Talk:Singapore Airlines

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Group

I do not know what you guys are arguing about but the refrences make it pretty clear that Singapore Airlines is part of the Singapre Airlines Group. What is the problem? --Blue Tie 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, since Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Limited are kind of the same company and one is the parent of the group, how can a parent also be a child? This is part of the problem in that the structure is confusing. Vegaswikian 19:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

After recent edits by other editors, I have just a few questions/comments/concerns/suggestions in regards to the article as it stands now (which is a total mess and these suggestions demonstrate precisely what is wrong with it):

• The infobox is entitled Singapore Airlines (SIA) with the parent company being Singapore Airlines Limited (SIA Limited). This is unsourced and needs to be sourced and verified for accuracy. Any reliable sources which states "Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited" or Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (or very close to this) should suffice for this purpose.
• SilkAir, SIA Cargo, SATS, etc are not subsidiaries of Singapore Airlines, but of Singapore Airlines Limited, which is also the parent company of Singapore Airlines according to the article. All subsidiaries need to be removed from the infobox, as ownership by SIA Limited is verifiable by the Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report 2006/07.
• The infobox says that Chew Choon Seng is the CEO of Singapore Airlines. I have looked at the annual report for Singapore Airlines Limited and I see that he is also the CEO of Singapore Airlines Limited. Does this mean that Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines each have a separate board of directors? Looking at it from a perspective of the SIA Group as a whole, it could make for interesting prose as to why Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines have the same makeup of their board, yet other companies within the SIA Group have different executives in different positions. To me this sounds like Singapore Airlines Limited doesn't trust the Singapore Airlines board to make the right decisions and have the right type of stewardship of the airline, so SIA Limited makes all decisions for SIA, whereas Singapore Airlines Limited subsidiaries have much more independence, so it would seem? Or is there another reason this is the case? Also, I see that IATA has a small profile on Chew Choon Seng on their website. It would be interesting to include how he went from joining Singapore Airlines in 1972 and climbed the ranks to become the CEO of both Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Singapore Airlines Limited. Also, it's good bio to state when he was employed by Singapore Airlines Limited.
• The lead of the article states "Singapore Airlines Limited is the national airline of Singapore" - Singapore Airlines is the airline and Singapore Airlines Limited is just the parent company of that airline? Why is Singapore Airlines Limited in the lead?
• The link to the Singapore Stock Exchange only makes mention of Singapore Airlines Limited as being the company listed on the stock exchange, so the ticker symbol link should be removed.
• The second paragraph states 'The company is an industry bellwether for aircraft purchases'. The source for this statement doesn't mention Singapore Airlines buying any aircraft, but Singapore Airlines Limited, so Singapore Airlines being a bellwether for aircraft purchases needs to be removed as it [:Template:Failed_verification|fails verification] using that source.
• Can someone please check WP:RS reliability for the source of this statement in the intro, 'and ranks amongst the top 15 carriers worldwide in terms of revenue passenger kilometres', as I have visited the site from which the statement was made, and in the top right hand corner of the page I landed at I find article titled China Eastern agrees to sell 24% stake to Singapore Airlines, Temasek, with a link to the article which starts with this statement; Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek agreed to purchase 15.7% and 8.3% stakes respectively in China Eastern Airlines, giving them a combined 24% holding valued at HK7.15 billion ($917 million).
• In the lead, this statement has been made Collectively, the Singapore Airlines Group (including SilkAir and Singapore Airlines Cargo) is the world's largest carrier by market capitalization. The link from which that statement is, allegedly, taken is no longer available, and hasn't been for some time (as I checked about a month ago). However, Singapore Airlines has been changed to Singapore Airlines Group in the last days by Huaiwei, and as they aren't exactly the same thing, this statement would require a Template:Or tag for further verification and sources.
• Corporate management section states 'Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies' - how can this be? Singapore Airlines is simply an airline/brand, it isn't a company - this is information presented by Huaiwei above and via edits to the article. If Singapore Airlines is a company, can someone please provide their Singapore business registration number from here, as it is impossible for a non-registered entity to own other companies, particularly those listed on the stock markets, as this would be totally against every corporation law in the world, and I am certain this includes Singapore.
• This follows on with 'the later of which is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment and holding company, Temasek Holdings' - I need this explained to me, so that I understand, as I have no doubt it is correct. If Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies, then how can SIA Group be a subsidiary of Temasek, particularly as:

1) SIA Group is not a legally registered entity per se. If it were, someone needs to provide business registration data or other third party sources which establishes this.

