Tag: Singapore Airlines

  • Pet Death In Changi At The Hands Of Singapore Airlines; Call For Justice For Charlie

    Pet Death In Changi At The Hands Of Singapore Airlines; Call For Justice For Charlie

    JUSTICE for CHARLIE and all other pets at the mercy of NEGLIGENT AIRLINES

    Please be wary of transporting your pet by SINGAPORE AIRLINES
    Their negligence killed our pet Charlie.
    We had planned to take our pet by Singapore Airlines to Ho Chi Minh. On Sep 2nd our scheduled travel date we arrived early as at the PPS Counter to check in our luggage and Charlie.
    Since pets are taken on as excess baggage we had bought close to 220 kgs of excess baggage in addition to our allowance including Charlie and his crate which weighed around 22 kgs in total. Charlie has been with us since he was 30 days old and had completed 4 hours and 7 months. We were anxious about the move but with respect to Charlie we were very confident that he was in safe hands with Singapore Airlines. That is where we made a terrible mistake.

    Our flight to Vietnam was at 1:30 pm. Though we had bought excess baggage for Charlie earlier at the airport we were told that the policy had changed and we had to make a fresh payment towards pet handling charges for Charlie. After the payment was made all our bags were weighed and checked in .
    Charlie’s crate was secured with plastic tags. The pet handling staff were not willing to even put the tags. Charlie was barking and they were scared. All pets do get anxious when the owners leave them even for some time. I asked them if they wanted to keep the leash lest they needed to
    open the crate in case of any issues.They said it was not required . I presumed that if there was any emergency they would have a leash on hand if they had to open the crate.We were so wrong about the blind faith that we placed in Singapore Airlines.

    Charlie was wheeled away with his crate in a trolley around 11 am. We proceeded to have breakfast and then around 12:30 pm we went to the boarding gate. We told them at the boarding gate that we had a pet.They told us he was a bit anxious and had some mucus and if we wanted to see him.Please note this. Mucus or saliva is a very normal thing for a dog and we felt we should not make him more anxious just before boarding.We boarded the aircraft and while on board the Captain made an announcement that we had a pet on
    board the aircraft. We knew Charlie had boarded from the announcement.In just an hour and a half we would land and then
    maybe in another half an hour or so we would be able to take him after completing the airport formalities.Our agent in Vietnam would be there to handle that for us.We landed in HCMC . We were received and taken to a separate counter to complete the immigration formalities faster. We thought this was because we had a pet . We completed the immigration only to taken aside and told by the Singapore Airlines staff that Charlie had passed away. We broke down in complete shock. We wanted to see him. We were in for a bigger shock. Charlie died not on the flight but he was not on the plane as he died in Singapore. We were terribly shocked. We demanded to understand how it happened , why we were not called and informed that Charlie had an issue or if he was distressed and why we were allowed to board and no announcement made to let us know before the aircraft took off. We were told that the gates had closed and they did not want to delay the flight and that is why they felt they should not inform us . The staff in Vietnam said they had no details except that they received a telex about the death of Charlie and what we wanted to be done with his body. They kept saying we are stating the information they received. We demanded to speak to the Singapore staff but the Vietnam staff could not put anyone on the phone for us and no one from Singapore attempted to reach us. They got somebody on the line after I kept saying I need to know. We had informed that you that the dog had mucus and if you wanted to see him. They never told us that our dog was severely distressed .As per airline policies pets who are severely distressed are never allowed to fly and the owners are informed that they are not fit to fly. The captain of the flight on some airlines in our experience with Air India took a look at Charlie and only after he gave a go ahead Charlie was boarded in. We were allowed to be with Charlie until boarding after which the captain saw him and then we proceeded.

    Charlie’s death took us by complete shock. We questioned how the captain made the announcement about the pet on the aircraft when Charlie had not boarded. They said there was no time to inform him. He was dead when they brought him
    to the plane and since they could put a dead dog on the plane they did not want the flight to be delayed because of this incident . They chose to inform us on arrival.

