Messing around with MEL

[a340-313x]

sorry for the late update, finally have the time to fill in what exactly happened. SQ218 originally scheduled to depart 01:05am; boarding timed at 00:05am.

Sorry to hear about this jammed, you must have had a really long day with the delays and everything. To be fair to SQ though, these things happen sometimes and given they only had 10-15 minutes notice of the tech fault prior, there were presumably only a handful of staff in the lounge. One agent can only attend to one pax at a time so everyone crowding around the counter wouldn't really help matters.

At least you were informed of the delay and they were (somewhat) taking care of you (albeit a 15-hour delay really sucks). When my EY flight was cancelled out of DOH, there was no EY staff anywhere at the airport to help us, and neither did I get a call from them even though the flight was supposedly cancelled earlier in the day.

I hope you did get to where you wanted to go to in the end though.

[SQ228]

With today's level of communication, it's pretty poor to leave a 744 of passengers to sort out the problem themselves. By that hour, all services at MEL airport are closed. Obviously its completely uneconomical to have a whole host of staff standing around for every flight at every airport in case of a delay, but staff back in Singapore could make arrangements over the phone with an emergency list of hotels and transfer companies and then inform ground staff so they can assure passengers that something is being sorted out.

This is their core business and if they are going to have a very large plane that's so overdue for a major overhaul departing a city at 1 a.m. then they need contingency plans ready.

There were numerous reports of delays and cancellations on SQ25/26 in the last few months of the 744s. SPJ even had issues that took it off the HKG route last month (passenger report of internal 'flooding'). How did they expect that it would be any different when running two a day to MEL?

[jammed]

To be fair to SQ though, these things happen sometimes and given they only had 10-15 minutes notice of the tech fault prior, there were presumably only a handful of staff in the lounge. One agent can only attend to one pax at a time so everyone crowding around the counter wouldn't really help matters.

i agree with you, and had in fact interjected with a couple of lines to calm the pax at SKL initially. But i think while pple will be patient and understanding even when their own itinerary are thrown awry, that initial patience and understanding will wear away quickly if there's no demonstration of orderly recovery. I wld imagine in times like this, there shd be well-rehearsed SOPs to be initiated, for eg., beside the default bussing pax to hotels, (a) print and put up on the walls next few immediate flight options to allow pax who want to sign up to perhaps q up for f/up action, and (b) assign staff according to replacement sectors to link up with replacement carriers according to urgency of outbound flights. Just a thought, that if dont show the capacity to provide orderly recovery after service disruption, you'll lose the confidence of yr customers.

At least you were informed of the delay and they were (somewhat) taking care of you (albeit a 15-hour delay really sucks). When my EY flight was cancelled out of DOH, there was no EY staff anywhere at the airport to help us, and neither did I get a call from them even though the flight was supposedly cancelled earlier in the day.

sorry to hear abt that. i had a similar situation couple of years earlier, with South African Airlines, the subject of a TR (http://www.sqtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9248)

I hope you did get to where you wanted to go to in the end though.

yes, thanks. But I'm due to fly back SIN-MEL, on another 744, keeping fingers crossed

[jammed]

With today's level of communication, it's pretty poor to leave a 744 of passengers to sort out the problem themselves. By that hour, all services at MEL airport are closed. Obviously its completely uneconomical to have a whole host of staff standing around for every flight at every airport in case of a delay, but staff back in Singapore could make arrangements over the phone with an emergency list of hotels and transfer companies and then inform ground staff so they can assure passengers that something is being sorted out.

This is their core business and if they are going to have a very large plane that's so overdue for a major overhaul departing a city at 1 a.m. then they need contingency plans ready.

There were numerous reports of delays and cancellations on SQ25/26 in the last few months of the 744s. SPJ even had issues that took it off the HKG route last month (passenger report of internal 'flooding'). How did they expect that it would be any different when running two a day to MEL?

agree with you completely. In fact at that hr, what actually happened was that the coach that was supposed to pick up pax to hotel at 01:30am had not turned up by 02:30am - happened to overhear SQ staff on this waiting for my EK replacements.

what is amazing is the nature of the technical - according to the SQ Station Manager, the technical was declared over the emergency illum strips in the cabin. If that is indeed the only technical, pulling the whole bird out with 400+ pax is surely a very drastic decision. One of the F pax remarked, surely there's more to it than this for a decision that's going to sparked off so much $$$

in any case, whatever the tech, i'm satisfied it was while we were on the ground rather than in the air. so fair enough.

but, if SQ insists on keeping their old 744 on the line as super-sub, surely the minimum they shd do is to maintain the birds to be on par with newer birds to avoid IFE hanging and the like.

sigh, i'm not looking fwd to my SQ227 SIN-MEL, on another 744 =(

[MAN Flyer]

but, if SQ insists on keeping their old 744 on the line as super-sub, surely the minimum they shd do is to maintain the birds to be on par with newer birds to avoid IFE hanging and the like.

That's the problem. Because they know they are leaving they have been doing the bare minimum to keep them going until March (or April....) and as a result things are falling apart due to lack of care and attention. It's penny pinching, again, and as a result they are having no end of trouble with them.