2) If SIA Group is a subsidiary of Temasek, and Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited, why does IHT, Singapore Stock Exchange, and a multitude of other reliable sources, and Singapore Airlines itself, claim that Temasek is the parent of Singapore Airlines? Are all of these sources totally incorrect, and this article (as it stands at the moment by Huaiwei) correct?

3) Virgin Atlantic is included in this 'SIA Group', by ways of definition of the group. Does this mean that we now have to change the VS page to show Temasek as the parent of Virgin, seeing as this article says it is so, due to its membership of this SIA Group? Is anyone willing to make this change on the Virgin Atlantic page, because this article is asserting that fact?

• In corporate management; warned the airline to cut costs, is sourced here. The article mentions Singapore Airlines Limited for the stock, but then mentions Singapore Airlines and its subsidiary SilkAir. But SIA Limited is the parent of SilkAir. What gives? Any explanation for this? Perhaps that should be included?
• I turn your attention to page 146 of the Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report for 2006/07, to the section entitled Group Corporate Structure. At the left we have Singapore Airlines Limited - I can see such entities as SIA Engineering Company Limited, SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited, Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited, etc, etc, but I can't find Singapore Airlines Limited owning a company called simply Singapore Airlines. Surely if Singapore Airlines Limited was the parent company of Singapore Airlines, this information would clearly be indicated here. But according to this article as it stands at the time I write this, Singapore Airlines Limited isn't the parent of these "Group of companies" but Temasek is the parent, why aren't they mentioned in this annual report at this point?
• In the section Operational investments, this statement is made, evoking a major rally in China Eastern's shares which rose 83.91% to hit 6.86 Hong Kong dollars a day after the announcement of the deal. This source is used for that statement. Can we please have someone verify the reliability of using Forbes as a source, as they also make this statement in the same article; For a price tag of 7.2 billion Hong Kong dollars ($923 million), Singapore Airlines, renowned as the best-managed airline in Asia, and its Singaporean government-controlled parent Temasek Holdings, are taking a combined 24% stake in money-losing China Eastern Airlines, China’s perpetual aviation laggard.
• Section frequent flyer program states Singapore Airlines and its subsidiary SilkAir, this is not correct as Page 146 of the Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report 2006/07 states that SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited, which according to this article is also the parent company of Singapore Airlines (again, a fact which has not yet been sourced and verified). I suggest removed its subsidiary from this part to stay consistent.
• The destinations section states It has a particularly strong presence in the Southeast Asian region, which together with its subsidiary SilkAir. Again, the SIA Limited Annual Report states that SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited. Although, I can't find anything which affirms Singapore Airlines Limited being the parent of Singapore Airlines, as this article states this is the case, this statement needs to be changed and I suggest it be changed to which together with its sister airline SilkAir (NOTE: Sister is used to denote common ownership by the same company, as per an example, Sister station, whilst not specific to airlines, it can be used across industries, as can be found on a google search)
• Codeshare agreements states Singapore Airlines has codeshare agreements[78] with its fully-owned subsidiary SilkAir, Virgin Atlantic Airways in which it owns a 49% stake, again Singapore Airlines Limited owns SilkAir, not Singapore Airlines. And Singapore Airlines Limited owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic, not Singapore Airlines.
• In the fleet section, there is a list of aircraft operated by Singapore Airlines. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore civil aircraft register states that the operator of these aircraft is Singapore Airlines Limited. It should be mentioned in this section if Singapore Airlines Limited leases these aircraft to Singapore Airlines for their flights? It is an interesting point in Singapore Airlines Cargo that its fleet was transferred at market value from SIA and all future fleet purchases are made on its own books, so it would be interesting to know also if Singapore Airlines is also made to pay its way by Singapore Airlines Limited or does it get a free ride? If SIA Limited leases the aircraft to SIA, these lease payments would be found in the annual report, but I can't find anything, perhaps I am looking in the wrong spot, or perhaps SIA Limited lets SIA operate the aircraft without charge? I can see aircraft purchases by SIA Limited in the annual report though. Anyway, it's an interesting point for inclusion in the article.
• Singapore Airlines subsidiaries perhaps should be renamed to Singapore Airlines Limited subsidiaries, as Singapore Airlines doesn't own a single company listed there.
• Why does Singapore Airlines Cargo has Singapore Airlines Limited as the parent company, and why it isn't Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited. The same goes for SilkAir and SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited.

