Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ 772ERs To Take Over SIN-LAX Nonstop From A345s  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14040 times:

...only temporarily.

Buzz from the bees at Orders/FlyerTalk is that SQ is going to have to swap out more than one A345 for maintenance concurrently this summer. As a result, they're going to have to use the 9V-SV* 772ERs to fly the route nonstop outbound, with a tech in TPE westbound. No word on compensation for pax who paid for Exec. Econ.

SIN-EWR will of course remain A345-- at least until the inevitable happens  Wink

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17444 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 13864 times:

Under what payload/circumstances, if any, can the 777-200ER make it nonstop westbound?


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineB742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13839 times:

Hopefully TG can pick up some extra PAX on SIN-BKK-JFK from this SQ equipment change!

Nice to see a SQ 772 at EWR

Rob!


User currently offlineIluv747400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 372 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13647 times:

B742,

Did you read the message? It says the equipment for SIN-EWR will not change. Only SIN-LAX will see 772s.


User currently offlineAri From UK - England, joined May 2005, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13628 times:

Just a query, how can you differentiate between an SQ B772 and a SQ B772ER??I no SQ operate 9V-SQ*, 9V-SR* and 9V-SV* are these specially designated to whether they are an ER model or not??

ari


User currently offlineLUV4JFK From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13558 times:

I did not know the 772ER could make that range. Isn't LAX-SIN similar in range to EWR-SIN, according to the great circle mapper?

LUV4JFK
 yes 



John F. Kennedy International Airport: Where America Greets The World.
User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13528 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):

SIN-EWR will of course remain A345-- at least until the inevitable happens Wink

The deployment of the A380-800 HGW on that route starting in 2010  confused 
(Maybe with a change from EWR to JFK)

Just kidding

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineB742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13473 times:

Quoting Iluv747400 (Reply 3):
id you read the message? It says the equipment for SIN-EWR will not change. Only SIN-LAX will see 772s.

Oops, didn't think, as usual!  Wink

Anyway great to see the 772 at LAX

Rob!


User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2107 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13427 times:

Singapore have different seats/seating arrangements in their 772's. The SV series have the higher rated engines and the new Raffles seats. These do the long haul flights. SQ series were the regional seating type. The SR's used to be used mainly on OZ, but I think they do a lot more now.

Feel sorry for those people expecting the 345 and getting the 772.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13430 times:

interesting...

SIN-LAX non-stop no problem for the -200ER with a bit lower payloads than the A345 is now carrying Eastbound. Trip cost will be a lot less though and flight times shorter by 20 min or so. The tech stop Westbound would enable 80,000lb payloads, which is even or better than what the A345 is doing now, and use less fuel. Maybe this will finally convince SQ that they are better served by replacing the A340-500's with 777-200LR's. Something to think about...

-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13355 times:

Just a query, how can you differentiate between an SQ B772 and a SQ B772ER??I no SQ operate 9V-SQ*, 9V-SR* and 9V-SV* are these specially designated to whether they are an ER model or not??

Regional 772
9V-SQ* configured 3 class
9V-SR* configured 2 class

Both do not have the SpaceBed but the horrid "Ultimo-Lite" seats...


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Ryan Soh



Long haul 772
9V-SV* configured 2 class with SpaceBed.



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 13162 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):

Buzz from the bees at Orders/FlyerTalk is that SQ is going to have to swap out more than one A345 for maintenance concurrently this summer.

That seems like a fairly major scheduling error. SQ needs 4 out of 5 operational. It seems to me that it should be easy to schedule 5 aircraft such that two never need to be in heavy maintenance at the same time. I don't think SQ are stupid, so I'm probably missing something. What am I missing?


User currently offlineCloud4000 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 13054 times:

How long will they be out of service? Can't be a heavy check, right?  Confused


Boston, USA
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 13015 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 11):
What am I missing?

unexpected problems, maybe...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 61
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12971 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 9):
Maybe this will finally convince SQ that they are better served by replacing the A340-500's with 777-200LR's.

What is happening with that? There was a lot of buzz a few months back about SQ not being happy with the 345 and wanting the 772LR, but then nothing happened. Is (and was) SQ really happy with the 345? What were supposedly the issues SQ had with the 345s?


User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5133 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12938 times:

Quoting Col (Reply 8):
Feel sorry for those people expecting the 345 and getting the 772

Lol, me too... looks like SQ will have to order a few more 345's soon if they want to keep the business pax.

KL911


User currently offlineGVBIG From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12920 times:

Quoting KL911 (Reply 15):
Lol, me too... looks like SQ will have to order a few more 345's soon if they want to keep the business pax.

Or do the sensible thing and order 777-200LRs  Wink Giving them total fleet commonality and getting rid of those 345s  Wink



Booked it, Packed it, f*cked off!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 12862 times:

Quoting GVBIG (Reply 16):
Or do the sensible thing and order 777-200LRs

This has been beaten to death here but, of course, the sensible thing for SQ to do is replace their A340-500s with B777-200LRs (without the optional belly tanks). I believe SQ are pretending to not be interested while waiting for Boeing to offer them the B777-200LR at a lower price.


User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2107 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12797 times:

The logical sense is for them to go with 772LR, it is a superb performer. As a Passenger I much prefer the 345, so I go out of my way to get on the SQ direct out of EWR. The 772LR will be noisier, but hey its gonna only be 17 hours instead of 18 if they go that route.

User currently offlinePHXinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12760 times:

Quoting KL911 (Reply 15):
Quoting Col (Reply 8):
Feel sorry for those people expecting the 345 and getting the 772

Lol, me too... looks like SQ will have to order a few more 345's soon if they want to keep the business pax.

KL911

More like they need to dump those 345s and get 772LRs.