    Singapore Airlines is responsible for our pet’s death. He was a perfectly healthy dog. They were clearly trying to cover up negligence on their part. They were playing it safe. We checked when the next flight back to Singapore was and said we want to take that. The staff asked us to get back before 6pm for the 7:30 pm flight. We dropped off my daughter with a relative at the serviced apartment and reached the airport before 6 pm. We were met by the same staff who informed us about Charlie. They asked us where our tickets were. We said we had no tickets as it was only an onward journey to HCMC from Singapore. We had assumed that the airline would have the tickets ready as we were informed of his death in Singapore only on arrival in HCMC. They are an insensitive airline. They told us that they could not do the booking over the counter and there was no override option.My husband tried to login in using the roaming service . The connectivity was very slow and after a half an hour struggle we did the bookings.

    Singapore Airlines is a dishonest airline and a completely insensitive airline. Their perceived image is not what they are. The staff at Vietnam did not do anything to help us in our situation. Charlie died at the hands of the airline but they clearly were not feeling responsible for what happened or even regretted what had happened. Charlie was a dog after all. I had questioned them if they would have proceeded to take off if someone had gone into labor or someone was having a heart attack . The flight would not take off if a human life was at stake. Human life is precious . A pet’s life is worthless . Only people who have dogs understand that they are integral part of the family. In our case I did not see any difference between my 12 year daughter and 4.7 year old Charlie, an American cocker spaniel. I have had him since he was 30 days old.

    My husband and myself could not control our tears on the flight. We could not stop crying from the time we heard Charlie had passed away. We landed around 10 pm
    In Singapore. Three airline staff held a placard with my husband’s name and took us to the lost and found area where Charlie’s crate was placed on a trolley with a plastic sheet over the crate.Before we landed in Singapore from
    Ho Chi Minh we had reached out to my husband’s Cousin to check on what happened. He was told that Charlie had been taken away by AVA, the Agri and Animal government authority of Singapore.We were anxious on the flight whether we would be able to see him immediately on arriving.
    Charlie lay motionless , his body was cold, he was stiff , his face was down. There was evidence of a big struggle due to distress. He had chewed up the entire wee pad made of cotton. I was always so gentle with him and here he was in this state due to negligent handling .

    What were they doing when he was distressed and was trying to get out of the crate was chewing on the wee pad?
    Why did the pet handling staff not break open the crate and release him
    and offer some water and try to relieve him and alert us ? This was an SOS situation. What stopped them?

    We were told that the pet handling staff are not actually trained people who can handle pets. They treat pets like baggage. Their job is to move them to the pet hold area.

    How could he have become motionless suddenly? What happened prior to that.? Who was there with him? Why did that person not alert the staff to reach us? Was there anyone with him in the first place? The presence of another human being even not known to him would have given him hope and could have saved his life.

    The passenger services station
    manager ,a man in his late twenties told us he was the in charge on the current shift and he wasn’t aware of exactly happened in the earlier shift.We could not take it any more.

    What led to Charlie’s death? He was insensitive to our questions. He was hoping we would take Charlie’s body and walk out of the airport without asking any questions.

    We knew we were not going to get any answers from SIA. One of the senior staff who works at the Changi Airport spoke to us. We asked her who was responsible for managing the pet while in the pet holding area.

    Were the airport authorities accountable in any way or the airline staff solely responsible. She could understand us as she had a pet herself and she seemed to understand our agony.Since Singapore Airlines seemed to show no remorse or were not serious nor honest in the way they were handling the whole situation we checked if we could file a report with the police at the airport. We went to the Singapore Airport police force and explained our situation. The officer took down the details and registered our complaint. He asked us if we suspected any foul play on the part of the airlines.We told the officer that Charlie has had a big struggle which is evident . Either the pet handlers chose to ignore it or they were not around for the entire period of time he was in the pet hold area. He was a perfectly healthy dog. He was examined by a vet and the vet certificate endorsed by AVA prior to travel .The officer took pictures of how he was lying face down in the crate with just very little left of the wee pad left in the crate. All along the SIA officer was tight lipped divulging no information but constantly engaged on his phone we are sure he was providing updates on what was happening. We requested for the protocol observed while keeping the pet in holding area. SIA is all the time talking about protocol but they had nothing to share here. They wanted to play safe to ensure the truth does not come out.They did not want their image to be tarnished and were trying to shield their staff .They did not care that our pet died and they should own up for the lapse at their end.
    We did not want to go for an autopsy as that would establish that the dog suffered a panic attack maybe but what ensued in the two hours after he was taken away and what the staff did about it would not come out from the autopsy.Because it was only a pet they were least bothered.