Does anyone have anything to add to this? Then we can make the necessary edits to the article. NOTE: The Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report 2006/07 is located here and is independently audited by Ernst & Young, and complies with Singapore company laws. --Russavia 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the annual report obfuscates the names and structure of the company. It would appear on one hand that Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines are both used to refer to the stock company. It also appears that the company considers Singapore Airlines as a part of 'the group'. So the name Singapore Airlines is used as both the parent and child. I still believe that it is best to have an article only for the airline operating as Singapore Airlines and another article for the stock company Singapore Airlines Limited. Vegaswikian 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If Singapore Airlines were to obfuscate the names and structure of the company, and particularly as they are listed on the stock exchange, this would be in violation of countless number of corporation and company laws in Singapore, and Ernst & Young would not be giving the report their stamp of approval. The very simple fact of the matter is, is that Ltd and Pty Ltd companies (and variations there of) do not need to distinguish between XYZ Widgets Pty Ltd and XYZ Widgets as they are the same entity (the Ltd is their legal name, and the other is their name within the marketplace). The structure of Singapore Airlines is very clearly noted in their annual report, and has been referenced countless number of times on this very talk page. Many non-US airlines (and companies) have the very same structures and there isn't any dispute on those, just this one, why? --Russavia 07:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I read Russavia's first two points in this section, found glaring errors both in his interpretation of sources as well as his interpretation of what others are saying, and simply stoppped reading the rest of his garbage. I think the patience of many are wearing thin over one single individual's persistent attempt in forcing his personal interpretation into an article, via any means he thinks possible, including something as silly as inserting dispute tags just to draw people's attention to his antics. I am not sure if Vegaswikian has finally been able to read the Singapore Airlines Annual Report, but his comment on the company's name usage is more or less spot-on, although I wont use the term obfuscate to describe this. As far as the company is concerned, Singapore Airlines is the shorthand of both Singapore Airlines Group and Singapore Airlines Limited, and Singapore Airlines Group = Singapore Airlines Limited, as long as we are referring to the name of the company. But when the company is attempting to describe its operations or financial operations of Singapore Airlines sans subsidiaires, it will refer to this entity as the Parant Airline Company of the Singapore Airlines Group. If this article is attempting not to refer to itself as the Singapore Airlines Group (which Russavia condemns anyway[1]), then it should be on the Parant Airline Company (officially known as Singapore Airlines Limited), which is only one portion of Singapore Airlines Group. Is it therefore accurate to say the Parant Airline Company is a part of Singapore Airlines Group (officially known as Singapore Airlines Limited)? Yes, and the sources say so, even if they are both known with the same name. Is it "contradictory" for this article to sometimes refer to Singapore Airlines Group? No, if the article clearly differentiates between statistics/information which relates only to either entity. Under the "Corporate Management" section, for example, I made it a point to distinguish between the two, and display statistics which clearly relate to either one of these. Russavia couldn't stand the fact that I am actually using a primary source, couldn't comprehend that fact that he has assumed wrongly on just how I interpret the entire saga, and hence keeps planting WP:OR tags there. Let's see what other garbage he can throw at us, and in the meantime, check out what happens over at Aeroflot. My continued believe that this member is unable to edit objectively continues to be reinforced by his actions there, although I end up having to be a tad "disruptive" to illustrate this.--Huaiwei 15:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for being disruptive and your comment above consists almost entirely of ad hominem attacks.

