They can keep it on all the time.
OK, that's a different kettle of fish.
Not so happy to report that we had a less than good experience on SQ out of Dubai the other day.
It was only an 8pm departure, but the crew weren’t really at their best. Greetings were lukewarm, and the service matched during the flight.
We took off on time for a smooth departure and climb. Then waited, and waited, and waited.
28 minutes after wheels-up - and according to flightaware - only once we reached cruising altitude of 37k feet was the seatbelt sign was turned off.
After passengers and crew were released I made my way to the WC and asked one of the crew whether the captain had forgotten to turn off the seatbelt sign? Apparently not was the response, it’s the ‘new protocol’ that the captain has to be absolutely sure that it will be smooth flight, with absolute chance of turbulence or bumps.
Let me mention again that takeoff to cruise was completely smooth.
The crew then performed a harried service. Not much of the usual friendly interaction with pax, lots of racing back and forth to the galley. While the starters were delivered fairly quickly, the mains took a long time… longer in fact than QF on a not-so-good day. All the while pax are worried the seatbelt sign might come on again
Throughout the flight we’d experience a minor bump and the seatbelt sign would be on. Most of the time crew were allowed to continue duties but ‘exercise caution’. When there were two bumps… all service suspended and crew seated.
On a six and a half hour flight there was only five hours service time, and being overnight this was while most pax were trying to sleep. Good luck trying to get a coffee in the morning if you don’t order 1+ hours before arrival, because the seat-belt sign means you’re not likely to get it.
On this flight the pre-departure beverage service was actually the first drink run brought forward to the ground!
Luckily the second flight ex Singapore had a captain with a very different interpretation of the rules. The seatbelt sign was off within 10 minutes and only came on when there was some actual - albeit very mild - turbulence. Even then crew were permitted to continue duties ‘with caution’.
The pre-arrival snack was served just over two hours prior to landing, again I think so the crew could be assured they were actually going to have time to do it.
Based on these flights, I’m sad to say that unless something changes - like a modified service depending on the outcome of the the SQ321 incident - SQ is dropping down the list of preferred carriers.
It’s hopeless to be constrained to seats for so much of the flight and have major disruption to the meal services, with pax left wondering when they’ll get their meal after departure, when they can then sleep, and if they’ll actually get food and beverage at all before arrival.
Here's the issue.. When passengers on the SQ flight were knocked around because of turbulence the lawyers blamed the airline because they should have been more cautious (it seems) and should have made people sit with seatbelts on at the slightest hint of turbulence. It cost them a fortune, so we get what we deserve.
Not so sure we get what we deserve...the lawyers did their thing and won. Maybe SQ did not contest? I would suggest however, if they get a reputation of seat belt signs for many hours pax may look for alternatives. That perfect balance, I know, is a difficult one. Incidents can happen for all carriers. However if this is the SQ way now then it needs to be taken under consideration. Some may like it.....many who fly frequently, will probably not.
Let’s wait for the accident investigation. If it turns out to be airline or pilot error, the current restrictions are untenable.
Which has no relevance to what you may experience. Climing or descending, you can run into some quite extreme turbulence, with zero warning. But, having said that, neither place is particularly subject to jet streams, so not really likely.
Used to see this a lot on some US airlines. But, then they all ignored it anyway, and they don't actually have service.
Which is completely impossible. But, it does tend to indicate that they consider the blame for their incident should be directed at the pilots.
And it remains irrelevant.
Overcaution, mixed with the stupid concept of allowing cabin crew to do anything whilst the signs are on.
The madness was allowing cabin service with the signs on at all. The issue now is that they don't know how to find a sensible middle ground.
As a generalisation, we turned the signs off when we'd finished cleaning up the aircraft after take off (which could extend to about 8,000' in the 747, but was done by 5,000 in the 380. On the way down, as often as not, it was an automatic selection with the first stage of flap, at about 14 miles to run. You'd modify that as necessary, depending upon whatever the radar was showing. Irrespective of radar paints, if you were climbing into, or descending out of, a jet stream, you'd be wise to have them on. And of course, even on descent, they don't have to remain on once clear of whatever was the issue.
It means that they haven't really learn their lesson. It was easy to manage the seat belts. Start with the premise that when they are on, EVERYONE, should be seated, including pilots with their complete harness on. When the pilots can't get a meal, go to the toilet, or start their roster, you'll get commonsense operation of the signs.
Nobody in the pilot world believes that this was clear air turbulence.
The first 2-3 hours out of NRT can be a shocker for CAT.
There should only be one outcome.
Yes, but you're demanding service whilst the sign is on though. Signs on, should be zero service.
It will remain compromised whilst they have any form of 'half way' measure. Business class service should not be allowed to compromise safety. The issue is that whomever is controlling their cabin systems has no concept of how to managed the seat belts to allow the maximum of service with no compromise. That does not, in any way, mean that any service should happen with the signs on. It means that their pilots need to learn how to make appropriated decisions about the use of the sign
There's not really anything else that it's likely to be.
Why would any other airline, anywhere else in the world care?
With the dozens of flight leaving dubai, many heading in the same direction, you’d expect any major issues of turbulence to be reported between pilots? If there were reports of turbulence, fair enough. But there was also no communication from the flight deck.
Just flew DPS-SIN-MEL on TR and there wasn't anything hugely unusual about the length of time the seatbelt sign was on (well maybe a bit longer than for some other carriers like CK, which I have flown quite a bit recently).
Here’s hoping that the Singapore girl with the Krug gets back on track. Some here would be horrified at some recent posts.
MH have been like that for years. My other half flew from LHR to KUL and said for half the flight ithe flight the seat belt sign was on!! That was like 6 years ago. Needless to say she has not touched the airline since and also is adamant that male pax gets much more attention than female...although this is something I have also noticed myself on ANA.
