Soaringadi From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 472 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5612 times:
I think that SQ shouldn't have gone on and just ordered the A380's in bulk, and become the 1st. customer to acquire them. I personally feel that they have made a mistake by doing so.... since the 380 has yet to take it's 1st. test flight.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5560 times:
Somebody has to be the first to order an particular aircraft type, and usually with the difficulties of introducing a brand new type comes the additional PR value of operating a brand new highly publicised aircraft - its a trade off, but nobody ordering a brand new aircraft seriously anticipates that the thing won't be able to get off the ground. Airbus have been making excellent aircraft for many many years, they do have a clue what they're doing !
Zak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5424 times:
well some people seem to be a bit bitter that the queen of the skies is soon to be european, i expect the number of postings regarding the a380 failure go up the closer we are to the first flight.
and you can bet all your money that a few weeks after the a380 has entered revenue service, someone with super secret sources will post on how the plane has big problems and the first airlines are thinking about a replacement with smaller boeing types.
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5406 times:
Just for the record, the 380 is not on weight. It has been reported in both AW&ST and F.I. the weight problems the 380 is facing. In fact, according to those sources, the 380 will not make it's range/payload guarantees.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5364 times:
IMO SQ is one of few carriers that has ordered the A380 which currently has a route network with enough demand, capacity, and growth potential, and large enough hub to support its proposed fleet of ten a/c.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5068 times:
I really don't understand the logic of this thread. There ALWAYS has to be someone to first order an aircraft. How else can it start?
Aircraft manufacturers always require a certain number of pre-orders before they go ahead with development. They need to ensure that they will recieve the necessary finances to cover the costs of development or else they will lose. This is also a way to determine the future demand of the aircraft. If they don't recieve enough orders, then that means there clearly isn't a market for the aircraft and thus they won't develop it at this time.
For the A380, they recieved enough pre-orders and this means that development is viable. That's why it is under development, because SQ and other carriers showed enough interest for the aircraft.
This has been true for almost every airliner ever developped. What's so different this time? Because it's too big? C'mon people.......let's not act like how the general public acted over Howard Hughes' HK-1 Hercules "Spruce Goose."
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
MD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 983 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4858 times:
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. The aircraft has yet to fly and that's why it's a mistake? I guess Panam made a horrible mistake ordering that useless hog the 747 before it flew, and I guess they made an even bigger mistake when they ordered the lousy 707 and DC-8 before they flew. British Airways and Eastern absolutely went bozo by ordering the crappy 757 before it flew. And United blundered when they ordered the piece of shit 777 before it flew?
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13746 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4682 times:
I think the major blunder is not selecting enough.
Though I personally have been critical of an airline like EK having 45 A380s, it does make sense.
SIA routes are long-haul when it comes to the 747. So it does make sense to embrace a universal long-haul product à la MEGATOP but GIGATOP instead. People would not be happy flying a 747 from LHR - SIN when they know that one of the three daily flights is an A380 and they could have been on that.
SIA has enough product differentiation for one to cringe at. With the introduction of the A380 there will be even more.
A more likely approach would be to introduce a surcharge on A380 flights however to mark the differences in product.
However, I'd rather have 40 A380s than about 15 + a bunch of 773ERs and MEGATOPS.
Iowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4559 times:
Hmmm....let me think....SQ probably received a great deal (very large as reported from some sources), they have routes that could easily support the additional capacity of this aircraft (SIN to: LHR, SFO, SYD, etc.), and if performance claims made by Airbus are correct, they likely stand to make a bit of money with the 380....yeah....what were they thinking....what idiots!
BoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4534 times:
This is nonsense... you have nothing there to support why they made an error. Please share some specifics???
SQ got a fantastic deal.... If the A380 proves itself this will be the best thing for SQ... Most likely they wouldnt buy a Boeing 747 for the price they paid for the A380... so why not go for the added volume and efficiencies???
If the A380 does not live to its expectations they will discard them like they did with the A343.
Northwest717 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4201 times:
Dude, this person was just trying to ask a question/air his opinion! You don't immediately have to lash out with a Boeing comparison. That is truly uncalled for! It is nice that somebody like JGPH1A could answer in an adult fashion, rather than quickly jumping to a Boeing comparison, or starting an argument. Just my $.02.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9904 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3892 times:
The original post said nothing about how the plane will be a failure. He just implied that it might not be worth it for SIA to be the first customer and go through some of the teething issues. The A380 will probably have a number of problems in the beginning just like the 747 did. Airbus is probably better prepared, but it might cost a lot of money for SIA. They just went through the expense with the A345 by operating it on short routes in preparation for the long hauls. Hopefully the experiences that SQ learned there will help them introduce the new fleet type successfully. Their network can definitely handle the plane, but it might be difficult at first due to issues related to an entirely new airplane that is larger than anything else. Once ground crews, FAs etc get accustomed to the new plane, it should work fine, but it will be difficult in the beginning.
I agree with JGPH1A in that the press of the new plane will help counter the extra costs of being the first customer. It is a tradeoff that the airline will hopefully benefit from, and I am sure that the people at the top of SQ have thought it out thoroughly. I think that SQ is the right type of airline to be the first customer. It is a decent financial position, and has the flexibility to succeed.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Ex_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3869 times:
SQ currently has 744s grounded. I really don't see the need for an airline that can't even fill its current 747 fleet to get brand new A380s.
This doesn't mean that there is no role for the A380 in SQ. The A380 isn't a straightforward 744 replacement - it will be used on high density routes where (1) current bilaterals do not allow for more frequencies and/or (2) slot restrictions mean the airline is unable to secure slots at desirable times. HKG-SFO and NRT-LAX would be examples of the former, and LHR an example of the latter.
Bear in mind that the 744 is actually on its way out. SQ's strategy for other high density routes is to increase flight frequencies with smaller aircraft where bilaterals and slots allow.
Zak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3359 times:
"I have do disagree. Average pax are not aviation enthusiasts. They don't care (and probably don't know) which type of aircraft they are on."
i have to disagree on that.the a380 will have floorspace for a vast amount of pax but will initially have a certification limit of 550 pax. that is why you can expect to see chat areas like on SQ's 345 on the A380.
one might say that "airlines could do that now but instead they fill planes up with seats". i fully agree but that does not take into account that the A380 would seat up to 600+pax in a normal 3 class layout if filled with seats. so expect alot better service/legroom/bar areas in comparison to normal planes on the A380. that is something pax will notice and want, aviation nut or not, especially since airlines flying the A380 will not be shy about promoting that.
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1616 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3224 times:
The weight is only on target because Airbus keep raising the target.
Airbus have said themselves the plane is overweight and that the MTOW has to be increased to provide the guarenteed payload/range.
These extra weights makes it less eficient, but according to Airbus only about !% less. If this is all it is,then should,t be a problem, because its efficiency margins over the 747 are a lot more than that, provided you can fill it.