Unservicible Pax Seats on B787 Question
Thread Starter
Unservicible Pax Seats on B787 Question
I am not sure if this is the best spot to ask.
Is it an actual legal requirement to lock seats in the upright position for TKOF & LDG on B787 for flights operating into Australian ports?
I recently paxed on a B787 from Singapore to an Aust port, my seat was a wobbleing mess and as part of it the locking function function on the seat was unserviceable. the seat was spring loaded fwd but could not lock. Normal sitting it reclined. I asked for another seat but that request was denied, I was told it has been like that for a while and the plane is full.
I have never seen on any PUS /MEL I have used this listed. Is it likely that a B787 this would be legal, (I doubt it personally).
the company only offers a phone number and has refused to give me a contact email or postal address to communicate with them. Basically I just feel I have to suck it up and never travel on them again but I would love to know if this machine has a bizare get out of jail card in their PUS.
This was a Singapore registered aircraft.
Is it an actual legal requirement to lock seats in the upright position for TKOF & LDG on B787 for flights operating into Australian ports?
I recently paxed on a B787 from Singapore to an Aust port, my seat was a wobbleing mess and as part of it the locking function function on the seat was unserviceable. the seat was spring loaded fwd but could not lock. Normal sitting it reclined. I asked for another seat but that request was denied, I was told it has been like that for a while and the plane is full.
I have never seen on any PUS /MEL I have used this listed. Is it likely that a B787 this would be legal, (I doubt it personally).
the company only offers a phone number and has refused to give me a contact email or postal address to communicate with them. Basically I just feel I have to suck it up and never travel on them again but I would love to know if this machine has a bizare get out of jail card in their PUS.
This was a Singapore registered aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
had this before on a different flight, seat must lock in upright position..(not JS, and not a 787)
complain like hell and get those FF miles! (they moved me and gave me 15K!)
Might as well state the airline...not too many 787 on that route, saw a Scoot one the other day, but that should be new...
complain like hell and get those FF miles! (they moved me and gave me 15K!)
Might as well state the airline...not too many 787 on that route, saw a Scoot one the other day, but that should be new...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: between supple thighs
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEL 25-25-02-01 refers
Recline Mechanism
May be inoperative and seat occupied provided seat is secured in the full upright position.
Maintenance (M)
Secure the associated seat back in the full upright position (AMM MEL 25-25-02)
Recline Mechanism
May be inoperative and seat occupied provided seat is secured in the full upright position.
Maintenance (M)
Secure the associated seat back in the full upright position (AMM MEL 25-25-02)
Thread Starter
Thanks folks for your replies 
What really annoys me is that the Scoot "Contact Us" page only has a phone number, their "Feedback and Enquirers" simply eventually links to the same phone number & their "Global Office Locator" link just sends me to the same Sydney number, this Sydney number just diverts to an Asian call centre. When I ring it they tell me they can only deal with bookings and CAN NOT give me an email or an address I can send a registered letter to regarding safety issues. If you don't believe me, go ahead and ring it your self, +612 8520 1888.
This is really annoying me as they refuse to even listen to the facts of their staff FORCING me to be involved in a safety breach and basically throwing a cream pie into my face. I would have been very happy with them sincerely wanting to know details in an effort to address any staff issues they may have to help avoid the same in the future, face it, the (cabin) crew on that flight were possibly not well trained in this regard but the airline seem to have absolutely no way to handle anything except selling tickets and applying fees and charges, is this I ask myself Profit Before Safety ? I would have thought that an airline would encourage annoyed customers to solve grievances internally, not make it impossible.
This should be a non event, simply solved in a professional manner, instead many days later I still have grievances.
(I said forcing as the machine was airborne and anything but continuing would be ridiculous)
Looks like the only way to innate contact is to go through the CASA International Ops page, which I am not a fan of as I really don't trust some of CASA staff in other departments.
Seriously who in their right mind want to involve CASA in anything these days?
I really do support all this competition and am not anti Scoot, (well I wasn't before anyway
) I really do find their attitude or "Scootitude" as they call it to be very unprofessional. The only reason you are even reading this is they refuse to even let me communicate with them except via a call centre who says they can't help.
What really annoys me is that the Scoot "Contact Us" page only has a phone number, their "Feedback and Enquirers" simply eventually links to the same phone number & their "Global Office Locator" link just sends me to the same Sydney number, this Sydney number just diverts to an Asian call centre. When I ring it they tell me they can only deal with bookings and CAN NOT give me an email or an address I can send a registered letter to regarding safety issues. If you don't believe me, go ahead and ring it your self, +612 8520 1888.