As stated before, show your evidence of disruptive editing on my part. My comment above refers to the disputes over at Aeroflot, which continues to rage on. Given Russavia's self-proclamation of "expertise" in the Aviation field, particularly in the Russian market, and the high editing standards he attempts to reinforce, I went over to take a look at Russia's largest airline, Aeroflot, to check out the high standards Russavia would presumably display there. It turned out to be a dissapointing visit, and I went ahead and overhauled that article. Some may presume this to be a tit-for-tat action amounting to being "disruptive", but unless you can show I am doing this merely to prove a point with nonsensical edits there, I would again demand that you retract your accusation.--Huaiwei 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this. To remind you, this is the episode when you went ahead and replaced all references to Silkair and Singapore Airlines Cargo with "Singapore Airlines" in their destination airports, alleging that Russavia wanted you to do so, and commented that "Don't you find it rather tragic that I have to come to such ends". Well, yes, I do find it rather tragic and this behavior — intentionally going against WP:AIRPORT in dozens and dozens of airport articles to make a point — was highly disruptive. Jpatokal 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And just what point am I trying to make with those edits then? I think I have made my point very clear. This article is either one on the Parent Airline Company, or the Singapore Airlines Group. I have repeatedly reminded Russavia, that he is turning the article into one on the Group in one key component, and that I will have to amend the rest of the article if he insists on reverting, for the sake of maintaining as much accuracy as possible. And since the article is turned into one on the airline group, links related to the article must be amended as well, and I am doing this with full intention of keeping them that way. When I went ahead to amend the articles, there has been little dispute from other users, except Russavia who comes along a few days later and reverts everything back again. So again I ask. Just what point am I am making with those edits, and what disruption am I causing if they are actually correct? Enlighten me on this one.--Huaiwei 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT: State your point; don't prove it experimentally. Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. Jpatokal 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And there you have it. My edits were meant to be permanent, and are not an experimental exercise. My action was not exactly unilateral, since it comes on the heals of Russavia's edits, and I have forewarned him that his action must come with my edit as a single package.--Huaiwei 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So you now agree with Russavia, and are OK with permanently accepting his suggestions? Jpatokal 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, I actually agree with almost all of what you say: this article should cover Singapore Airlines the airline, and the "Corporate management" section should cover the structure of the entire group, which is pretty much the case already. However, as the first sentence of the article corrently defines "Singapore Airlines" as "Singapore Airlines Limited", it's patently absurd to list "Singapore Airlines Limited" as the parent company of "Singapore Airlines" — a company cannot be its own parent. On the other hand, the company's own official, audited annual report [2] states in perfectly clear English that Singapore Airlines Limited is a subsidiary of Temasek, and hence Temasek is its parent. Is there any dispute about this? If not, can we change the infobox title to say "Singapore Airlines Limited", and its parent then to be Temasek? Jpatokal 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The infobox is for Singapore Airlines, the parent airline company, and not for Singapore Airlines, the group. No one actually disputes Singapore Airlines Group (officially Singapore Airlines Limited, or Singapore Airlines for short) as a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, as per the Annual Report. There is, however, a contention that the parent airline company is one. An infobox which says "Singapore Airlines Limited", and with most of its contents related only to the parent airline company cannot be confused with one on the airline group. Perhaps the best way forward is simply to remove that entry in the infobox.--Huaiwei 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Jpatokal 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty fast. Hope no one would see this as some kind of unilateral action and start revert warring again.--Huaiwei 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not agree to this, so I have reverted. I see no reason why this article is so special that we have to leave out info but leave it on thousands of other articles. This issue will be resolved for once and for all.--Russavia 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, leaving it there is indicative of the problems which this article has, so instead of hiding it and pretending all is ok, I would ask that it be left there, as I am STILL waiting for a source for Singapore Airlines Limited being the parent company of Singapore Airlines. Furthermore, Huaiwei's argument is that the infobox is for Singapore Airlines, the parent airline company. Does anyone have any idea what the operative is here? Company. What type of company is it? Of course, it is a Limited company. Meaning that the parent airline company is Singapore Airlines Limited. It can not be made any clearer than this, that is if the fifty thousand previous words I have written haven't made it clear enough as it is. --Russavia 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To have any meaning at all, the "parent company" bit has to link somewhere. It can go to a separate SQ Group article, or Temasek, but the current value is just wrong because a company cannot be its own parent and it should be removed. Jpatokal 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, and it has been my argument the entire time, hence why I have now written a thesis on this talk page as to why Temasek Holdings should be placed back there, for which it seems that you agree with, but will it stay there if this (example of) edit is re-instated? --Russavia 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So yet again Huaiwei, you are admitting to editing only to be disruptive, and that your edits have not been in good faith? I have no interest in pursuing any discussion with a self-admitted disruptive editor and will be taking that further. --Russavia 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can infer your from my comments all you like, Russavia, for your own comments seem to suggest guilt on your part. Past history has shown that you are hardly a man of your words, for clearly this isnt the first time you said you are not going to have "discussions" with me, and look what happens a short while later? You demand to be talked to, failing which you think you have an excuse to revert. And I suppose that also means only "arguments" are permissable? That explains!--Huaiwei 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership Structure

