PVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 719 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8197 times:
Is it me, or do I notice a slight anti-Boeing tinge in the SQ comments lately. "They would rather abuse the 380 than buy new 747" "787 not economical enough" now this comment just days after the 777-200LR is introduced?
Something seems to be wrong with this relationship, or maybe they are negotiating in public. Hope it's the latter.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3234 posts, RR: 24 Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8030 times:
Quoting Singaporegirl (reply 4): Mr Forshaw said: 'We're not currently in the market for long-range aircraft, but we're sure when we are, Boeing will put their views to us about its suitability for operations.
It'll come down to what we're looking for and what financial criteria the manufacturers offer us.'
I read the above as "We are currently not iterested in acquiring new long-range aircraft, however it's likely that in the future we will be looking at the B772LR. Boeing please please please do us a really good deal." Anyone else?
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7361 times:
Quoting SNATH (reply 10): I read the above as "We are currently not iterested in acquiring new long-range aircraft, however it's likely that in the future we will be looking at the B772LR. Boeing please please please do us a really good deal." Anyone else?
SQ always keeps its options open. However, parsing Mr. Forshaw's words to divine serious interest in a future order is a tricky business indeed; hardly a solid first step towards selling 500 772LRs over the next twenty years.
What I find truly interesting about the article is that its "spin" is real concern about the negative impact of ultra long range aircraft in general upon the paradigm of the Changi hub.
Singaporegirl From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 302 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6880 times:
when i first saw this article, i was quite shocked actually. first, we're not getting the 787s, no 747advs (well i wasn't surprised at all about that one), then no 777lrs either (some pax request f class cabin on our sin/lax & sin/ewr legs on our 345s). a lot of people here on a.net, assumed that it was a matter of 'when' not 'if' sq is going to order the 772lr. it's an interesting development indeed.
Ladies & Gentlemen, we will now demonstrate the use of the safety equipment on this aircraft...
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7711 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6807 times:
I don't think SQ will buy the 777-200LR.
The reason is simple: Singapore's geographic location does not warrant the need for such a plane. The 777-300ER can easily reach most of Europe from SIN, and is easily within range of a SIN-SYD flight. Besides, SQ's longest routes are already well-covered by the A340-500 anyway.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15810 posts, RR: 50 Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6617 times:
"SQ really needs and wants this plane in their fleet and will lead the way to market acceptance."
I think SQ DOES need AND want this plane...but not at the current price.
"Besides, SQ's longest routes are already well-covered by the A340-500 anyway.
It is without question that the 772LR would cover it far better than the 345--and it would do it WITH first class AND a reasonable cargo payload. I'm almost positive that the added value of first class and extra cargo does not outweigh the added expense of a 77-200LR fleet replacement right now.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6952 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6529 times:
The A345 and First Class are not mutually exclusive. It just so happens that SQ chose not to have First Class on the A345's. If anything, not having first class adds weight, 'cause you have more seats and more luggage to carry.
A bunch of their 777's also don't have First Class. In either case it's not an aircraft issue, it's a business choice.
CRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2081 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6525 times:
I think SQ is still smarting from being launch customer for the A345, and having to deal with introductory teething problems.
Therefore they'll now let PIA and EVA have all the hassles and bugs to work out on the 772LR, and then when the aircraft is considered mature (and have lived up to the HUGE expectations) then SQ will order some.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15810 posts, RR: 50 Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6206 times:
"In either case it's not an aircraft issue, it's a business choice"
It WAS an aircraft issue; SQ's first class seats were too heavy for the aircraft and would have infringed on the payload and/or range capabilities. Do you honestly think SQ chose not to put its premier service on its premier routes which are the longest in the world??