On one of my recent 744 flights my seat (4F) kept sticking. The LSS was very impressive in continually reaching under the side of the seat to give it a good yank to get it going again. When I remarked she must go to the gym regularly to have sort of strength she replied she didn't need to, as flying on the 744's as she often does that so often it's enough excercise.

It's a shame to let the things go like this right at the end. The ironic thing is they may need them in service a bit longer if the problems with the 380's get worse.

[MLflyer]

SQ is returning the A380 back to MEL today, ending the 747 services, the end of an era, with the SQ 747's saying bye to Australia for the last time (besides Freighters). On it's last service looks like it took off then turned back then was delayed, as shown on the Melbourne Airport website.

Even though it departed MEL a little later than expect and always seem to love returning back, goodbye & farewell for the last time !

[Stefan P]

The last B747 flight is today 25/3/12, it is a delayed arrival into Melbourne.

[MEL-World]

SQ 238 24 March

I can understand why the last 747 flight out of MEL is delayed today, especially if they are operating the same aircraft as yesterday. SQ238 24 March took off at 1450 against a scheduled departure time of 1110 with 100 passengers off loaded when the escape slide on door 4L became inoperable. The flight did not take off and return - at least not with passengers. I know as I was on the flight.

It was quite strange to see most of the rear of economy taped off. I assume there were no fare paying F passengers on the flight as they filled F with J passengers (J service) and then upgraded as many Y passengers as possible. However, some 100 were still off loaded and maybe still waiting for a flight.

The MEL staff and those on-board provided the level of information and service you would expect from SQ. Cannot say the same for the Changi staff who were not prepared and not staffed to the level necessary to deal with 150+ passengers needed onward bookings or overnight accommodation.

Fortunately I only needed to get to KUL but even that was guessing game with no information at the gate and only two people looking after three long queues. Not good enough.

A rather sorry end to my 30 years of pleasurable flying on the 747 but proves they have reached their use-by date (with SQ at least).

[singaporu_kooku]

The incoming aircraft was the same as yesterday's. It was delayed due to yesterday's events. Singapore needed time to fixed the aircraft escape slide. The last 747 out of Melbourne this morning flew off with all seats in all classes occupied. It was full to the brim.

[MEL-World]

So that's it then. No more SQ 747's for MEL. Not to say I am sorry to see them go.

I heard at an SQ function on Friday that not only will the 380 return to MEL Monday but the management believe we will get a second 380 service before long. Maybe in October as SQ 238 as the summer loads are always heavy??

[blast-off]

So that's it then. No more SQ 747's for MEL. Not to say I am sorry to see them go.

I heard at an SQ function on Friday that not only will the 380 return to MEL Monday but the management believe we will get a second 380 service before long. Maybe in October as SQ 238 as the summer loads are always heavy??

Hope it won't be SQ238... LOL... It's a nightmare for a morning dep at MEL Airport, it can become very very congested hence SQ238 in the past got delayed a lot...

[SQ228]

So that's it then. No more SQ 747's for MEL. Not to say I am sorry to see them go.

I heard at an SQ function on Friday that not only will the 380 return to MEL Monday but the management believe we will get a second 380 service before long. Maybe in October as SQ 238 as the summer loads are always heavy??

I'm so relieved that they are finally off our route as well. Nostalgia is fine, and I can truly understand the attachment that many SQ talkers have to them, but not when it's a 7.5 hour flight in Y at SQ prices, thanks!

SQ228/237 has been flown by 9V-SPQ exclusively for the last 3 weeks, so it's no wonder the problems delayed the next day as well. They better get them completely fixed before April 6!

In terms of a second 388 flight, I am wondering if it could be SQ217/8? I'm not sure how heavy loads on SQ218 get, although it does connect to a lot of flights out of SIN in the morning, such as LHR.

SQ217 is always busy as it connects with all the incoming morning flights from Europe and Asia, and in particular it collects a lot of passengers from India. I've also heard people say on here that very few if any other airlines offer a daytime SIN-MEL flight. Before SQ217 became 77W it used to be flown by a 744.

The argument in favour of SQ237/8 is that they can then service the 2x MEL 388 flights with only 2 captive aircraft when required, as it eliminates the 10 hour layover for SQ227/8. But filling 2 overnight A380s from SIN - MEL?

[Alex Morley]

An interesting article from today's Melbourne Age newspaper...

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/blog...326-1vtfz.html

[choonhong]

why wasnt 9V-SPP or SPJ used for the last 3-4 weeks?
esp during the 2nd last day when SPQ was delayed, they could had recalled SPP?

btw, i dint see SPJ in changi for the past 3 weeks. wheres it parked at? only can see SPP along changi coast road

[SQ228]

why wasnt 9V-SPP or SPJ used for the last 3-4 weeks?
esp during the 2nd last day when SPQ was delayed, they could had recalled SPP?

btw, i dint see SPJ in changi for the past 3 weeks. wheres it parked at? only can see SPP along changi coast road

Yes, I wondered why they weren't keeping SPP in rotation given the 744s run-down state, although somewhere somebody mentioned Transaero wanted it in a hurry, I think.

SPJ was causing so many issues in its last few days of service that it was no longer an asset in terms of increasing reliability, rather a significant liability