The Singapore Airlines Group (of companies) is a holding name - it does not exist. What does exist is Singapore Airlines Limited. The trading name for Singapore Airlines Limited is of course, Singapore Airlines. The parent company of Singapore Airlines is not Singapore Airlines Limited because they are equal.

Taking this into account, I am going to remove the Parent Company section in the infobox.

Furthermore, if we really need to state the Parent Company, I say that Temasek Holdings is undoubtedly the major shareholder with over 49% of shares in Singapore Airlines Limited. If an accounting textbook describes Temasek as the parent company then so be it. If not, I suggest we revert to calling it "Major Shareholder" in the infobox. This small piece of information adds very little value to the article anyway. RomanceOfTravel 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add this information as per Temasek to the infobox, but prepare to have the article owner revert it upon site, because he has no idea about company structures --Russavia 14:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I should have been bolder! RomanceOfTravel 19:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how to do it. RomanceOfTravel 19:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just who is the allerged "owner", may I ask?--Huaiwei 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Advertisement Flavour

Having looked at British Airways and Cathay Pacific, it is difficult to see exactly where the Singapore Airlines article seems to be written as an advertisement. I would re-write the whole thing but don't have the time. Discuss. RomanceOfTravel 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Those two articles are nowhere near written to be an advertisement as this one does. Yes, there are issues with those articles, but this one reads like an advertisement from beginning to end. Of course, it is impossible to advise others of this fact, as people will add the 'advert' template only to have the article owner revert it on site, and then claim that they have to gather concensus on the talk page to even add that template on the article - hogwash. --Russavia 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of SQ fanboyism here. Eg. the version before this edit of mine makes it sound like all planes have Wiseman 3000 and Connexion, while in reality you only get interactive IFE on the long-range planes and Connexion ceased to exist last year. Jpatokal 15:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are sections which are factually wrong, correct it. I would classify an article as controlled by "fanboyism" and a walking advertisement (oh what a word made famous by ahem!) if attempts to introduce facts, be it positive or negative, are controlled in such a way that only positive comments are allowed. Has this happened in this article? No. In fact, I seem to find myself one of the few who is introducing relatively negative comments! Are negative comments in SIA that difficult to find? If this is so, is it SIA's fault, and it is therefore a problem for this article to have less negative comments as a result?--Huaiwei 01:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree. It doesn't look like an advertisement at all. The fact that Singapore Airlines has above average products and service (assuming this is the sticking point) and higher than average brand equity compared to the airline industry in general does not make reporting this de facto advertising. If anything there should be some kind of template. Also there are blackouts. For example, the Cabins section rightfully talks about the relaunch in October 2006 but to the average reader this could think that this was the only cabin relaunch to occur (forgetting 2001, 1998 etc...). Or do we only mention recent things? I don't know - opinions requested. RomanceOfTravel 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I would challenge anyone to kindly point out which aspects of this article would constitute "advertising", and if this article is any different from the bunch of airline articles out there. I certainly hope no one here wants to be seen as being particularly "anti SIA fanboyism", yet condones it elsewhere. It wont be pretty, as demonstrated by some who are obviously already in that category (by their self-declaration sometimes) and has gotten the heat ever since.--Huaiwei 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, but when I read the intro to SQ reads..as "Singapore Airlines was ranked 17th in Fortune's World’s Most Admired Companies rankings in 2007[6]) and has built up a strong brand name[7] as a trendsetter[8] in the aviation industry, particularly in terms of service excellence, innovation, and safety,[9] coupled with consistent profitability. [10] It has won numerous awards and accolades, and is an industry bellwether for aircraft purchases.[11]"

Looking at the sources, the strong brand name sources to a webpage that is some sort of branding company's opinion of SQ. Simply because they say they have a "strong" brand identity does not make it so. In addition, the other sites cited as the point to support the assertion in this paragraph are mere opinions by random writers in some local newspaper. These sources are not credible, nor convincing enough to establish that SQ could be considered the "trendsetter." After all, some other airlines could certainly be considered trendsetters in their own right as well. I propose that some other sources be found which we all agree is a determinative authority or standard by which an airline "trendsetter" is identified. We should not be quoting random newspaper's opinions or commentary on an airline's services to make the point..simply because it runs the risk of all Wikipedians finding random subjective opinions on various websites to demonstrate the point.