    Singapore Airlines should be banned from transporting pets since they clearly have no pet safety protocols in place and by their own admission do not have staff who can handle pets and pets are treated only as baggage and the crate never opened unless there is an emergency. Emergency for them means ”until the dog is completely unresponsive ”…

    I cannot forgive myself for entrusting my baby in the hands of this ruthless airline. Please do not trust this airline with your pet .They simply don’t care.
    This is the real ugly face of the airline and not what is projected by them.The passenger services station manager did not share his contact number and refused to give any commitment in terms when they would write to us or send us the details of any investigation which they would carry out internally.

    Pets dying while on board is heard off.Never in the holding area. The owners are intimated if the pet is distressed. If they treat them as excess baggage then they should let us know that they will not be monitoring our pet. Pet owners treat their pets like children and will not risk their pets with such an airline. A pet is not a wild animal that someone could not have opened the crate and freed him and offered some water and called us to calm him down . We would have decided not to fly or fly another day maybe after sedating him or would have even chosen another airline where he would have been more comfortable.

    After registering the complaint we called the dog undertakers who came to collect Charlie around 4:30 pm. It is only when they removed Charlie from the crate we were horrified to see that he had chewed off his paw partially there was blood on his paw and on the mouth . He has used his paws to break open the crate and in desperation had chewed up the wee pad. He appears to have suffered a heart attack from the stress . The passenger services station manager gave us the CEO ‘s email when we asked for his bosses email Id. We are not uneducated and he thought we were fools to believe him.This shows how they deal with such issues. We went to spend the night at our cousin’s place with a heavy heart. We have not stopped crying since this happened. We are in shock and we are unable to believe this happened at the hands of a pro pet airline such as Singapore Airlines in a very pet friendly nation in their home base of Singapore.
    The ashes were delivered to us around 2pm by the undertakers and we boarded the 5:30 pm flight back to Ho Chi Minh city.

    Charley deserves justice. Another pet should not meet the same fate. SIA has no right to be flying pets given the negligence they showed in Charlie’s case unless they come out with revisions in their pet handling policies.
    As expected we never got email from SIA even on Sunday . This shows their indifference to what happened.
    We boarded the return flight to HCMC at 5:30 pm after collecting Charlie’s ashes.

    One of the senior air hostesses noticed us crying and ask us if she could help us. When we told her what had happened she was shocked and wanted to help us since we had not received any sort of communication in writing from Singapore Airlines. She in turn appraised the flight manager on board who assured us that he would report this to the concerned people.
    We got an email on 4th morning that they were looking into the incident clearly only after the staff on the return flight reported what had happened to us.

    I looked out for Charlie all the time and had made so many adjustments and arrangements at home to ensure the environment was safe for Charlie.Charlie was the baby of our house and all of us loved him and cared for him deeply.Charlie was my daughter’s sibling and our son.It is hard to replace him. It is very difficult to cope with his loss. In a new city without him life seems empty. Time can heal is what they say. Time can heal certain wounds but the loss of a loved one hurts a lot and takes many years to heal. It does not matter if the loved one is a pet or a human.

