stated "Would you blame your favourite airline with an accident in a typhoon and on the wrong runway (when directed by airport staff)"
I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, but was is your source that has reported the airport staff directed SQ006 onto the wrong runway? I've been following this story fairlly closely and haven't seen this reported anywhere else. If it's just the issue of both sets of runway lights switched on, consider the dozens (?) of other flights that took off without making this error.
Regarding SQ's public perception etc, I have always been an admirer of them. I do a lot of travel (to give you an idea, I will be clocking up my millionth mile flown later this week when I fly to Apia). I have flown with SQ often. However I will be avoiding them where possible in future. You might wonder why - simply their erroneous reports of no fatalities, then dismissing claims that the pilot took off on the wrong runway. Many of you are in different situations, and will react in different ways. However from my perspective as a frequent traveller, I'm going to show my opinion by voting with my feet. SQ have lost a huge amount of credibility in my view - not from the captain's mistake, but from the way the company handled the aftermath of the incident.