10 years old 747-412 still counted as safe?

[zhiw3n]

RJA: Agreed, I dont think the so-called poor condition of the aircrafts will be noticeable to passengers. It's probably more of engineering issues. In fact, one of the ex-SQ birds, currently B-HKT, has already been refurbished with their new products except for Y-class.

Recently, there have been reports here in Australia of Singapore Airlines Engineering Company missing out on major defects on Qantas Jumbo during her maintenance with SIAEC. It was also found on the wiring was STAPLED together at several locations and pictures were shown. I dont know how true these reports are but I certainly didn't expect SIAEC to be the subject of such sub-standard maintenance.

[sqforever]

Recently, there have been reports here in Australia of Singapore Airlines Engineering Company missing out on major defects on Qantas Jumbo during her maintenance with SIAEC. It was also found on the wiring was STAPLED together at several locations and pictures were shown. I dont know how true these reports are but I certainly didn't expect SIAEC to be the subject of such sub-standard maintenance.

I'm aware of that report, its also been posted on SQTalk. Its very attacking, and many of the accusations were investigated and found false, or taken out of context. Remember, SQ has never had a crash except for SQ006 in Taipei, where it was not due to the aircraft but because of lax airport procedures and equipment and snag in communication.

And about CX, I've heard that their standard of maintenance is slightly below SQ and I'm pretty sure that those "shocking condition" rumours are false. I've been on Traitor planes that felt a bit aged and not maintaned as well as SIA.

[zvezda]

SQ has never had a crash except for SQ006 in Taipei, where it was not due to the aircraft but because of lax airport procedures and equipment and snag in communication.

Those factors contributed and should be not allowed to be repeated, but the actual cause of SQ006 was the failure of the pilots to determine their location before attempting to takeoff on a NOTAMed runway.

Your main point, that SQ engineering have never caused a crash is correct.

[nykelaz]

And about CX, I've heard that their standard of maintenance is slightly below SQ and I'm pretty sure that those "shocking condition" rumours are false. I've been on Traitor planes that felt a bit aged and not maintaned as well as SIA.

Has CX Engineering caused any crash yet?

[RJA]

I'm aware of that report, its also been posted on SQTalk. Its very attacking, and many of the accusations were investigated and found false, or taken out of context. Remember, SQ has never had a crash except for SQ006 in Taipei, where it was not due to the aircraft but because of lax airport procedures and equipment and snag in communication.

And about CX, I've heard that their standard of maintenance is slightly below SQ and I'm pretty sure that those "shocking condition" rumours are false. I've been on Traitor planes that felt a bit aged and not maintaned as well as SIA.

This wreaks of bias which makes it very hard, even impossible, to lend any credibility to.

Firstly, the biggie in the SQ006 disaster was pilot error. As was the case with the nasty 9V-SMT tailstrike.

I'd love to see what you are basing your 'CX mx is not as good as SQ' comments on, the fact CX planes aren't kept as pretty looking inside and out compared to SQ? Ever considered that it may be the mechanics of the ex SQ aircraft that's 'shocking'? There's more to the condition of an aircraft than merely the freshness of its paintwork and tidiness of its cabin.

CX get their mx work done by HAECO and TAECO, top-notch, world-class facilities. Quite a few airlines from around the world would happen to agree, more so than SIAEC if I were to hazard a guess.

Don't get me wrong, CX and SQ are my two favourite airlines but this CX-bashing that results from criticisms of how SQ does things is very petty and immature to say the least. And for the record, no, I don't think CX is perfect and yes I do find the cabins on a lot of their aircraft to be a bit tired looking, nor am I a CX cheerleader.

Why do people refer to CX as 'Traitor Air' anyhow? That's got to be the silliest nickname for an airline I've ever come across. Grow up lads. I don't see HKers bash SQ like some Singaporeans bash CX, insecurity perhaps?

[jjpb3]

I agree with your sentiments about CX-bashing that seems reflexive among some members here. It isn't credible but it's also not severe enough to be covered by the TOS. Have you noted that the frequent flyers here all have a healthy respect and appreciation for CX?

Why do people refer to CX as 'Traitor Air' anyhow? That's got to be the silliest nickname for an airline I've ever come across. Grow up lads. I don't see HKers bash SQ like some Singaporeans bash CX, insecurity perhaps?

Chill, dude. It is a silly nickname, because it was meant as one: it started off as a joke among the frequent flyers, i.e., they who know about airline quality, and just became a commonly accepted term, just like TOF for FlyerTalk. Search for the origin and you'll find out its provenance; you'll see it isn't meant to be taken seriously.

More importantly, it's not a Singaporean term, but an SQT term (again, meant in jest). Using the partitive construction in your last sentence doesn't really disguise the swipe at Singaporeans.

[RJA]

Chill, dude. It is a silly nickname, because it was meant as one: it started off as a joke among the frequent flyers, i.e., they who know about airline quality (search for the origin and you'll find out its provenance), and just became a commonly accepted term, just like TOF for FlyerTalk. It isn't meant to be taken seriously.

Haha yeah no worries, it just seems real random. At least something that sounds similar, or pokes fun of the acronym (CX/CPA) or something would have made more sense and actually be quite humourous. Oh well c'est la vie.

Nothing against Singaporeans either mate, born there myself, lived there, visited countless times, fine city, fine people. And yes, was just me having a harmless (yet cheeky) joke, based on the apparent insecurities of above.

[SQflyergirl]

Have you noted that the frequent flyers here all have a healthy respect and appreciation for CX?

The real ones do anyway.

[jjpb3]

Nothing against Singaporeans either mate, born there myself, lived there, visited countless times, fine city, fine people. And yes, was just me having a harmless (yet cheeky) joke, based on the apparent insecurities of above.

Ah I overrreacted, then. Sorry about that.

Thanks for clarifying.

[zvezda]

Have you noted that the frequent flyers here all have a healthy respect and appreciation for CX?

I flew CX last month HKG-FCO on the upper deck with no status, got the exit row, and had a fine flight. No complaints.