Changyou From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 289 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7844 times:
Just spoken to the cabin crew management this morning. Here is something might interest you guys...SQ is considering dropping the A340-500 for B777-200LR when it comes in service. According to SQ that the A340-500 is not very fuel efficient as what airbus industrie claimed. So I guess the history of Boeing buying SQ's Airbus' might repeat.
Ktachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7721 times:
Is the 777-200LR capable of the EWR route though? I know that with the range, they can do it but is there any limitations with the E-TOPS? I agree that the 777-200LR is more fuel efficient.
But I also have reliable sources telling me that when Airbus designed the A340, 330 series, they thought that four engines instead of two will assure the passengers along with a pilot that its safe. I know that three engines can go down, but the risk should be better than a twin engine.
I reckon that even if there is E-TOPS on the 777-200LR, if one engine goes out, the pilots would get very nervous about it. Plus, they are brand new planes......... But as Bill142 states, we have to wait and see what happens.
Baw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2045 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7692 times:
I have not heard fuel efficiency comments about the A345. I HAVE heard them about the 346 (specifically CX whining that they are not getting the range performance they wanted and are having to weight restrict the JFK-HKG flights).
It would surprise me greatly to hear that SQ would have problems with the 345, given the fact that it only has about 180 seats. Standard configuration is about 240.
Second, the 777-200LR will probably be rated for 240min ETOPS. If that is true, then there should be no trouble flying the westbound polar route from EWR to HKG. If it is limited to 180, then it will have to fly further west to keep ANC within the three hour limit. Eastbound, there would be no ETOPS limitation, because the current route flies closer to the eastern coast of China, then up over Siberia before transiting the pole just north of Barrow. All of this fits within the 180min ETOPS currently in place and if Boeing gets the 240 min with the 772LR, then it won't be a problem at all. In fact, that aircraft will be at least a 10,000nm aircraft, which should make it between any two commercially viable points in the world... If the 777LR even comes close to what Boeing says it will do (and usually Boeing understates the performance), then watch a number of carriers (not just SQ) line up to order them, since it will be able to do both LHR-SYD and JFK/EWR-SYD nonstop without blinking.
Let's wait and see. Oh, and if someone has factual info re: SQ and the A345, please pass it along.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
Changyou From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7345 times:
I don't mean this to turn out as a A vs B or 2 vs 4. That was what I was told by my colleagues. Doesn't matter if you buy this news or not. Still have a couple of years till the 1st 772LR roll out. There's no point for SQ to shout it out to the world about this rite now anyway. Aerosol...No I'm not that guy. I have no interest in VS. Cheers!
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7264 times:
I have always been sure SIA would go for the B772LR once it is available. They have become the largest B777 operator recently, with many more aircraft on order over the next years. Therefore it wouldn't make economic sense to keep a fleet of only 5 A340-500s. Switching to the B772LR means they can eliminate one type and simplify their fleet.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7224 times:
Will SQ swap its A345s for 777LRs? We simply dont know yet, it will depend on price, terms, and whether SQ places a large followup order for more 777s of various types (along with 7e7s) or goes with Airbus on its next order with a mix of A345/A346s (and maybe the A350).....many (including myself) thought that SQ was about to place a large order with Boeing this past summer, but so far no news, so anything can happen. If SQ places a large Boeing order, the future of the A345 does not look good......nothing to do with the aircraft itself, but from a financial point of view, it is unlikely that SQ would maintain a fleet of just 5 A345s with a unique engine variant.
Why are the Leadership titles gone from the A345? This has been discussed, no definite conclusion, but it seems that certain newer members of SQ's management team simply did not like the name and the name was not catching on anyway, so it was dropped......new SQ marketing material simply refer to the aircraft as the A340-500. I dont think that dropping the Leadership name is an indication that the A345s will leave the SQ fleet, there are also rumors that SQ will drop the Jublilee tag from the 777 fleet and the Megatop name for the 744 fleet. Times change.
F4f3a From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6562 times:
I doubt that SQ will get rid of there A345 so soon. Yes they are a large 777 operator but they also seem to like to have both boeings and airbus. The a345 does a specific job for them and does it very well. I also think that 180mins etops is enough and even if the FAA certify it im not sure that the rest of the world will. The JAA are moving back towards four engines so they might not approve 240mins. Im pretty sure that SQ is run in accordance with the JAA not the FAA.
