Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ Made A Blunder Selecting 380?  
User currently offlineSoaringadi From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 472 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5594 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.

What is your opinion on this ??

enjoY  Smile


If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going !
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

I suppose you don't think that ANA made an even bigger mistake by ordering the 7E7, which is even farer away from its first flight.  Yeah sure  Yeah sure  Yeah sure



I know it's only VfB but I like it!
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5542 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 !

User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5450 times:

Just for all the doubters:

The A380 is currently:
1) On time
2) On budget
3) On weight

SailorOrion


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5406 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.



10=2
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5388 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.

User currently offlineQantas077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5870 posts, RR: 39
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

this thread is as big a blunder as the other you made about SQ quitting SQ 1 from SFO-SIN.

 Big grin



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5346 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.

User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5139 times:


PhilSquares,

IIRC in the newest or nearly newest it's reported the A380 is now achieving its weight target. I also remember that earlier there were weight issues, but those have now apparently been resolved.



User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5050 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."

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineMD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 979 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4840 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?  Yeah sure

Jeez....

cheers, Ralph

[Edited 2004-06-16 15:42:20]


Fly Douglas Jets DC-8 / DC-9 / DC-10 / MD80 / MD11 / MD90 / 717
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4664 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.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineIowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4541 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!  Big grin

User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4516 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.



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4373 times:

3) On weight

That's interesting... considering that just about every report since mid-2003 states that weight is higher than expected.


User currently offlineShamrock_747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4330 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.

"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."

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.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4218 times:

"That's interesting... considering that just about every report since mid-2003 states that weight is higher than expected."

And considering that they havent factored this report in, we will be having a fat overweight bird made even more overweight !

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040616/ap_on_he_me/fit_obesity&e=1

Feds Find No Decline in Obesity Rates


User currently offlineNorthwest717 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4183 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.

-Tim


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9828 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3874 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!
User currently offlineEx_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3851 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.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

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.


But that would be awful business, a) to surcharge and b) to fly a 550 seat plane when a 300 seat plane would do.

N


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3341 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.



10=2
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1607 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3206 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.

Ruscoe



User currently offlineBofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

One of this anti-european (anti Airbus) posts that we have seen so many of here.

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1607 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

Bofredrick,
It's not anti European to ask legitimate questions.

IMO being the launch customer for any aircraft is risky, and that is why launch customers usually get big discounts, and why the original question is ok.
Ruscoe


25 Post contains links VSXA380X800 : This kind of reminds me of a parent that would love to see their child succeed and as soon as a much stronger competitor comes along, they have no ot
26 Cjuniel : I have to agree with the statement regarding the average flier not being an aviation enthusiast. Most people don't give a damn what kind of plane they
27 Post contains images Snnams : Is it just me or does anyone else notice the increased number of these threads questioing the A380 over the last number of weeks? I wonder if Boeing i
28 StarCruiser : While I haven't a clue as to why certain airlines will order large numbers of the A380 I look forward to reading and talking about those orders in the
29 Ruscoe : You know you picked the wrong subject to attack Boeing Snnams. There is no other way to describe Airbus statements lately than desparate. The latest r
30 Hirnie : Sorry slightly off topic: "However what really sets the two manufacturers apart is their philosophy about the way future air travel will develop, and
31 N766UA : You can't say that ordering an airplane is a blunder.... that's ridiculous, but to say that the A380 is on time and on target with weight is inacurate
32 Post contains images RayChuang : I think SQ did make a right choice with the A380-800. You have to remember some of their most popular routes (SIN to LHR, SIN to NRT and SIN to SFO vi
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...
SQ And 380's And 773ER posted Sun Jun 11 2006 10:17:54 by Ctang
SQ And 380 posted Thu Apr 27 2006 10:12:29 by Ctang
Is SQ Unhappy At EK Having Painted 380 First? posted Wed Nov 23 2005 02:47:11 by Razza74
3x Jetway At SIN For SQ 380 posted Wed Aug 17 2005 23:09:34 by SafetyDude
380 Versus 748 In Terms Of Sales posted Wed Dec 6 2006 20:16:14 by BOEING747400
Airbus 380 To Get Approval Next Tueday posted Wed Dec 6 2006 17:37:18 by LHStarAlliance
SQ 773ER In CDG Inaugration Ceremony. (Pics & Vid) posted Wed Dec 6 2006 16:23:52 by Stevens91
SQ Asia-US In Full F For $1850 posted Mon Dec 4 2006 02:31:25 by Zrs70
SQ Biz/first Commercials posted Sat Dec 2 2006 18:10:01 by Tony Lu
SQ Seat Pitch--B777-300ER posted Sat Dec 2 2006 01:50:37 by Iloveboeing