Update (25 September, 9.53am): Singapore Airlines (SIA) has provided a statement reaffirming their commitment to assisting passengers who were on board SQ321. More details below.
Four months after the harrowing incident involving SQ321, which experienced severe turbulence resulting in serious injuries and one fatality, an Australian law firm has accused Singapore Airlines (SIA) of offering inadequate compensation to affected passengers.
According to The Standard, Cartner Capner Law asserts that SIA is asking passengers to sign a final release alongside their applications for medical expense coverage.
By signing this release and accepting the agreed compensation, passengers forfeit their right to seek further compensation from the airline in the future.
Source: Troy Mortier on Unsplash, for illustration purposes only
Peter Carter, director of the law firm, has described this approach as “lowballing” the compensation amounts offered.
The incident occurred on 21 May when the Singapore-bound aircraft from London was struck by severe turbulence, propelling passengers who weren’t wearing seatbelts into the ceiling.
One man, 73-year-old British national Geoffrey Kitchen, tragically lost his life, while a dozen others sustained serious spinal or brain injuries.
Among the injured, one Australian passenger has been left paralysed from the chest down.
Source: Reuters
According to Mr Carter, passengers may be entitled to seven-figure compensation for the injuries incurred during the incident.
The crux of his argument revolves around the medical expenses that may arise after passengers sign a final release.
“The true compensation to which passengers are entitled can only be formulated by reference to their permanent impairment that is then projected over their lifetime,” he explained.
He noted that surgeons and neurologists typically require at least 12 months to assess the full value of this “true compensation”.
In a statement on 11 June, SIA announced it had offered US$10,000 (about S$12,890) to passengers who sustained minor injuries.
For those with serious injuries, the airline invited them to discuss tailored compensation offers.
Passengers assessed as needing long-term medical care and seeking financial assistance were offered an advance payment of US$25,000 (about S$32,000) to address their immediate needs.
“This will be part of the final compensation that these passengers will receive,” the airline stated.
The news has sparked discussions on the r/Singapore subreddit, with users chiming in with their opinions on the matter.
While the Australian law firm claims that SIA is lowballing compensation, many netizens appear to view the airline’s actions as reasonable.
In a sarcastic comment, one user noted that SIA is not alone in its approach to settling turbulence claims.
Source: Reddit
However, another user highlighted that compensation for the paralysed passenger could indeed reach seven figures.
Source: Reddit
This figure would encompass lifetime expenses related to loss of earning capacity and caregiver costs.
Speaking to MS News, SIA reaffirmed their commitment to providing all necessary support and assistance to passengers who were onboard SQ321.
Following the incident, they covered medical expenses of the injured passengers, and all who were hospitalised have since been discharged and returned to their home countries.
The airline is discussing compensation details directly with the affected passengers or their appointed representatives, and is unable to provide more details due to confidentiality reasons.
Passengers requiring additional assistance may reach out to SIA using the contact information they have provided.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from Reuters and Changi Airport on Facebook, for illustration purposes only.
The coroner said this was the first case of its kind he had encountered in…
The brand-new jet suffered a series of technical issues since its first-ever flight on 19…
The Paradise Tree Snake may have misjudged its landing and ended up on the car.
The 69-year-old was reportedly upset over his neighbour's refusal to apologise.
False claims include that GCB transactions occur without government checks on beneficial owners' identities.
The suspect casually watched as the woman became consumed by flames.