Singapore Airlines offers SQ321 victims ‘generous’ US$10,000 compensation (2024)

Singapore Airlines has sent out offers of compensation to passengers of turbulence-hit flight SQ321, with those who suffered minor injuries able to claim US$10,000 from the carrier.

An aviation law expert who spoke to This Week in Asia said that while it was standard practice for airlines to offer compensation after such incidents, the payout for light injuries in this case was more generous, given the serious turbulence and massive publicity it attracted.

In a social media update on Tuesday, the airline apologised to passengers for the “traumatic experience on board flight SQ321” and said it was “committed to providing our full support and assistance during this time”.

Those who had suffered minor injuries were offered US$10,000 in compensation, while those who sustained more serious injuries were offered an advance payment of US$25,000 to address their immediate needs and are invited to discuss a compensation offer that can meet their specific circ*mstances, the airline said.

“SIA [Singapore Airlines] will provide a full refund of the air fare to all passengers travelling on SQ321 … including those who did not suffer any injuries,” it said, adding that all passengers had received S$1,000 each for expenses upon their departure from Bangkok.

A spokesman said details of compensation offers would be discussed directly with affected passengers.

Last month, the London-Singapore flight with 211 passengers and 18 crew on board encountered severe turbulence, leading to the death of a 73-year-old British man and injuring dozens of others. The plane made an emergency landing in Bangkok.

Preliminary findings indicated that the aircraft dropped 178 feet over 4.6 seconds after an “uncommanded increase in aircraft altitude and airspeed” due to rapid gravitational force changes.

Alan Tan, a law professor at National University of Singapore who specialises in aviation, noted that the US$10,000 offered to those with minor injuries was “generous”.

“This is likely a special situation where Singapore Airlines is being generous, given the serious turbulence and the massive publicity the incident attracted,” Tan said.

Airlines typically offer compensation, but passengers can choose to accept or reject the amount if they believe their claims merit higher payouts, he said.

“The more relevant issue is for those with serious injuries, who are likely to need time to assess their injuries and take legal advice,” said Tan, noting the airline would have assessed passengers as having serious, minor or no injuries, based on evaluations by Thai doctors on the ground.

Senior counsel Lok Vi Ming, who represented Singapore Airlines in the 2000 SQ006 crash in Taipei, said: “It is not unusual for the airline to offer advance payments to passengers shortly after the incident.

“But the final compensation will depend on the extent of injuries and losses of each passenger,” said Lok.

Sharon Lin, a dispute resolution partner at Withers KhattarWong law practice, said the distinction between minor and serious injuries was not precise.

“There may also be significant differences in the types of injuries that still fall within the same categorisation,” she said. “It could be the case that for minor injuries, certain passengers are overcompensated in relation to the severity of their injuries while others are under-compensated.”

The US$25,000 for serious injuries was an advance payment, Lin stressed, and not necessarily the entire sum that would eventually be paid to affected passengers.

Regarding mental trauma, Lin said that psychiatric conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder had to be diagnosed by a medical professional to be legally considered an “injury”.

However, Tan said mental trauma was not covered under the Montreal Convention, which governs airline liability for passenger injury or death. The term “bodily injury”, as used by the convention, had been interpreted by courts to mean physical harm only, he said.

Aviation lawyer Peter Carter, director of Australian law firm Carter Capner Law that is representing some of the SQ321 passengers, noted that the payouts were coming from the airline’s insurer, which would be trying to minimise the total compensation bill.

“Making these payments – that the airline says are a gesture of goodwill – are a legal obligation,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.

“All passengers should seek legal advice before signing anything with the airline. Those with any sort of injury should exercise extreme care and should be evaluated by their own medical specialists to determine how this accident might still affect them.”

One of the passengers, 52-year-old dance instructor Kerry Jordan, was left paralysed from the chest down after suffering a spinal injury, Adelaide newspaper The Advertiser reported.

Jordan and her husband Keith Davis, who hurt his shoulder and had blurred vision as a result of the incident, told the news outlet that they were examining their legal options with an international team of lawyers.

In 2000, Singapore Airlines offered US$400,000 each in compensation to the families of the 83 passengers and crew who died when a plane crashed on a closed runway during take-off at Taoyuan International Airport in Taiwan. Some passengers rejected the offer and settled with the airline for an undisclosed sum in a US court, as the plane was bound for Los Angeles.

Singapore Airlines has had seven accidents and incidents in its history, according to the Aviation Safety Network, a database that provides information on airline safety issues and accidents.