{"id":67176,"date":"2021-01-10T18:48:58","date_gmt":"2021-01-10T10:48:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediaintel.asia\/?p=218775"},"modified":"2021-01-10T18:48:58","modified_gmt":"2021-01-10T10:48:58","slug":"farewell-singapore-airlines-2006-business-class","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/2021\/01\/10\/farewell-singapore-airlines-2006-business-class\/","title":{"rendered":"Farewell Singapore Airlines 2006 Business Class"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/div>\n

As it happens our return flight was on 9V-SVE, the last 777-200ER aircraft that flew with this seat. The Koito seat scandal
\nAs we mentioned earlier in the article, the Singapore Airlines 2006 Business Class seat was manufactured by Japanese company Koito Industries.
\nIn 2009, Japan\u2019s civil aviation regulator JCAB noticed that Koito had delivered aircraft seats to JAL covered with a material not certified for use on aircraft. While that doesn\u2019t sound too serious, use of only approved fabrics in cabin furnishings is vital for slowing the spread of fires.
\nThe authority issued Koito with a warning, but what seemed like a simple lapse was only the beginning. A house of cards was about to fall, and Singapore Airlines was set to get caught up in the ensuing mess.
\nOver in Toulouse, France, in late 2009, SIA\u2019s 11th Airbus A380 (9V-SKK) was being readied for delivery. Rather than being flown to Changi in January 2010 as scheduled, however, the aircraft was sealed up and parked on the ramp.
\nThe delay came about not from Airbus, but from the European safety regulator EASA, who had withdrawn its \u2018Production Authorisation Approval\u2019 (POA) from Koito , meaning it was unable to produce seat or seat parts for airborne use. EASA no longer considered Koito a trustworthy manufacturer, claiming it wasn\u2019t sharing enough information with European clients.
\n\u201cOur withdrawal of the POA is what I would describe as an emergency measure.
\n\u201cEASA\u2019s directive applies to all Airbus planes, even if they are flown outside Europe.\u201d Dr. Daniel H\u00f6ltgen, EASA spokesman, September 2009
\nBy February 2010, with 9V-SKK still parked up in Toulouse, EASA released a public statement of concern saying it was \u201cevaluating evidence\u2026 regarding irregularities in the design and production of Koito seats manufactured in Japan\u201d .
\nThis was no longer just about fitting new seats to aircraft, it was also about those already installed , including over 600 of SIA\u2019s pioneering 2006 Business Class flat beds.
\nThe European regulator had called Koito\u2019s bluff. The following day the Japanese firm\u2019s CEO publicly admitted that it had deliberately faked test results on its seats, relating to crash survivability and flammability.
\n\u201cFraudulent acts were conducted across the organization.
\n\u201cOur wrongful acts concerning seats for aircraft severely impair our credibility as an enterprise that engages in aviation-related business, and we feel remrose for, and sincerely apologize for, having caused considerable inconvenience and concern to customers and other parties.\u201d Takashi Kakegawa, Koito CEO, 8th February 2010
\nKoito had used results from previous tests on different seats to fast-track approvals, and fabricated other test data, because the company \u201cfeared it might otherwise fail to keep to its delivery schedules\u201d .
\nNot only had Koito used test data from previous seats and falsified other results (as if that wasn\u2019t bad enough), it also manipulated computers to produce \u2018favourable\u2019 test readings when inspectors were present.
\nIn other words \u2013 a deliberate deception. Did it matter?
\nYes it did, as it turns out. Proper tests overseen by regulators subsequently conducted on actual seats Koito had supplied to airlines began to reveal something alarming.
\n\u201cResults from tests performed by Koito with the supervision of (the Japan Civil Aviation Bureau) confirmed a high proportion of seat models failed the requirements for structural, flammability and occupant injury criteria.\u201d EASA Aircraft seats are tested for survivability and flammability as part of their approval. Koito was falsifying this data , or using test results from different seats, to achieve certification. Source: The New York Times, December 2010
\nIn December 2010, JCAB said Koito\u2019s test results may have been falsified over a 15-year period , and as many as 150,000 seats used by 30 airlines worldwide could be affected.
\n\u201cThe scope and the extent of these activities are not like anything we have observed before.\u201d Les Dorr, Jr., FAA Spokesman
\nJCAB and EASA have concluded that all data (both design and manufacturing) generated by Koito must be treated as suspect.
\nThe level of falsification and the length of time over which the falsification occurred, in combination with the lack of retained records, prompted EASA to deem that all Koito Seats exhibit unsafe conditions of varying degrees. EASA How was SIA affected?
\nSIA\u2019s 11th A380 was granted an exemption and eventually delivered in July 2010, six months after it was first due to join the fleet. One of SIA\u2019s brand new Airbus A380s was parked in Toulouse for six months due to the Koito seats debacle. (Photo: Rob Finlayson)
\nIn the end three more of SIA\u2019s A380s were delayed (9V-SKL, -SKM and -SKN), while the regulators and manufacturers wrangled over what to do.
\nSIA was forced to retain Boeing 747-400 operation on its Singapore \u2013 Tokyo \u2013 Los Angeles flights for an additional six months, a route due to switch the A380 with the 12th aircraft delivery (9V-SKL).
\nThe cabin refit programme on Boeing 777-300s (non-ERs) also ground to a halt for some time due to the issue. Only one aircraft had the refit from July 2009 to April 2011 due to the seat certification debacle, with SIA having to roll back on a promise that the products would feature on five routes by late 2009. Koito made the 2006 First Class seats being fitted to those aircraft. What eventually happened?
\nUltimately EASA (and the FAA in the US) issued an Airworthiness Directive in June 2011, permitting Koito seats to remain installed for two years. If the seats passed specific tests, this could be extended to six years, with further tests permitting an even longer service life.
\nHowever, EASA was \u201cunable to find a way to accept that seats which do not comply with significant parts of the applicable requirements remain in service indefinitely\u201d , noting they had completed \u201conly an abbreviated test programme\u201d . The European regulator ordered that the seats must be completely removed after 10 years.
\nIn early 2013, Singapore Airlines received approximately S$79 million in compensation, combined between Boeing and Koito, so at least some of the related to the seat saga. Fun facts These seats were auctioned from $38 on the inaugural A380 flight
\nIf you wanted to be a part of aviation history and fly on the inaugural Airbus A380 passenger flight from Singapore to Sydney in October 2017, or on the return service the following day, you could do so by bidding as little as US$38 as part of a charity auction held on eBay.
\nBids started at:<\/p>\n

This data comes from MediaIntel.Asia's Media Intelligence and Media Monitoring Platform<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As it happens our return flight was on 9V-SVE, the last 777-200ER aircraft that flew with this seat. The Koito seat scandal
\nAs we mentioned earlier in the article, the Singapore Airlines 2006 Business Class seat was manufactured by Japanese company Ko…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":253,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[639,762,693,1607,785,194],"tags":[6518,10421,3942,10352,7654,8809,1859,10464,10380,8820],"class_list":["post-67176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-california","category-corporate-social-responsibility","category-japan","category-manufacturing","category-new-york","category-news-chinese-law","tag-aviation","tag-changi","tag-europe","tag-european","tag-france","tag-manufacturer","tag-singapore","tag-singapore-airlines","tag-singapore-general-news","tag-tokyo"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67176","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/253"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67176"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67176\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":67177,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67176\/revisions\/67177"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}