This is really annoying me as they refuse to even listen to the facts of their staff FORCING me to be involved in a safety breach and basically throwing a cream pie into my face. I would have been very happy with them sincerely wanting to know details in an effort to address any staff issues they may have to help avoid the same in the future, face it, the (cabin) crew on that flight were possibly not well trained in this regard but the airline seem to have absolutely no way to handle anything except selling tickets and applying fees and charges, is this I ask myself Profit Before Safety ? I would have thought that an airline would encourage annoyed customers to solve grievances internally, not make it impossible.
This should be a non event, simply solved in a professional manner, instead many days later I still have grievances.
(I said forcing as the machine was airborne and anything but continuing would be ridiculous)
Looks like the only way to innate contact is to go through the CASA International Ops page, which I am not a fan of as I really don't trust some of CASA staff in other departments.
Seriously who in their right mind want to involve CASA in anything these days? I really do support all this competition and am not anti Scoot, (well I wasn't before anyway
) I really do find their attitude or "Scootitude" as they call it to be very unprofessional. The only reason you are even reading this is they refuse to even let me communicate with them except via a call centre who says they can't help.
Last edited by Ejector; 7th Mar 2016 at 21:29.
If you can't get through to the airline then try reporting the incident to their regulator:
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
60 Airport Boulevard
4th Storey, Terminal 2
Singapore Changi Airport
Singapore 819643
Mailing Address:
Singapore Changi Airport
P.O Box 1
Singapore 918141
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
60 Airport Boulevard
4th Storey, Terminal 2
Singapore Changi Airport
Singapore 819643
Mailing Address:
Singapore Changi Airport
P.O Box 1
Singapore 918141
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I know someone who had an issue with another SIN-based LCC a few years back. The CAAS was very interested and their involvement got some action.
Keep in mind Scoot is owned by Singapore Air; perhaps the mother ship would be interested in safety breaches by the offshoot.
Keep in mind Scoot is owned by Singapore Air; perhaps the mother ship would be interested in safety breaches by the offshoot.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can send it direct to the parent carrier, I have found them usually pretty quick to respond to SQ matters through this avenue: [email protected]
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the seat in question was manufactured by Zodiac Aerospace.
https://skift.com/2016/02/27/buildin...iac-aerospace/
https://skift.com/2016/02/27/buildin...iac-aerospace/
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAAS sounds like the way to push the alarm buttons best.
The Singaporeans do not want a carrier originating from there using Pan Am 1970s cabin standards.
Had a similar instance with a client on NZ recently but the problem was the J class seat wouldn't recline to flat bed. It was still basically safe but not what was paid for.
An interesting brawl broke out over that after he returned and end result (after a couple of tries at ridiculously undercalled compensation offers to the client) it was resolved in his favour. Good thing he didn't book online. He would still be on hold to the Web!
Don't mess with an old fart who understands fare construction and likewise don't mess with call centres full of spotty little Hermans who know nothing and seek only to make you go away.
Go straight to the total shutdown button with authorities that have power over and above the airline and scare the crap out of them.
As mentioned hit the Scoot and SQ Facebook pages and be prepared to reload when deleted, hit CASA with the details beforehand so you can post this as having been done. CASA don't want them flying our airspace substandard.
Good luck and don't back off.
Best regards
EWL
The Singaporeans do not want a carrier originating from there using Pan Am 1970s cabin standards.
Had a similar instance with a client on NZ recently but the problem was the J class seat wouldn't recline to flat bed. It was still basically safe but not what was paid for.
An interesting brawl broke out over that after he returned and end result (after a couple of tries at ridiculously undercalled compensation offers to the client) it was resolved in his favour. Good thing he didn't book online. He would still be on hold to the Web!
Don't mess with an old fart who understands fare construction and likewise don't mess with call centres full of spotty little Hermans who know nothing and seek only to make you go away.
Go straight to the total shutdown button with authorities that have power over and above the airline and scare the crap out of them.
As mentioned hit the Scoot and SQ Facebook pages and be prepared to reload when deleted, hit CASA with the details beforehand so you can post this as having been done. CASA don't want them flying our airspace substandard.
Good luck and don't back off.
Best regards
EWL
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In years gone by on 3 crew aircraft, the FEO was sometimes called on in flt to lock a seat in the upright position where the recline mechanism had failed.
On Boeings, this was a simple procedure involving re positioning of lock pins and no tooling was required.
If a seat was unable to be rectified or changed on turnaround it would blocked off as unusable & Cabin Manager/Purser advised as such.
No big deal at all.
On Boeings, this was a simple procedure involving re positioning of lock pins and no tooling was required.
If a seat was unable to be rectified or changed on turnaround it would blocked off as unusable & Cabin Manager/Purser advised as such.
No big deal at all.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