    Pet lovers and owners will understand this.
    PLEASE INFORM AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU KNOW WHO HAVE PETS.SINGAPORE AIRLINES IS A NOT A SAFE AIRLINE FOR FLYING YOUR PET. THEY ARE NOT TREATED AS A LIVING BEING BUT AS JUST ANOTHER PIECE OF LUGGAGE.
    WE TRUSTED CHARLIE WITH AN AIRLINE THAT IS DISHONEST AND NEGLIGENT AND PAID A VERY HEAVY PRICE.
    Whichever Airline you choose please insist on being there in the pet holding area till the time they are transported to the aircraft or check on who is going to be with them in the pet holding area and how your pets are going to be handed if they become distressed. In the name of protocol they may not permit you to be around. Believe us they have no safety protocols that they observe and no one will be around watching with your pet. Please question and understand how your pets are going to be handled before choosing the airline. You must insist that they inform you if you pet is distressed.

    Please do not use Singapore Airlines till the time they bring about changes in the policies with respect to pet handling. They intended to brush the whole incident under the carpet and did not accept responsibility.Please do not go by their perceived image and also by the fact that Singapore is a pet friendly nation.
    ONE MORE INNOCENT LIFE MUST NOT BE LOST DUE TO NEGLIGENCE.PLEASE HELP GET JUSTICE FOR CHARLIE.
    PLEASE SHARE THIS POST WITH ALL PET LOVERS.
    I am sharing pictures of how I found Charlie. As much as it hurts and I don’t want to remember Charlie like this I want the world to know what can happen to your pets if you choose to fly with such an airline.

     

    Source: Shabana Mary Kuruvilla

    Pictures from mainstream media:

     

  • PRC Woman Cannot Get Over Own Stupidity On Boarding Pass And Credit Card Rules, Gets Jailed For Hurting SIA Staff

    PRC Woman Cannot Get Over Own Stupidity On Boarding Pass And Credit Card Rules, Gets Jailed For Hurting SIA Staff

    A woman from China threw a signage at a Singapore Airlines (SIA) ticketing staff member after she failed to get a boarding pass at Changi Airport for a flight bought through a family member’s credit card.

    The 25cm by 6cm signage hit the victim’s face and she suffered an open wound at the nose and left eyebrow, respectively.

    Yesterday, Chang Lihui, 33, was given 24 days’ jail for hurting Ms Sharin Chan Suet Gek, 30, by doing an act so rashly as to endanger her personal safety on June 11.

    Deputy Public Prosecutor Teo Lu Jia said Chang had gone to Changi Airport that evening to collect her SIA ticket after she had used a family member’s credit card to book it.

    Ms Chan checked and confirmed that Chang had an air ticket booked under her name.

    But she found the details on the passport did not match the credit card details.

    When asked, Chang replied that the credit card belonged to a family member in Beijing. She could not verify who the person was nor whether the owner had consented to the purchase.

    Chang asked for the boarding pass, saying that she had called the airline earlier to book the ticket.

    But Ms Chan said she was unable to issue the boarding pass as Chang could not verify who owned the credit card.

    Ms Chan advised her to inform the owner to contact the SIA office in China to confirm that the owner had consented to the purchase.

    Chang said she did not have a mobile phone with her and that she was unable to reach the credit card owner. She shouted and used abusive words against Ms Chan, said DPP Teo.

    Ms Chan then sought the help of her male colleague, who told Chang that the airline could not accede to her request.

    Chang refused to listen and scolded him. He then left the victim alone with Chang.

    Chang asked for a refund, but Ms Chan said that it would take two to three weeks to process her request.

    Chang became angrier and pointed a finger at Ms Chan, scolding her at the same time.

    Ms Chan moved backwards and told her supervisor over the phone about the situation.

    Chang then picked up a “Counter Closed” sign and forcefully threw it towards Ms Chan. It hit her face and she screamed in pain, bleeding from cuts on her left eyebrow and nose bridge.

    Chang was arrested at her hotel the next day.

    An Institute of Mental Health psychiatrist said she has schizophrenia, but was not of unsound mind at the time of the offence.

    DPP Teo had asked for a sentence of at least three weeks’ jail, given the extent and severity of the victim’s injuries, potential serious harm and targeting of a vulnerable spot.

