Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5900166/

Topic: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-20 05:57:17 and read 24693 times.

Singapore Airlines today operates final Airbus A340-500 service between SIN and LAX. The second longest non-stop passenger flight (7,621nm) will come to an end after today; the longest flight SIN-EWR (8,285nm) will be axed on November 23, 2013.

SQ38 currently en route SIN-LAX:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/S...8/history/20131020/0820Z/WSSS/KLAX

SQ37 scheduled final return flight LAX-SIN:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/S...7/history/20131021/0415Z/KLAX/WSSS

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: glbltrvlr
Posted 2013-10-20 07:38:04 and read 24136 times.

A bit like the Concorde, I'm afraid. Having flown those flights on multiple occasions, I will miss them.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: georgiaame
Posted 2013-10-20 08:13:22 and read 23960 times.

I did the LAX-SIN non stop shortly after it was introduced, in premium economy, and it was a surprisingly easy flight. PE was eliminated to boost the number of higher paying business class seats available, but apparently even that move was insufficient in boosting revenue return to justify the flights. I just did some homework on the Boeing website, and a 772LR has about an extra 1000nm range available, over the EWR-SIN flight distance, and it has considerably more seats available than the 345, at least in a multiclass setup. It's obviously a rhetorical question, but might Singapore benefit by using a LR rather than discontinuing the route? I know they don't own any , and I fully understand the logic, or lack thereof in packing extra fuel to burn when it is cheaper to carry less on board, land and refuel then continue on the route. But still, Singapore has been flying those two very long routes for more than 10 years. Our LAX flight lasted just under 17 hours, and shaved a good 4-5hours off transit time via Narita, and coupled with Singapore's service, it was a very easy flight. Any thoughts?

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-10-20 08:49:25 and read 23734 times.

They crunched the numbers before, and fuel was cheaper then as well. The capital cost if a new 77LR despite its lower fuel burn cannot overcome the high cost of lifting that fuel to fly those last thousand odd miles!

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-10-20 20:09:48 and read 16560 times.

Great shame. these flights captured the imagination and provided a very convenient link for
passengers, amazing the performance of this Aircraft.



It was a very special part of a very special Airline whose star does seem to be fading of late.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: United Airline
Posted 2013-10-20 20:35:25 and read 16273 times.

Wonder if they will resume both flights once they have the right aircraft.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-10-20 20:52:11 and read 16049 times.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 5):
Wonder if they will resume both flights once they have the right aircraft.

They don't currently have any aircraft planned that could cost-effectively operate the route. And I doubt they ever will. I don't see them as a likely 777-8X customer.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-10-20 21:17:42 and read 15756 times.

They have the 359 on order to the tune of 70 of them with 20 options. It is listed by Airbus as 8,100nm in a 314 passenger three class layout. If you cut that to a mix of J and Y+ classes with ~150 seats, this a/c should be able to do the route with no problem. It would mean a sub fleet but that should not be an issue for Singapore.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sin-lax&MS=wls&DU=nm
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sin-ewr&MS=wls&DU=nm

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-10-20 22:15:55 and read 15098 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 7):
It is listed by Airbus as 8,100nm in a 314 passenger three class layout. If you cut that to a mix of J and Y+ classes with ~150 seats, this a/c should be able to do the route with no problem.

   You need an aircraft with at least 8500 nm of nominal range, ideally closer to 9000, to be able to fly the route. Nominal range translates only roughly to real-world range.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: Ferroviarius
Posted 2013-10-21 02:18:36 and read 12818 times.

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 2):
I did the LAX-SIN non stop shortly after it was introduced, in premium economy, and it was a surprisingly easy flight. PE was eliminated to boost the number of higher paying business class seats available, but apparently even that move was insufficient in boosting revenue return to justify the flights. I just did some homework on the Boeing website, and a 772LR has about an extra 1000nm range available, over the EWR-SIN flight distance, and it has considerably more seats available than the 345, at least in a multiclass setup. It's obviously a rhetorical question, but might Singapore benefit by using a LR rather than discontinuing the route? I know they don't own any , and I fully understand the logic, or lack thereof in packing extra fuel to burn when it is cheaper to carry less on board, land and refuel then continue on the route. But still, Singapore has been flying those two very long routes for more than 10 years. Our LAX flight lasted just under 17 hours, and shaved a good 4-5hours off transit time via Narita, and coupled with Singapore's service, it was a very easy flight. Any thoughts?