Also SQ is getting a380 and even possibly some a350s (since they havent placed an order for the 7e7 and the a350 is meant to be bigger)
I think people are rather quick to follow rumours. These rumours can be pretty convincing. For example a friend of mine who is a virgin flight attendant was convinced that virgin was getting 777 until i showed her the news that branson had ordered a346. So unless theres something more concrete lets just wait and see
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6399 times:
You made quite a few statements on what various civil aviation authorities would or would not do. What are you basing your opinions on? Why is 180 minutes "enough" and why are you pretty sure that Singapore follows the JAA?
MD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6304 times:
Just to add some facts regarding the mentioned ETOPS approvals.
First of all, the fact that the FAA or JAA/EASA certifies an aircraft for a certain ETOPS limit does not mean that every operator is automatically allowed to take advantage of the limits. It lieas within the local authority to grant the operator the ETOPS time. Therefore if the FAA certifies 240 ETOPS, does not mean that for example SQ can start with this ETOPS time from day 1 of operating the aircraft. The authority will grant the limit based on review of all necessary reliability and maintenance data available for this operator. Of course, in SQ's case, there is already a large database available, since they operate a 777 fleet under ETOPS already. But I would assume that an airline who has no history in operating under ETOPS rules has to start with a lower limit and get it increased as long as the reliability trends show that their system is capable to operate and maintain the fleet to the required standards.
Iowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5841 times:
Eastbound, there would be no ETOPS limitation, because the current route flies closer to the eastern coast of China, then up over Siberia before transiting the pole just north of Barrow.
You sure about this routing? I thought in the Airways magazine they showed on a map that they follow a more southerly route across Japan and then just south of Alaska to take advantage of having the jetstream. It is longer in total distance, but the increased speed with respect to the ground due to the jetstream makes up for it.
I hope that your rumours about the dropping of the Jubilee name are true. I have never liked that title at all! I am not too fond of the Leadership title either, but I much prefer that one to Jubilee. Personally, I liked the Big Top and Megatop titles. With the upper deck of the 747, those ones really hit off with me.
Finally, I doubt that SQ will be getting rid of the A345s in the immediate future. Perhaps wait a bit and see how they perform when PIA begins service, see that they are all they are cracked up to be, and then maybe make a purchase. If the performances are similar, I imagine that they would replace them to reduce # of aircraft types in their fleet. Of course, they also could use them as a bargaining tool to A and B. Tell A that they want to get rid of the fleet of 345s unless A offers them a really good deal on some 345s/346s. Or tell Boeing that they like the 345s and that they should offer them a good deal (maybe a trade in) on some 772LRs (or 7E7-8 or 7E7-9s) to get rid of the 345s. I think that these 5 aircraft can be used well as a negotiating tool...and something tells me SQ knows this and will take advantage of it!
Mr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5680 times:
I'm not sure but the way I see it SQ doesn't put prices of aircraft as its first priority... if they don't like a certain type of aircraft or if it doesn't suit them they'll just get rid of it and they do it fast. I guess we've seen how capable they are of doing that?
Rj111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5396 times:
Look at what happened to the 777-300ER? It flew more than they stated, so an additon of 580 nm is possible on the 777-200LR. Again, we have to see their test flight
Because the 772LR and the 773ER are virtually identical in key specifications AFAIK the performance improvements from the 773ER have already been calculated into the 772LR's range, so it is unlikely we will see any ~significant~ performance boosts.
Actually, the B777-200LR should be able to operate with viable loads between any two commercially viable points in the world except LHR-AKL."
Add GRU-NRT/HKG to that as well, and the jury's still out on SYD-LHR.
Now that SQ have the 773ER, it makes complete sense to purchase the 772LR. However, SQ will want to be close with Airbus considering they're the launch customer for the A380, and scrapping the A345 will undoubtably piss them off..........Then again, it never stopped them in the past.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 68
Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4911 times:
CPH-R, combine that with the "VS will buy B777s and drop the A346" and "SAA is sooooo unhappy with their A346s that they'll replace them with 777s very soon" threads, and I'll agree with you...
Anyhow - one thing might be interesting to consider: does anyone think that Boeing will, again, offer SQ a trade-in-deal like they did with the A343 for the earlier B777 order? Considering the size of the market for the A345/B772LR, I somehow doubt that a similar offer is on the horizon...
Then again - let's wait and see.
Smile - it confuses people!
: Point well taken ConcordeBoy.......however, there was speculation that aside from the 773ERs, SQ would also commit to versions of the 7e7 and maybe ad
: the got an all Boeing fleet anyway! "they" will also be the launch customer for Airbus' crown jewel as well... thank U mam ...perhaps you mean't ma'am