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

     

  • Popular Local Fare On-Board Singapore Airlines

    Popular Local Fare On-Board Singapore Airlines

    Local dishes such as chicken rice and nasi lemak will be part of the in-flight menu on Singapore Airlines (SIA) flights next month, the national carrier said on Tuesday (Jun 27). The “popular local fare” dishes are part of SIA’s 70th anniversary celebrations and in conjunction with the Singapore Food Festival, in collaboration with the Singapore Tourism Board, the airline said in a news release.

    The dishes were chosen through voting by customers in an online poll conducted on the carrier’s website. Passengers travelling in suites, first class and business class will be served chicken rice, nasi lemak, fishball kway teow soup, prawn and chicken laksa and Peranakan Hokkien mee soup. Some of these dishes are currently only available through pre-orders through the airline’s Book the Cook service, but will be put on the airline’s regular in-flight menus for the month of July, it said.

     

    Source: Channel Newsasia

  • Singapore Airlines Launches Biofuel-Powered Lights

    Singapore Airlines Launches Biofuel-Powered Lights

    Flag carrier Singapore Airlines (SIA) has launched its first flight powered by sustainable biofuels, the airline said in a joint press release with the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) on Wednesday (May 3).

    Flight SQ31 departed San Francisco on Monday at 11.21am (Tuesday, 2.21am, Singapore time) and arrived in Singapore on Tuesday at 7.10pm (Singapore time) with 206 passengers on board.

    It is the first of 12 “green package” flights the airline is operating over a three-month period on its nonstop San Francisco-Singapore route. The flights are the first in the world to combine the use of biofuels, optimised flights operations and fuel-efficient aircraft, SIA said.

    The flights will be powered by a combination of hydro-processed esters and fatty acids, a sustainable biofuel produced from used cooking oils, and conventional jet fuel. The biofuel, produced by AltAir Fuels, will be supplied and delivered to San Francisco by SkyNRG in collaboration with North American Fuel Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of China Aviation Oil (Singapore), and EPIC Fuels.

    The International Air Transport Association has said that sustainable biofuel is a promising technological solution which will reduce the airline industry’s carbon emissions. It has been certified safe for use in commercial aviation since 2011, and has been used by airlines such as Lufthansa, Finnair, Jetstar and KLM.

    All 12 flights will use the Airbus A350-900, SIA’s most fuel-efficient aircraft. CAAS will facilitate the use of optimised flight operations and air traffic management best practices, which reduce fuel burn and carbon emissions for the flights.

    The initiative supports efforts under the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015 to encourage businesses to reduce their resource and environmental impact. The flights will also raise awareness of sustainable biofuels for aviation and provide the industry with insight on the economics, logistical requirements and performance of biofuels, SIA said.

    “Singapore Airlines’ fleet is already among the most modern and fuel-efficient in the world. We now want to push ourselves further and are embarking on this initiative to help promote the use of sustainable biofuel in an operationally and commercially viable manner. This is in line with our long-term commitment to further reduce carbon emissions while improving the efficiency of our operations,” said the airline’s CEO Goh Choon Phong.

     

    Rilek1Corner

    Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/

  • SQ006 Stewardess Farzana Razak Offers An Apology To The Pilots

    SQ006 Stewardess Farzana Razak Offers An Apology To The Pilots

    It’s hard to forget flight SQ006, even more so for Farzana Abdul Razak, one of the cabin crew who survived the deadly ordeal. On the night of Oct 31, 2000, Los Angeles-bound Singapore Airlines flight SQ006 taxied into a closed runway at Taipei’s then-Chiang Kai-shek Airport. It crashed into construction equipment during take-off and caught fire, killing 83 of the 179 people on board.

    Madam Farzana was only 18 years old and just months into her new job at that time. Her dreams and aspirations went up in flames together with the ill-fated aircraft, when 45 per cent of her body was severely burnt by the blaze.

    She underwent 11 skin graft operations to remove the scars, but that was just the beginning of the road to recovery – one that was mired by anger and a long bout of depression.

    In the third episode of “The Newsmaker”, Madam Farzana looks back and recounts her ordeal. She also has a word for the pilots who caused the deadly mishap.

    Watch the video here.

     

    Source: Asiaone