Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5693 times:
According to Boeing, the B777-300ER has sufficient range to serve SFO and LAX nonstop from SIN, given 365 passengers in three classes and 85% winds. SQ's current B777-300 configuration seats 332 passengers in three classes. It seems like a safe bet that SQ would configure the B777-300ER with the same number or fewer seats. It's possible that SQ might configure 4 or 5 aircraft with Executive Economy and greater pitch in C (like the current A340-500 configuration) specially for SFO and LAX.
My expectation is that SQ will serve SFO and LAX nonstop from SIN using the B777-300ER and serve ORD and EWR nonstop from SIN using either the A340-500 or B777-200LR.
FlyingKangaroo From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 532 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5492 times:
I'm sure anything is possible in this day and age. SQ might put some of their 777-300ERs on thoses routes, but wern't the aircraft originally ordered to replace the 747 fleet? Correct me if i'm wrong
Asianguy767 From Singapore, joined Oct 2003, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5425 times:
While the B777-300ER may be able to serve LAX n SFO from SIN but I doubt it can do the return leg. If u check again on boeing's website, the B777-300ER can't make the return leg
As739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5818 posts, RR: 23 Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5418 times:
I don't see the 773 coming to SFO. First, the rumor is that flight 1/2 will be a A380 as soon as they are brought online. Second, flight 15/15 via ICN does not have the need for a larger type. Third, from what a SQ manager here told me was that they are looking into non-stop for the second flight. Now we can only speculate on weather thats with a A345 (if more are brought online) or the 772LR.
ASSFO
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5301 times:
My expectation is that SQ will serve SFO and LAX nonstop from SIN using the B777-300ER
There is a zero percent chance of this happening.
The still air distance of the flight is FAR beyond the capabilities of the plane with anything near its full payload.
Behramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4439 posts, RR: 43 Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4612 times:
If SQ projects that it can make more $$$ by flying the B 772LR to EWR and 773ER nonstop from SIN to LAX/SFO instead of the A 345s on these routes then I wouldnt be surprised if they trade in their A 345s for B 772LRs like they did with the A 343-B 777 order in the mid 90s.
Warren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1131 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4571 times:
No, Solnabo,
WIshful thinking was for SQ ordering the A346.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4244 times:
Any chance of Boeing increasing the MTOW of the B777-300ER to give it additional range? Would that suffice or would it also need additional fuel capacity?
Would lowering the seat density to that of SQ's A340-500s suffice to extend the range of the B777-300ER such that LAX-SIN and SFO-SIN become possible?
Collegestud From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4084 times:
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1834 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4047 times:
Would lowering the seat density to that of SQ's A340-500s suffice to extend the range of the B777-300ER such that LAX-SIN and SFO-SIN become possible?
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 80 Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3580 times:
Boeing has already pushed the MTOW on the 773ER several times. The plane has been kicking a$$ in flight testing and now in service. Because of this success, they have added to the range of the 772LR on offer
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3005 times:
With four engines, there is more that can go wrong and, both in theory and in practice, a greater chance of a diversion. That's why, all else being equal (which is rarely the case), I prefer an ETOPS twin for long-haul.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2437 times:
Any chance of Boeing increasing the MTOW of the B777-300ER
EK's been behind Boeing to do so... so perhaps.
to give it additional range? Would that suffice or would it also need additional fuel capacity?
The former would grant longer range at MTOW, the latter would grant longer range throughout the typical operating TOW range of the aircrafts' designated mission profiles.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2384 times:
While I'd love to see the 773ER get longer range, but if I'm not mistaken, presently its tanks limited.
The efficiency improvements certainly did help a great deal.
Sponsor Message: 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 532 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 785 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Oct 2003, 263 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5818 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Mar 2003, 197 posts, 
.
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4439 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