Edits also are never "permanent" and merely working on this page does not make them "permanent." I would delete this paragraph and propose doing so, unless some other determinative authority is agreed upon to be some objective (not subjective, as is the SQ's citations currently exist) "standard" by which Wikipedians judge an airline to be a legitimate "trendsetter." Azntokki 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

Now I wont consider someone with three months in wikipedia as new, but welcome to the project anyhow, and thank you for your comments. Lets get down to business now. Wikipedia is based on WP:V, and will report on any verifiable, reputable source to formulate its contents. Now lets see just how untrue this is with the above paragraph. Fortune ranks SIA the second most respected airline company in the world for the past two years. The The Wall Street Journal shows SIA coming out tops in a branding survey, and says "Among non-U.S.-based carriers, Singapore Airlines enjoyed the highest reputation quotient of any airline." Since when did the The Wall Street Journal become just another branding company, and was its comments the company's own, or that of its survey? You mention other sources are mere editors from some local newspaper. Which particular newspaper are you referring to, and are you unable to find similar comments from "global" newspapers? Have you done a google search in this regard before commenting? Can I therefore deduce that you are saying this article suffers from being an "advertisement", for no better reason thatn allerged bad-reputations of cites sources? I would like to hear your responses please. Thanks!--Huaiwei 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I consider that particular paragraph in the lead quite OK — SQ undeniably has been awarded a lot and has a strong brand, because hey, they're a pretty darn good airline.

My problem is with the meat of the article, esp. the sections on cabins and KrisFlyer, which — while indubitably factually correct and well referenced — often descend into hagiography, regurgitating gobs of thoroughly obscure trivia direct from the marketing department with little hype words here and there: "In a new innovation", "improved adjustable headrest", "International Culinary Panel" in caps, etc. We are told, among other things, that business class on the B777-300ER has coat hooks in every seat, that the cushions in the Suites are designed by Givenchy, that "premium" passengers may request extra virgin olive oil, and that Economy class passengers receive a pair of socks on long-haul flights. Is this stuff really relevant to an encyclopedia? If yes, should we also note that seat 53C on a B777-300ER has poor legroom or that the window next to 12K is misaligned? [3] Jpatokal 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you as a matter of fact that I don't particularly like the cabin and Krisflyer sections either. In particular Krisflyer, the contents of which were merged from its own article thanks to the usual suspect's attempts to delete it. It certainly needs a rewrite. As for the cabin section, there is far too much regurgitation of "this and that is offered" without telling us the significance of each, especially in comparison with its competitors. For example, the offering of AVOD for every seat is not considered an industry standard yet, so it is of encyclopedic interest if an airline can claim to do so for the majority of its services (I understand even SIA dosent offer this on every single aircraft). I have further problems with this overwelming discussion on what exists now, without any mention on the history of cabin refurbishment over the years, and the kind of innovations which has been introduced before (plus any pitfalls associated with any new products, of course. The withdrawal of the in-flight internet service comes immediately to mind). Far more noteworthy and encyclopedic, I would think.--Huaiwei 17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. In looking at the citation for Fortune, the site appears to be a ranking from Fortune. Knowing the audience and the typical readership of Fortune, these rankings are not determinative of what constitutes an "admired company." This is Fortune's own editors SUBJECTIVE opinion as to the ranking they assign SQ. However, the problem is not the source--but the conclusions they draw and what we should read from it. A magazine's (though prominent it may be or even reputable) subjective conclusion that SQ is "admired," should not translate to Wikipedia knowledge which in its purest form, should be OBJECTIVE.

