Talk:Singapore Airlines/Archive 1

message: I've added subsidiaries in the info box. http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/company_info/siastory/subsidiaries.jsp lists Tradewinds Tour and Travel, SIA Engineering Company, and SATS which were missing from this otherwise fine article. I didn't leave a citation in the infobox for appearance, though you can add it.Archtrain 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: subsidiaries

message: Vegaswikian, I hope this a useful explanation for you of the differences between Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group.
Singapore Airlines Limited is simply the official registered name of what we more commonly know as Singapore Airlines. It is no different to QANTAS Airways Limited and QANTAS. Or Lufthansa and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. All entities are one and the same.
The Singapore Airlines Group is not a legal entity, but is merely used when discussing Singapore Airlines Limited (the airline) and its subsidiaries (partly and wholly owned), most often seen when discussing financial statistics. It is possible that Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited) makes a profit of $500 million, but the Singapore Airlines Group makes a profit of $1 billion. This is due to some SIA subsidiaries having their own profit centres. From 
"Note: The SIA Group’s audited financial results for the year ended 31 March 2007 were announced
on 11 May 2007. A summary of the financial and operating statistics is shown in Annex A. (All
monetary figures are in Singapore Dollars. The Company refers to Singapore Airlines, the parent
airline unit. The Group comprises the Company and its subsidiary, joint venture and associated
companies)."
There is no need for a Singapore Airlines Group article, as all companies within that group are subsidiaries, joint ventures or associated companies of Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited), and would be dealt with as per other airlines.
To answer another question you had, SIA is a publicly traded company and is listed on the Singapore Exchange. Their details on the SGX can be found here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 July 2007
*Well, reading this release, is it clear that the company, I'm assuming this to be Singapore Airlines Limited treats Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as entities in Singapore Airlines Group.  Clearly Singapore Airlines Limited when it makes announcements like this does not consider Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines to be one in the same.  Given that, we should not try to make them the same.  However we need to accurately define the structure which means doing more digging.  But at this point I think it is clear that we have several legal entities here. Vegaswikian 05:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited, Singapore Airlines Group 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Group 

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Best word? 

message: 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: , ,  
 
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)
replies: text: 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, 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)
thread_title:  Question from Russavia 

message: So how high is the average adult? I suspect the 1.5m edit is vandalism, but I have not seen the specs. Any comments, or should that be reverted to a more generic "height of the average adult" and left unspecified? docboat 04:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply read Human height and select one from the table.  Yes, there are a few variables. Vegaswikian 05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: I've added subsidiaries in the info box. http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/company_info/siastory/subsidiaries.jsp lists Tradewinds Tour and Travel, SIA Engineering Company, and SATS which were missing from this otherwise fine article. I didn't leave a citation in the infobox for appearance, though you can add it.Archtrain 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: subsidiaries

message: Vegaswikian, I hope this a useful explanation for you of the differences between Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group.
Singapore Airlines Limited is simply the official registered name of what we more commonly know as Singapore Airlines. It is no different to QANTAS Airways Limited and QANTAS. Or Lufthansa and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. All entities are one and the same.
The Singapore Airlines Group is not a legal entity, but is merely used when discussing Singapore Airlines Limited (the airline) and its subsidiaries (partly and wholly owned), most often seen when discussing financial statistics. It is possible that Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited) makes a profit of $500 million, but the Singapore Airlines Group makes a profit of $1 billion. This is due to some SIA subsidiaries having their own profit centres. From 
"Note: The SIA Group’s audited financial results for the year ended 31 March 2007 were announced
on 11 May 2007. A summary of the financial and operating statistics is shown in Annex A. (All
monetary figures are in Singapore Dollars. The Company refers to Singapore Airlines, the parent
airline unit. The Group comprises the Company and its subsidiary, joint venture and associated
companies)."
There is no need for a Singapore Airlines Group article, as all companies within that group are subsidiaries, joint ventures or associated companies of Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited), and would be dealt with as per other airlines.
To answer another question you had, SIA is a publicly traded company and is listed on the Singapore Exchange. Their details on the SGX can be found here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 July 2007
*Well, reading this release, is it clear that the company, I'm assuming this to be Singapore Airlines Limited treats Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as entities in Singapore Airlines Group.  Clearly Singapore Airlines Limited when it makes announcements like this does not consider Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines to be one in the same.  Given that, we should not try to make them the same.  However we need to accurately define the structure which means doing more digging.  But at this point I think it is clear that we have several legal entities here. Vegaswikian 05:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited, Singapore Airlines Group 

message: ::This RFC is impossible to comment on because the issues are not stated. --Blue Tie 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: I honestly cannot believe someone actually nominated this article for good-article status.  The structure is horrible, and complicating!  The page is very messy and I've had this discussion for many months to almost a year now!  One day this page will look right, one day...--Golich17 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it would ever be a GA when it reads like an advertising website for Singapore Airlines ! MilborneOne 17:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Where's the nomination anyway?--Huaiwei 07:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nomination? 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KrisFlyer closed with a result of merging to this article.  Actual merging from the history of that article is left to the editors of this article.  GRBerry 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge needs to be done 

message: Can RomanceOfTravel, or for that matter, anyone, please give me evidence to suggest the oldest SIA business class product has changed name from "Ultimo Plus" to "Ultimo Minus". It sounds somewhat like someone didn't enjoy their experience in the old seats... RomanceOfTravel, I'd love to see a link referring to the new name. Good luck! Besancon (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ultimo refers to the product launched on 11 September 1998 on board the Boeing 747-400. UltimoPlus was a slightly enhanced product with a lounging position launched on the Boeing 777-200ER (to Chicago?). UltimoMinus is what is found on the vast majority of Boeing 777-200s and Boeing 777-300s. UltimoPlus and UltimoMinus are internal names. I would accept Ultimo when referring to the Business class seat found on the vast majority of Boeing 777-200s and Boeing 777-300s but UltimoPlus, it is not. RomanceOfTravel (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe RomanceOfTravel is correct in this analysis. (I've taken the liberty of, unusually, correcting a couple of typos in your statement above - just revert me if you think this was unjustified!) Alice✉ 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will change the name to Ultimo to make it more accurate. Thanks for the explanation. Besancon (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this to this article's discussion page! Alice✉ 08:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ultimo Minus" debacle