Delayed Singapore Airline Flight for 36 hours.....

emmac21

We were booked on the Manchester to Singapore flight 10.25am, with final destination being Penang.
We boarded the plane, but they delayed the take off as they said they had to do Airbus checks due to the aircraft going through bad turbulence on the incoming flight that morning. These checks continued to take place whilst we were sat waiting to take off. Eventually after 4 hours we were told to disembark, collect our luggage and were transferred to a hotel to await further instruction.

We were then awaiting new flight details which did not come through until 9pm.  Booked onto the London Heathrow 22.05pm flight the next day.  So the total delay to our trip was 36 hours.

I put a claim into Singapore for flight delay claim, but they dismissed it, classing it as extraordinary circumstances.  The messages we got on the day was that there was nothing wrong with the plane, however Airbus would not authorise the plane to fly without check 1 and 2 being done, and by this time the staff had ran out of working hours.

I have now forwarded this to the CAA. I'm just wondering whether you think I have a valid claim here? I was traveling with family so there were 4 of us to claim for the delay.

eskbanker

Just speculation, but it could be that Singapore are more cautious than most after the events of last year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_321

I can see the argument that turbulence deemed serious enough to warrant manufacturer checks would be categorised as extraordinary circumstances beyond the airline's control, but don't really understand why the airline would issue messages stating that "there was nothing wrong with the plane" if that hadn't been confirmed as fact at the time, so that may compromise their position a bit, depending on exactly when and how that was written or said?

emmac21

Their flight manager Frank came onboard the plane and told us there was no fault with the plane. Also the day after whilst waiting for the new flight we were told the same. I think it was more to do with running out of staff hours. 

This is part of the response from them;

As you may be aware the cancellation of flight SQ301, 15 August 2025 was due to the aircraft scheduled to operate the flight, experiencing severe turbulence whilst performing the inbound flight SQ302, 15 August 2025, Singapore to Manchester and required engineering checks upon arrival at Manchester Airport. The inspection carried out by Airbus was required before the aircraft could be released to service. Regrettably, the inspection process required a significant amount of time, during which the operating crew reached their maximum permitted duty hours.

eskbanker

emmac21 said:

Their flight manager Frank came onboard the plane and told us there was no fault with the plane. Also the day after whilst waiting for the new flight we were told the same.

Obviously I wasn't there, but I'd have thought that the message being conveyed would have been intended to be 'we don't know of any fault with plane but have to check'?

emmac21 said:

I think it was more to do with running out of staff hours. 

This is part of the response from them;

As you may be aware the cancellation of flight SQ301, 15 August 2025 was due to the aircraft scheduled to operate the flight, experiencing severe turbulence whilst performing the inbound flight SQ302, 15 August 2025, Singapore to Manchester and required engineering checks upon arrival at Manchester Airport. The inspection carried out by Airbus was required before the aircraft could be released to service. Regrettably, the inspection process required a significant amount of time, during which the operating crew reached their maximum permitted duty hours.

Yes, so running out of hours is a symptom rather than a cause.

Grumpy_chap

Did Singapore Airlines meet all your expenses, refreshments etc between the original departure time and revised departure?
How did you get to Heathrow from Manchester?  Did SA arrange that also?  A shuttle flight?

bagand96

When certain events happen to aircraft, then as per manufacturer and airline procedures they will require certain checks to ensure they are serviceable. Severe turbulence will be one, others include heavy landings, lightning strikes etc. 

If the turbulence on the previous flight warranted a check then it would have to be carried out by a suitably qualified engineer. It may be that the aircraft is showing no signs of a fault , but only the licensed engineer can carry out the manufacturer specified check to confirm the aircraft is safe to re-enter service. Regardless of what Frank's opinion is (unless of course he was a suitably qualified aircraft engineer licensed on the Airbus A350)

It will come down to whether the turbulence is considered an extraordinary event. "Turbulence" is common, "severe turbulence" isn't. 

RogerPensionGuy

The unfortunate delay experienced was indeed hassle. 

Sounds like the aircraft needed maintenance checks due to the turbulence event, apparently these checks can be very intensive and time consuming, but must be completed before next flight.

These checks go thro various stages and procedures to ensure no issues or issues fixed, cranes or hangers maybe required, 100s of man hours can be required even with no issues found.

When these events occur at airline bases or close by, the airline may be able to produce another aircraft soon, but at distance, not easy.

I hope nobody injured on that turbulence flight, I'm guessing in a few years time seat belts will be compulsory most of flight.

***

Turbulence is getting worse. Here are the planet’s bumpiest flight routes | CNN https://share.google/ZrgPzLhoCOilGkULc

silvercar

In practical terms, it is clearly not possible for every airline to have spare crews on standby at every outstation. But that is what the law, in terms of eligibility for compensation requires, or at least they should factor in their business model that they will need to pay compensation when the crew goes over hours and they don't have enough crew on standby.

I would argue that the lack of a crew contributed more than 4 hours of the delay, so compensation is due. 

eskbanker

silvercar said:

In practical terms, it is clearly not possible for every airline to have spare crews on standby at every outstation. But that is what the law, in terms of eligibility for compensation requires, or at least they should factor in their business model that they will need to pay compensation when the crew goes over hours and they don't have enough crew on standby.

I would argue that the lack of a crew contributed more than 4 hours of the delay, so compensation is due. 

Compensation isn't applicable if there are extraordinary circumstances "which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken", so the test becomes about what's reasonable, and the key phrase in case law that'll be cited by airlines is 'intolerable sacrifices':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80308040/#Comment_80308040

Grumpy_chap

silvercar said:

In practical terms, it is clearly not possible for every airline to have spare crews on standby at every outstation. But that is what the law, in terms of eligibility for compensation requires, or at least they should factor in their business model that they will need to pay compensation when the crew goes over hours and they don't have enough crew on standby.

I would argue that the lack of a crew contributed more than 4 hours of the delay, so compensation is due. 

I understood that it was the first cause that really carried the can for the whole delay.  If the extreme turbulence that required the extensive safety checks was the original root cause of the delay, then the crew being out of hours is merely a side-effect of that first cause.  If the time to arrange a replacement crew is then over four hours, that time is not AIUI a cause for the delay - the times for compensation do not look at each individual contributor and apply if that contributor exceeded the threshold, or do they?

We also have to consider that we all buy our air travel with an eye to the competitive market place that exists.  This makes it impractical for any airline to have a ready supply of spare crew available at any location on their global routes to minimise delays.

As annoying as a 36-hour delay is, I think we would all far prefer that the airline is cautious and prioritises safety than taking off on time but only going half way.