Second, as far as the Wall Street Journal is concerned, the article's data backdates to 2000 and SQ's ranking again, were based on a random sample of 20,867 respondents by Harris Interactive, a random call-you-up and ask you questions telemarketing agency of sorts. Though cited by the Wall Street Journal author Scott McCartney, this hardly constitutes objective conclusions. Their findings could be interpreted in a different light by any other researcher. The problem is that the article is not objective, since the conclusion you cite is that since the majority of respondents' conclusion rank SQ this way--therefore, this is the way we should read the data. The problem is that the methodology and the opinions culled from the sources are based on respondents' subjective opinions, NOT the Wall Street Journal's opinion per dicta. This runs counter to Wikipedia's citation rules that such data be verifiable and attributed to the source, not the source within the source. The problem lies with the conclusions we should draw from subjective data cited by the authority. Here, the Wall Street Journal's authority is not in dispute (to clear up misunderstanding), but the conclusions we draw from a flawed methodology.

Third, as far as "excellence" is determined, the Seattle Post Intelligencer is a local newspaper and appears to be written like an ad in its truest form. Citing a local journalist's viewpoint as to why SQ is an excellent airline hardly qualifies to be substantive objective material wherein we should conclude that SQ should be labeled as such.

Fourth, as far as citation 9 is concerned, it comes from Venture Republic, which appears to label itself as a "strategic advisor on brand excellence" and calls itself a "specialist firm" based on branding expertise. It is based in Singapore and the quote cites lies in its own view of SQ under its website section called "Resources." Their conclusion of SQ comes from a parochial commercial viewpoint of what they subjectively believe SQ's brand to be. Again, this hardly constitutes objective data from which we should firmly conclude that SQ should be a strong brand, etc. A local business' conclusion as to what SQ brand is should not form the basis of encyclopedic knowledge.

All these sources quoted come from the conclusions we should draw from them to cite in support of SQ. These sources cited are all based on subjective data and the problem all lies in the implications we should interpret from them. FYI, I do actively google everything which I strive to comment upon. Please don't assume that I haven't looked up information before I have commented. In any case, I still propose to delete that paragraph unless some conclusive, verifiable and OBJECTIVE sources can be cited in support of the conclusions--rather than some random opinions from telephone respondents, a branding consulting business or some local newspaper journalist based in Seattle. Azntokki 17:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

After glancing through your comments, here's my short reply: I think you need to take time off and re-read WP:V and let the information sink in, if you have not already. After this, we shall talk further. Thanks.--Huaiwei 18:03, 15

I don't think I need to read it--I recommend that you take your own time and re-read POV. In any case, this is why Wikipedia is a waste of time and an inappropriate place for people to label it as an "encyclopedia" of sorts. Thanks anyways. Azntokki 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

October 2007 (UTC)

Best word?

Hi Everyone! I'm a newbie here but would like to raise a little quibble: I recently changed the sentence: "Female flight attendants continued to wear the sarong kebaya dress" to "Female flight attendants continue to wear the sarong kebaya costume" because, for many varieties of English speakers, the word dress implies a garment that is either all enveloping or only hanging from the waist downwards. Of course all Singapore girls know that the sarong is the "dress part" and the kebaya our blouse.

If, as very prolific User:Huaiwei wrote when he changed my wording, '("custume" is less suited here)', can we come up with a better phrasing that is not just a teensy weensy bit misleading?

Perhaps: "Female flight attendants continue to wear the sarong kebaya as their uniform upon take off and at least until meal service is completed."

Is that wording OK or is there a better phrase? Alice.S 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, and thank you for raising this issue up here. To address the issue here, the sarong kebaya is basically the SIA FA's "uniform", which gives a more formal connotation than a "costume" would suggest. I changed it back to "dress", not because it is a tube- or cone-shaped garment, but because "dress" also means clothing in general. I am open to the option you proposed above. Thanks!--Huaiwei 02:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me such another big friendly welcome on my user page, Huaiwei, and for being open to discussion. Do you think it would be ok for me to replace the phrase with: "Female flight attendants continued to wear the sarong kebaya as their uniform upon take off and at least until meal service was completed.", then - or should I wait a week or so and see if there are any differing opinions? I really think uniform is the best word since it is SIA that supplies and mandates its use'