Yes, thoughts:
The 777 (and even 350, 787, ...) are to my mind MUCH less comfortable. The 345s' 2-4-2 in Y and 2-3-2 in Y+ are much less "socially demanding" for pax than anything beyong 8 abreast. Besides that, the 777 is awfully noisy compared to 343/5/6 or 332/3. I have not experienced any 787 yet and neither (of course(?)) any 35? and cannot tell anything about how I would perceive noise level in these.

Best,
Ferroviarius

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-10-21 06:21:18 and read 10615 times.

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 2):
It's obviously a rhetorical question, but might Singapore benefit by using a LR rather than discontinuing the route?

In terms of fuel costs, undoubtedly. If I'm not mistaken, it was the acquisition costs of the 777-200LR, combined with the low resale value of the A340-500 which were the main reasons why SQ continued flying this route with the markedly less efficient A345.

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 9):
The 777 (and even 350, 787, ...) are to my mind MUCH less comfortable. The 345s' 2-4-2 in Y and 2-3-2 in Y+ are much less "socially demanding" for pax than anything beyong 8 abreast.


What about the 747 and A380 then?

But you forget that SQ operates these routes in an all business class, 1-2-1 configuration, each seat a lie flat bed, and with direct aisle access. How would any widebody be less comfortable than another in that configuration?

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-10-21 07:06:01 and read 10484 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):

Singapore Airlines today operates final Airbus A340-500 service between SIN and LAX. The second longest non-stop passenger flight (7,621nm) will come to an end after today; the longest flight SIN-EWR (8,285nm) will be axed on November 23, 2013.

Too bad to hear this, but we all have seen it coming. The days of the A340-500, the most beautiful civilian airplane ever to take to the skies will become a rather rare sight pretty soon. No matter how good she is, the fuel consumption in combination with the fuel price in the end have determined that she is not attractive to operate anymore.  .

After the demise of the 3-holers, this is an example of the diminishing presence of 4-holers. Which to me is sad, but it is the reality of the market. Which is always right in the end.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: readytotaxi
Posted 2013-10-21 07:18:57 and read 10393 times.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 1):
Having flown those flights on multiple occasions, I will miss them.

how does the body feel after 18hrs under pressure, did the air feel dry?

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: yakima
Posted 2013-10-21 07:27:20 and read 10349 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 11):
The days of the A340-500, the most beautiful civilian airplane ever to take to the skies will become a rather rare sight pretty soon. No matter how good she is, the fuel consumption in combination with the fuel price in the end have determined that she is not attractive to operate anymore.

How is the A340-500 doing for Arik Air? Also unprofitable?

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: BoeingMerica
Posted 2013-10-21 07:31:49 and read 10317 times.

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 9):

Configuration is not an argument for or against a plane type on this route. With the A345 they had 100J seats, all with aisle access. If they were to deploy a -200LR or some other large two holer it is almost certain theywo uld use the same config, as the weight savings for the config was the only reason the route was possible.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-10-21 07:44:28 and read 10246 times.

Quoting yakima (Reply 13):
Also unprofitable?

I do not know. But I did not say these A340-500's are unprofitable to operate, but their yields will no doubt be very low due to the fuel situation compared to what the competition, or even other SQ-products are offering. And in combination with market demand SQ is now terminating the operations with these beauties.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: glbltrvlr
Posted 2013-10-21 09:38:47 and read 10023 times.

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 12):
how does the body feel after 18hrs under pressure, did the air feel dry?

Anytime you are traveling that distance, it won't feel good. I live at 2100m elevation and very low humidity, so a typical cabin altitude isn't much higher than what I'm used to. I took a United 787 (lower cabin altitude, higher humidity) to China recently and didn't feel any notable difference.

Mostly I liked the SQ non-stops as they avoided the need for the time and hassle of Narita.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: dennys
Posted 2013-10-23 11:19:56 and read 3905 times.

Yes , this is a saw expcted news ; nethertheless these five beauties did make their jobs for which SIA was counting on them . For 10 years .

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: dennys
Posted 2013-10-23 13:39:33 and read 3629 times.

I have heard they would go to AR.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-23 13:42:23 and read 3628 times.

Quoting dennys (Reply 18):
I have heard they would go to AR.

The A345s will go back to Airbus but it's possible they have found a new customer already.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: Birdwatching
Posted 2013-10-23 13:53:03 and read 3579 times.

