Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will Singapore Airlines Eventually Take The A332?  
User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

Every other airline operating the A300/310 is replacing them with the A330-200, why did SQ refuse to do so? now that they've phased out the A310 will they take them or wait for the 7E7? with what will they fill the void

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TTT



[Edited 2003-06-30 20:11:48]


.....up there with the best!
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

I've forgotten. There was a good reason - I can only remember the 764 reasons which were that it couldn't take LD3 containers.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

They are replacing the A310 with the 777 I believe. I don't think they have or had any plans to order the A330. I could be wrong.

UAL747


User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2964 times:

Is'nt the 777 too big to be an A310 replacement?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt



[Edited 2003-06-30 20:29:30]


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Ual 747 is correct. I think they were weighing the 764 v. 330 and then decided to order additional B777. The B777 is overkill as a 310 replacement. I guess they believe they could use the capacity.

User currently offlineEx_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

The 777 is overkill but there was little choice, which is why they ended up ordering more in the last round.

Dilemma SQ faces is as follows:

767 - old design, unable to take ULDs that could also go onto the 747/777/340.

332 - too heavy for most of the 313 routes, too much range.

321/739 - ideal but paxs in SE Asia really dislike narrowbodies.

So, the least of the evils was to order additional 777s and "abuse" them on regional routes.

The RFP they put out earlier this year (now suspended due to SARS and its fallout) did specify 313 replacements, and the two narrowbodies are being considered.



User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6845 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2717 times:

SQ's choice now seems to be:
For A313 routes, if loads are significant, fly 777s there with connectability.
If loads are too small, throw Silk Air's A319/320 there...

Surabaya still has SQ service (777 candidate), while Medan got Silk Air... The funny thing I heard is that agents in Medan and pax doesn't really like Silk Air (very expensive) which lead to agents in Surabaya telling SQ they would send pax on CX and GA if Surabaya gets Silk Air!

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineUnited777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2709 times:

Didn't SQ announce they sent a proposal to Airbus and Boeing for A310 replacement and will announce an order in the next year. Until then they were flying the 777-200 on old A310 routes.

I think the 764 would have been great but who knows they still could order the aircraft.


User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2693 times:

The obvious choice is the 7E7-200 medium range, at least if they give it cockpit commonality with the 777 like they have discussed.


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1015 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

SQ may refurbish some A310s, put them back in service for another 3 or 4 years before they eventually replace these with the B7E7 (if it ever gets off the ground).

Or they could take some A332s/B764s and order the B7E7s later on.


User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Refurbished A310s would be a great thing to do, perhaps even fit them with PTV's.


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineEx_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2567 times:

I can assure you the A310s are gone. Refurbishing them does not make sense in SQ's case. The A310 has relatively high operating costs, and bringing them back into the fleet means that SQ would incur extra fixed costs associated with re-introducing and operating an additional aircraft type.

The 764 is a longshot at best. SQ wants to operate an efficient hub at SIN, and ULDs used on the 767 series cannot be loaded onto the 340/744/777. This in turn will slow down cargo and baggage ops.


User currently offlineDaV From Italy, joined Jun 2001, 669 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

332 - too heavy for most of the 313 routes, too much range.

Isn't the 772 quite heavy too?
Technically the 310 is still in production, isn't it? They could order a few, with redesigned interiors and enhanced IFE, and pass them to SilkAir once the 7E7 or whatever plane will suit their needs.

DaV



Two monologues do not make a dialogue
User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1015 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Actually the A330-200 has an MTOW that is some 20 tons lighter than the B777-200 with the lightest MTOW in SIA's fleet. Thus, I don't know how far SIA is willing to invest in the A330-200 if they can abuse the B777-200 a bit longer until the B7E7 comes out. However, we still don't know what the 7E7 will turn out to be so it's a bit hard to say now.

User currently offlineAFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Hello,


In January 2000, Boeing once again came up with a shortened 777-100X at 57m – 6m, 20ft or 12 frames fewer than the -200. The MTOW was nonetheless lower than with the previous project, at 276,900kg (610,500lb), but the aircraft still had 13,500km (7,300nm) range. Power in the 84,000lb range would have come from The GE90-84B, Trent 884 or PW4084. Later reports showed three main options under study: 12,200km (6,600nm), 13,320km and 14,800km variants, with the intermediate range having the lead. If launched, the -100X was expected to have the first unit assembled by April 2003, to make its first flight in August 2003. The entry into service would follow the test campaign in April-December 2003.

The airplane was mainly aimed at Singapore Airlines, which wanted to replace its A310-300s on intra-Asian operations. The variant was in direct competition with the A330-200 and the shrunken A330-100 - later re-christened the A330-500. SIA was interested in the airframe because of its cargo capacity; the proposed airplane would have carried up to 6t more than the A330-200 on 3,700km (2,000nm) sectors, in a two-class arrangement for 270 seats. Other potential customers were Los Angeles-based International Lease Finance Corp. (ILFC) and Northwest Airlines (NW). While the A330-300 had the edge with the carrier for the replacement of the 42-strong DC-10-30 and -40 fleet, the 777-100X could still win the airline's attention for its extensive Asia/Pacific network. While it would have been a heavy airplane in comparison with the A330, the airplane could potentially be pushed with a higher MTOW to even surpass the 777-200LR's range. Such an airplane could, however, impact, the 767-400ERX's sales on the 200-250-seat market. The -400ERX, of which launch was still pending, was slated to be a heavier 210,920kg (465,000lb) MTOW derivative of the slow-selling 767-400ER, with range for 11,390km (6,150nm). The first 767-400ERX was due for delivery in March 2004 to Kenya Airways (KQ).

