Singapore Airlines modifies cabin service routines following turbulence incident

I’m sure everyone is familiar by now with the tragic incident involving SQ321, where severe clear-air turbulence resulted in the death of one passenger and injuries to 71 more. This is the first fatal aviation accident for Singapore Airlines since the crash of SQ006 in 2000, and my heart goes out to all those affected.

Now, there’s already enough coverage out there about the incident itself so I’m not going to weigh in further on that- except to say that it’s somewhat annoying to read so many media outlets breathlessly describing the descent from 37,000 to 31,000 feet as a plunge. While I don’t mean to discount how terrifying the ordeal must have been for everyone on board, the change in altitude was in fact a standard, controlled descent at a regular rate, probably done to escape the area of turbulence.

That aside, what I do want to address are the modified service routines following this incident, which I experienced yesterday on a Singapore Airlines flight. You may very well encounter these in the days and weeks to come, so here’s what to expect.

Singapore Airlines modifies cabin service routines

I flew back home from Paris to Singapore on SQ335 yesterday, and during the pre-departure welcome, the inflight supervisor (IFS) told me that Singapore Airlines had modified its cabin service routines in light of the SQ321 incident.

The first change is that cabin crew must now be seated and belted in whenever the seatbelt sign goes on, as opposed to previously where they would only suspend hot drinks service, but continue with all other activities unless the pilot deemed the turbulence severe enough for the crew to be seated as well.

The second change — which may be particular to my flight — is that the second meal was served at the mid-point, instead of the usual 2.5 hours before landing. The idea behind this is that the weather closer to Singapore can be more unpredictable, and because of the requirement that cabin crew are seated whenever the seatbelt sign goes on, there may not be sufficient time to complete the service otherwise.

So on my flight, lunch was served shortly after departure from Paris, and then several hours later, breakfast was served with six hours to go till our 6.20 a.m landing in Singapore. It was a little odd to eat two meals with a relatively short gap between them, though I later came to appreciate the opportunity for uninterrupted rest, since the cabin lights remained off all the way until 35 minutes before landing.

Apart from that it was a pretty standard flight, and when walking through the cabin, I could see that everyone was taking a much more serious stance towards belting up even when the seatbelt sign was off, which can only be a good thing!

From my interactions with the crew, it seems the reaction to the new SOPs was mixed. On the one hand, they agreed that safety should of course be paramount. On the other, the new rule can be potentially disruptive to their workflow, and may result in them having to complete more work in a shorter amount of time.

Also, it did seem like there was quite a bit of confusion regarding when the second meal should be served, which is understandable given that this policy has just come into place. For instance, I was initially told by the IFS that the second meal would be served three hours prior to landing, before a cabin-wide announcement subsequently updated that to mid-flight.

Now, I can guess that some may feel like this is a knee-jerk reaction, since what happened on SQ321 was a black swan event that could have happened to any airline, at any point in time. In that sense, flying is no more or no less dangerous than it was a few days ago, so why should everything change? 

But over on the MileChat, someone gave the analogy of a safety pause, which I think is quite apt. In the same way that the MOM (Ministry of Manpower, for those of you living outside of Singapore) might order a work stoppage following a major incident involving loss of life, this doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s anything wrong with the SOPs. Rather, it gives the airline some breathing space to assess what’s happened, and make calibrations that strike a balance between crew safety and service experience so that everyone can have confidence in the SOPs when they’re eventually reinstated.

For my part, I think most people would understand that there’s turbulence, and then there’s turbulence. Cabin crew consist of able-bodied individuals who are trained to safely carry out service in a mildly-unstable environment. On the other hand, the passenger mix comprises all sorts, including children and those with physical infirmities who should certainly not be moving about the cabin when any kind of bumpiness can be expected.

So having different sets of rules for crew and passengers is by no means a commentary on whose safety is more important, but rather the ability and training of the individuals concerned. Therefore, I don’t believe the current measures will be anything other than temporary- though someone pointed out on the MileChat that it’s apparently SOP on Chinese airlines for crew and passengers to observe the same seatbelt sign rules, which I was unaware of.

The other thing I’d say is that if the idea is to avoid potentially unpredictable weather closer to Singapore, I can understand the need to start the meal service much earlier for the Economy and Premium Economy cabins, where there’s a lot more passengers to be fed. But for the less dense First and Business Class cabins, there might be more leeway to do things closer to the original timeline.

Ultimately, this feels like something that will need to be decided on a case by case basis, depending on the pilot’s assessment of the expected weather en route. It’s certainly not an option on shorter regional flights anyway, where the meal will necessarily have to be served closer to Singapore.

Conclusion

Singapore Airlines has implemented some new SOPs for its cabin service following the SQ321 turbulence incident. The main change is that cabin crew are now required to be seated whenever the seatbelt sign is on, and that can have a knock-on effect on meal service timings, which on my flight was brought forward to the mid-point instead.

I understand these modifications may not suit everyone’s onboard routines, but it’s important to appreciate that the situation right now is fluid, and for what it’s worth, these restrictions are likely to be only temporary. I think we can all agree that the safety of the cabin crew is a lot more important than regular champagne refills!

If you’re flying in the next few days or weeks, do share any changes you’ve observed to the service routines.