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 12):
how does the body feel after 18hrs under pressure

You got it wrong, you're "under pressure" when you stand on the ground. On board, you're the opposite of "under pressure". You got fooled by the fact that the cabin is pressurized. But that's only relative to the outside air (or lack thereof). Compared to the ground, you're under a much lower pressure.

Very common misconception.

Soren   

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: AM777LR
Posted 2013-10-23 13:58:19 and read 3528 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 19):
found a new customer already.
Quoting dennys (Reply 18):

I have heard they would go to AR.

AR just purchased 40 737-800s: Aerolineas Argentinas Orders 20 New Boeing 737 (by planemannyc Oct 23 2013 in Civil Aviation) and 4 A330-200s: AerolĂ­neas Argentinas Takes First A330 (by KarelXWB Sep 4 2013 in Civil Aviation) An order/lease for several A340-500 would be perfect to replace the A340-200s and the oldest A340-300s. Maybe they could start new routes to Africa and continue New Zealand and Australia. The A345 would look amazing in ARs livery!

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: stlgph
Posted 2013-10-23 14:06:04 and read 3484 times.

Bloomberg did an interesting lengthy piece on this service.


Courtesy: Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...nds-travelers-enter-jfk-chaos.html

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-10-23 14:38:31 and read 3423 times.

One hopes this flight (and EWR) will someday be back on a hypothetical A359LR. A359 cruises faster than a A345, and saves what ~20% in fuel? If the revenue is there, and I do not doubt...it is the way to go.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2013-10-23 14:40:23 and read 3413 times.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 5):
Wonder if they will resume both flights once they have the right aircraft.

I think its the economy more than anything. You need a significant amount of people willing to pay a significant premium for a non-stop. I just don't see it on that route in this economy. Once the economy recovers i could easily see this route being one to pop back but until you have enough people willing to pay the premium for a non-stop i think your gonna have to one stop.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-23 14:40:31 and read 3529 times.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 23):
One hopes this flight (and EWR) will someday be back on a hypothetical A359LR. A359 cruises faster than a A345, and saves what ~20% in fuel? If the revenue is there, and I do not doubt...it is the way to go.

More towards 30% savings I believe. And a much lower trip cost too.

[Edited 2013-10-23 14:40:58]

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: christao17
Posted 2013-10-23 20:54:21 and read 3253 times.

What caught my eye near the end of that Bloomberg article: 14 flight attendants for a 100 passenger flight! Granted, it is a long flight and is all business class so you have fewer passengers per flight attendant, but that still is a pretty significant personnel cost for just 100 pax.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: StuckInCA
Posted 2013-10-23 21:08:08 and read 3270 times.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 1):
Having flown those flights on multiple occasions, I will miss them

Indeed. LAX-SIN was good to me. I'm not a fan of connecting - I'd rather get it over with.

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 2):
I did the LAX-SIN non stop shortly after it was introduced, in premium economy, and it was a surprisingly easy flight

Agreed. It really was no more difficult (well, easier) than, for example, DFW-FRA in AA economy class.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: Pellegrine
Posted 2013-10-23 21:33:15 and read 3215 times.

Quoting christao17 (Reply 26):

Check the revenue for this flight versus any TPAC flight. It's equal or higher. Those are 100 J pax, and the lowest RT fare i've ever seen is ~6500 USD all in, average seems to be 8500 USD, top FF is right around 10k USD. And well the EWR flight enjoys a very high LF, over 80%...

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: dennys
Posted 2013-10-23 22:39:51 and read 3092 times.

For the Time being no NSTP flight is schedueled

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: redzeppelin
Posted 2013-10-23 23:04:25 and read 3065 times.

Quoting christao17 (Reply 26):
14 flight attendants for a 100 passenger flight!

How do duty hours play into this? I'm no expert on F/A rest requirements, but I assume that on a 17+ hour flight they have 2 full crews? Could most or all of them help with meal services and still be able to get the required rest aong the way? Or would there never be more than half of them working the cabin?

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: dennys
Posted 2013-10-23 23:05:04 and read 3080 times.

http://www.americas-fr.com/tourisme/...r-aerolineas-argentinas-17756.html

Sorry it is in French .

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-10-24 01:20:42 and read 2885 times.

Quoting dennys (Reply 31):
Sorry it is in French .

Thanks, good to see those aircraft will have a second life.

Topic: RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service
Username: readytotaxi
Posted 2013-10-24 12:56:56 and read 2384 times.

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 20):
Compared to the ground, you're under a much lower pressure.

Very common misconception.

Thank you, that does make sense.  


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/