SIA did not manage to make a business case for this heavyweight -100X and went ahead with an order for ten 777-200ERs in February 2001. The airplane was finally shelved due to poor seat/kilometer cost, in favor of the 767-400ERX – which itself was cancelled in March 2001.

Boeing 777X -- Ocober 2002
Air Transport Business [ATB]



I will have some more information in the special article series on SIA that I am preparing (A340-300, A340-500, 777, 747-400 and transatlantic ops). I hope to have it online at the end of this month.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TTT



Best regards,
Alain Mengus
Air Transport Business [ATB]


User currently offline9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

Qantas A330-200 are used mainly for domestic route and I dont see why SQ can't used the aircraft where the A310s are going . The cargo space comes in handy , instead of deploying the 744F to certain regional routes , they can squzze some cargo into the A332 . Afterall , the A330 has the lowest operating costs and if they are not to keen on the plane they can get rid of them once the Boeing 7E7 starts flying . They can leased a few A330s for a trial , its no harm trying right ? If certain airports are too small to contain the A330 , why not let SilkAir operate on behalf of SQ .


Airliners is the wings of my life.
User currently offlineTsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2513 times:

9V-SVC,

Silkair IS operating flights for SQ now actually Big grin
EG Brunei is now ops by an MI A320 with "Singapore" callsign and flight #.




NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

You know, someone mentioned in an earlier thread that Airbus is still offering the A310 in their catalogue. And indeed I have seen it as one of the Airbus offerings in their catalogue circa 2002. So why isn't SQ exploring this option?


Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

The problem with using SilkAir instead of SQ is that MI is not a Star Alliance member and hence the higher yield business traffic always stays away from flying them wherever there is a choice. If SQ started putting their code on MI flights and hence bring them into the alliance, it would probably boost their connection traffic on some routes.

User currently offlineRupertvander82 From France, joined Dec 2002, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

Because it would incur a new fixed cost if the 310 are deployed back into the airline.

User currently offlineEx_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

And indeed I have seen it as one of the Airbus offerings in their catalogue circa 2002. So why isn't SQ exploring this option?
Relatively high CASM, poor resale value.

If SQ started putting their code on MI flights and hence bring them into the alliance, it would probably boost their connection traffic on some routes.
Right on! A major internal study was conducted by MI and they decided it wasn't worth it with their current slew of (mostly leisure) routes. But if SQ handed them more business-oriented routes....

Isn't the 772 quite heavy too?
Yes, but it is probably more cost-effective to abuse an heavier aircraft than to incur the fixed costs and variable associated with operating yet another aircraft type that isn't too much lighter. No doubt the 332 will have cockpit commonality with the 345 and the A380, but there is the issue of MX, spares, etc.

Technically the 310 is still in production, isn't it? They could order a few, with redesigned interiors and enhanced IFE, and pass them to SilkAir
Nice thought. However, they operated two A310s in the mid-90s, and it was a disaster! They've sworn off operating widebodies for now.


User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2274 times:

SQ are known or were know for their youngest fleet no aircraft type being operated for more than five years, why cant they do that with teh A332? they did it with the 757 in the 80's.


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineAFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2250 times:

Hello,


Technically the 310 is still in production, isn't it? They could order a few, with redesigned interiors and enhanced IFE, and pass them to SilkAir

The point is that not many airlines will order airplanes with 20-year-old technology and economics. Especially when that airline is SIA, a carrier that has been giving more importance to resale value than other airlines.

It will be quite interesting to see what airplane SIA will pick up to operate on its Asian routes where the A310s once were, as there is currently no airplane in the market slot that would suit them. When they ordered additional 777-200ERs, they knew they would have to come back with another RFP. The aircraft that would be suitable is the 7E7 which won't be delivered to operators before 2008 at best.


Best regards,
Alain Mengus
Air Transport Business [ATB]


User currently offlineJAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5085 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

I would imagine that they would wait for the 7E7.


Work Hard But Play Harder
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
When Will US Airlines Return To The "black?" posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:16:44 by 7E72004
Will Singapore Airlines Discontinue BRU-flights? posted Fri Mar 21 2003 23:39:45 by Luchtzak
Singapore Airlines Might Order The B 747-400QLR? posted Tue May 28 2002 12:46:22 by United Airline
New Singapore Airlines Colourschemes On The A380! posted Wed Apr 25 2001 21:15:50 by Air Orange
Will American Airlines Ever Get The B 747-400? posted Mon Oct 16 2000 06:42:07 by United Airline
Will Singapore Airlines Fly JFK-LHR? posted Fri Oct 13 2000 15:53:39 by ContinentalEWR
Singapore Airlines Will Receive The A380 In Oct 07 posted Tue Oct 3 2006 19:52:33 by Singapore_Air
Will Alaska Airlines Take The Nestea Plunge? posted Mon Feb 14 2000 23:04:03 by FrontierMan
Will AirTran Finally Take The 737-800? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 22:51:43 by AkjetBlue
Now, How Will RG Take The Players Home? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 23:15:34 by Ktachiya