Talk:Singapore Airlines Flights 21 and 22

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the airline project.

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Time Problem

Two different times are given as the landing time, both in the same time zone. This is a minor issue, but unfortunately I do not have the availible time to research the landing time of this flight and fix it. When i do, I will fix the article. Until then, maybe someone else will get it done.littlebum2002 14:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question appears to be "Flight 21 is scheduled to take off from Newark at 23:00 EDT (11:00 SGT) and land in Singapore at 4:05 SGT (16:05 SGT)". 4:05 pm (12-hour time) and 16:05 (24-hour time) are the same. However, singaporeair.com gives the times for the flight today (24 July 2012) as EWR 23:00 SIN 05:40+2 Day, 18Hrs 40Mins. ErikHedberg (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the flight took off from Newark at 23:00 EDT and landed in Singapore at 16:05 EDT. If my maths are correct that's seventeen hours and five minutes. The article also says that the flight time was 18.5 hours, and most newspaper reports describe it as "almost 19 hours". Has something gone wrong with the time conversion, e.g. by not accounting for daylight savings time? Frustratingly the only sources for the schedules I can find are mirrors of Wikipedia or the shells of autogenerated schedule listings that no longer work. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIA CEO explains the reason the flight was retired

Goh Choon Phong explained that the A340-500s consumed too much fuel, they decided to sell back the aircraft to Airbus. (Video interview: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/despite-turbulence-low/2315558.html) Xizuki (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Singapore Airlines Flight 21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20151020191559/http://www.singaporeair.com/jsp/cms/en_UK/press_release_news/ne2415-151013.jsp to http://www.singaporeair.com/jsp/cms/en_UK/press_release_news/ne2415-151013.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines Flight 21 → Singapore Airlines Flights 21 and 22 – Article is about both flights, which make up the route between Newark and Singapore in both directions. Similar to Qantas Flights 7 and 8. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This changes adds consistency and would fit better with the article opening. MSG17 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As per MSG17. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I actually created Qantas Flights 7 and 8 nearly 5 years ago actually and agree with MSG17's assertion that the move would fit in line with consistency. Baseball Watcher 14:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is an article about technically two flights, so having it named for a single one of them makes no real sense unless the other had it's own article, which would be pointless. Canterbury Tail talk 15:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – If we start having articles about active commercial flights (which I'm not entirely convinced we should), then we need a means to avoid ambiguity with articles about airliner accidents, which are normally titled simply using their flight number (I thought Singapore Airlines Flight 21 was about a crash or something). --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Both directions (SQ21 and SQ22) are equally important. I don't think it makes any sense to just have one direction on the title, and make SQ22 a bit of an afterthought. Just put both in the title and avoid the confusion.Cpotisch (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.