PETALING JAYA: A Malaysian former air steward with Singapore Airlines is suing the carrier for S$1.78 million (about RM6.3 million) for injuries to his spine after he allegedly slipped on a grease patch on board a plane in 2019.
Durairaj Santiran, 35, alleged that his former employer was negligent for allowing the workplace to be unsafe, The Straits Times reported.
Continue reading here
11 comments:
sure loose cannot win SIA
S1.7 mil is small change to SIA so why not give it to the poor
steward and close the case which brought so much bad publicity
Give you free flights is better than paying this joker
Answer is simple - cuz he lied. After the incident he still can go Penang with crew to sightsee lol
Don't be a simpleton,it's more complicated than that.They call it Rn R,or based on being Malaysian,go to Penang.Its like local going to Sentosa or Nee Soon.Domestic.Dont be too naive,overall,need to evaluate the whole procedures of checking,or not checking,being superfluous,it's like checking whether there's engines or wings.Then other checks cannot be done,and so on.CC cannot check on COVID strategy now, because it's outdated, similarly equipment checks need to be automated,via AI,sensor.Back to his case,those non crew best don't comment, being silly and so on.Those who wouldn't like to support should attend the trial.
anney talking cork
Above baseless ,brainless,if you are not judge or lawyer,stfu.Spoils the whole blog by your spittal.
Factors in play onboard the non stop flight.1 Fatigue 2 jet lag.3.Service SOP.IFM under estimate the patch,and bypass the seriousness of it,till incident happens.Whether it does not manifest itself through more physical affliction later,the Penang trip is not relevant,not detracts from the case.Prebook and cannot cancel ?Sop on board does not consider the welfare of the CC ,at all cost,til it conflicts with the ability of the FS.An open minded view of the whole incident,bearing in mind,not couch in legal affidavit style does not mean the FS is lying,far from it.Finally,the censuring of comments bode badly on the case.The defendant lawyer will have a field day painting the non stop, jet lag,18 hours workday of the steward,hardly in any one favours,except for the steward,not forgetting the eye power of the IFM in play.Dont expect much except to their rank,similar to Shiok Boy case against Ravi,in the past Immediate promo to CC executive on the wing.
lol just because I have a different opinion from yours, I’m called a sinpleton, silly and naive? I’m an AO actually, so yes, this simpleton had alr heard from others to form my own opinion than what you’ve read in the news. You can go attend the trial if you want. Come find me at ALH and chit chat if u want also can. kthxbai
Let the defendant describe his affliction.If one is of the same level as Sexcy,then no hope,much like the LS and the 8.Loyalty to paymaster is normal,and the truth can be squeezed out,bit by bits by the defendant Lawyer.The bread is buttered,so let it be while the afflicted concern loses his income.Being no 1 has implication,meaning above and beyond ,for the paying paxs,all other equipment ,Sop,service procedures,even if it harms in certain way the provider,secondary or none.Its only where catastrophy happens,then a review follows,the Court of Law is to decide on the quantum of damage ,vicarious liability of the workers .Workmen compensation existed,solely to cover the sequence and consequence of incidents,accidents in the course of work.The defendant Lawyer will not lean heavily or lightly on AO appointed vice or advice,instead could be hostile witness.So,let it run,I am sure it will shed light on the 18 hours working hours inclusive of rest ,how to rest,like a switch to turn on or off ?Whether it's compensated by IFA,it's. not black and white.The more said the more revealed,on the procedures.In future expect Bluetooth enabled check,a walkthrough,absence or presence of equipments etc.Or walk backwards into the past,where manual,and tired limps and arms needed to serve the pax ?At the end of the tour of duty a complete zombies,at a risk to landing risks if disaster strike.Most accidents happen on takeoff and landing.
Post a Comment