Do you ever fly the SIA route to Bandar Seri Begawan? Alice.S 02:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I arent sure what "upon take off and at least until meal service was completed" was supposed to imply. Do they change out of their uniform before take off, and after meal service? I dont recall this happening during my flights with them. Anyway, I hadent gone BSB, so I didnt have the opportunity to fly SQ there.--Huaiwei 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm too young to remember first-hand what the procedure was back in 1972 when SIA started up, but I should guess it was exactly the same as today: We always wear the sarong kebaya when we welcome passengers on board, for take-off and for at least the first meal service. Rules have varied after that as to when (and if) you can change out depending on flight routing, seniority and duties. Sorry if the reference to BSB confused you it was just to see if I could greet you if you ever flew that route.Alice.S 05:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Er I don't think I have ever seen them wear anything else other than the uniform for the entire duration of the flight. Do you mean they used to have such a policy before? What do they actually wear if they are not in the sarong kebaya? Anyway, you are flying as a FA with SIA?--Huaiwei 07:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My boyfriend's just reminded me to be careful what I say, but these two articles may interest you: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=412&Itemid=34 and http://books.google.com/books?id=dPhtrKE8GDsC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=singapore+airlines+uniform+changing+rules&source=web&ots=_XYUziM_CH&sig=bZOgYQZpYKWrj9cKlevqgivs-xM#PPA77,M1 Email me if you want to chat further. Alice.S 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I tried reading through those sources, but somehow they dont exactly say what they wear other than their uniforms on board flights. Could you point me out to the specific section, or quote the text directly over here? Thanks!--Huaiwei 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from Russavia

A week ago I did a quick cleanup of different information in this article, which was basically reverted wholesale by Huaiwei; diff here.

I have a question which I would like Huaiwei to answer, in regards to the above diff, so that the necessary changes can be made to this article. In answering these questions, please take into account this diff from BOC Aviation which Huaiwei reverted:

SALE used to be jointly owned by four shareholders. Singapore Airlines Group....

was changed by Huaiwei to this:

SALE used to be jointly owned by four shareholders. Singapore Airlines....

with the edit summary reading:

(A non-existant company cant hold shares in another company)

The statement by Huaiwei Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies[25], the later of which is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment and holding company, Temasek Holdings[26]. was changed to Although Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment company, Temasek Holdings,..., and was reverted back in the above diff by Huaiwei. If a non-existent company can not hold shares in (or own) another company, then a non-existent company can not be a subsidiary of (owned by) another company. This has been explained in minute detail on this talk page, and numerous inline templates were placed explaining that your statement failed verification and for quotations to be supplied and these were duly reverted, diffs: [4], [5], [6]

The misinterpretation of sources has caused more information in the article to be incorrect, failing WP:V. Unfortunately, everything I have written on this talk page has either 1) fallen on deaf ears with Huaiwei or 2) caused Huaiwei to be disruptive on purpose (as admitted by himself)

Additionally, I added a template to the following statement:

It has also restructured itself by hiving off operational units as fully-owned subsidiaries to maintain its core business as a premium passenger airline.

This is a case of WP:SYN (or WP:OR), as when a company restructures and it is to concentrate on its core business, it doesn't spin off units/divisions/branches as fully-owned subsidiaries, it offloads (sells) them completely. This syn template was also removed.

I am going to make the required edits to this article, and before any revision is done by Huaiwei, take into account the above information, and I will take this to WP:RFC/U if need be in order to allow non-verified edits to be removed without worry of having them reverted by an editor who seems to think he owns this article. --Russavia 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Ever since my citation of WP:SYN, Russavia now plonks it into every argument he gets himself into, even thou his position (and that of his opponents) have not moved. Is this his latest excuse to revert war, and to insert a particular entry in a disputed field? I do not see a need to "answer" any of his queries above, because they have all been answered, several times over, and not just by me alone (and speaking of that, I am kinda wondering why he only addreses those questions to me alone. Is he aware that no one owns any article, even if they are one of the main contributors?) Someone else has completely removed all entries from that field[7], and I think that is probably the best course to take if no one could agree on just what should be displayed, a a result which has resulted in no more disputes except from Russavia. If Russavia has major problems accepting community concensus, and the very idea that his views may not be deemed correct nor acceptable to others, then by all means bring this argument to any dispute resolution mechanism he can think of, and we shall take him on there. Russavia's "threats" are certainly welcome, if that helps to cease his disruptive editing habits permanantly.--Huaiwei 10:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)