Keepin' it real.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12754 times:

it's not that much noisier. come now, that's as much PR hype as anything. either way, you'd be best served to use noise canceling headphones for watching movies, and using foam airplugs otherwise. 30dB reduction will make any plane quiet. that's how I deal with flying exit row on a 733.

also, the quieter the cabin, the more you hear FAs chatting, babies crying, old timers coughing, etc. But with earplugs, you knock all that sound down or out. The only way to fly...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12756 times:

Quoting Ari (Reply 4):
Just a query, how can you differentiate between an SQ B772 and a SQ B772ER??I no SQ operate 9V-SQ*, 9V-SR* and 9V-SV* are these specially designated to whether they are an ER model or not??

All of SQ's 772s are 777-212ERs.

The 9V-SQ* and 9V-SR* are however operated at restricted MTOWs with the Trent884B. For whatever reason, airline chooses to identify them as 772s; even though they can easily be certified to op at 656k.lb for 7730nm with an software adjustment and a penstroke.


User currently offlineBsmalls35 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12723 times:

I guess when SQ puts the 777-200ER or the SIN-LAX route, it will be the longest scheduled 777 service ever, even if it's only temporary. I'll tell you, the 777-200ER is one versatile and capable plane.

User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12556 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 9):
replacing the A340-500's with 777-200LR's

In every case, it won't help for this summer.
When is the EIS of the 777LR scheduled for?


User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2107 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 12547 times:

lKramerica,

Not PR hype, just my own on this topic. The 343/345 is much quieter down the back.

You are certainly right about the internal noises, and they are the same on all types.


25 Ricci767 : Why are so many airlines unhappy with the A340-500/-600? Surely they perform much better than the A340-200/-300 which airlines seem to be happy with.
26 Zvezda : Because the relative performance of the B777-200LR is so much better than that of the A340-500. The A340-600 is more or less competitive with the B77
27 Airtropolis : As far as I can recall, the ULH routes can actually be covered by 4 of the aircraft with the 5th, being rotated for the Jakarta route and as a backup
28 Birdbrainz : I'm not sure, but it seems to agree with my informal survey of flight attendants for SAA: 11 out of 12 strongly prefer the 747-400. (The 12th was neu
29 Avek00 : Among other things, the planes carry around alot of dead weight, and burn significantly more fuel than their 777 counterparts as a result.
30 Avek00 : It should be noted that the 772ER will be able to carry 100 MORE pax on SIN-LAX than the 345 designed for the route in the first place.
31 Rj111 : Yes, SAA do have a somewhat cozy configuration on their A340's.
32 Kangar : It should also be noted the people will be crammed like cattle on the 772 ER for a similar length of time as on the A345, except the folks on the A345
33 Post contains images PyroGX41487 : I've given up on ever finding A345 sympathizers on A-net.
34 WhiteHatter : Plenty of cheerleading and misinformation though. Never let facts like the summer being the time to do work for SQ get in their way. It's winter in t
35 TGV : 100 % agree with you regarding the plane noise at the back. For the passenger noise, note that in a given length of Eco cabin you have 12.5% less pas
36 Post contains images LPLAspotter : Don't give up - I'm one !! However, I sure was impressed with my only 777 ride on SQ from MNL to SIN. Man, what an airplane! Cheers: LPLAspotter
37 Post contains images SIN_SQ : Hahahaha! No, SIA does not use B777-200ER for long range flights on SIN-LAX. Airbus A340-500 is still alive. Nobody wants to stay more than 16 hrs in
38 9V-SVC : Thanks goodness I thought SQ getting rid of the A345s for 772ERs ! I got a bit shocked until I read the thread. Phew !
39 Post contains images Zoom1018 : but you have to admit that SQ's 777-200ERs are of normal/typical configuration, but if they order the LRs, then their Excutive Economy should be 8 abr
40 N1120A : They could probably do it with about a half passenger load and no cargo, certainly not what one wants to be profitable That is what happens when you
41 Post contains images Udo : And did he/she also tell the reasons? Most likely most complaints were about seat pitch which is not the aircraft's fault. Never draw conclusions wit
42 N1120A : Udo, great to see you Well, not filling the plane was SAA's fault, wasn't it? Also, the A346 came as part of an overall deal to completely switch to A
43 Scbriml : And the A380 will be able to carry a ton more than that. Shock news just in - bigger planes (especially those with denser seating arrangements) can c
44 Ikramerica : not how sound works. sound doesn't fall off linearly with distance, and with the combined distances to the sides always larger on the T7 vs. 340, the
45 Astuteman : Why just kidding? - It'll happen one day...... Don't - there are more than you think.
46 Zvezda : Taking one A340-500 out of SQ's fleet is not a problem. They just need to substitute B777-200s on SIN-CGK. Taking two out at the same time is the pro
47 Post contains images PM : Makes you wonder why SQ bought A345s in the first place. I'd sort of assume, though, that they were aware of the 772ER's potential when they did... W
48 Zvezda : Because the B777-200LR was not yet available.
49 Post contains images Udo : Hi Alireza, survived the trip to LA? SAA simply don't have demand for three class B747s on certain routes, so the two class A346 suits them well there
50 PM : But who needs it?! According to the post I was responding to the 772ER (not LR) can do the job just as well and carry 100 more PAX!
51 N1120A : Yes, but it would still burn more fuel Again, a 2-class 744 would have been very nice for the revenue stream, if SAA could fill it. One the 77W has n
52 PlaneSmart : Perhaps all 5 are receiving a performance upgrade?
53 Post contains images Udo : No doubt about that. It would. But since demand is not there the A346 makes SAA happy. Regards Udo
54 Zvezda : If you read more carefully, I think you'll see that that part of the discussion was only about SIN-LAX, not LAX-SIN. The B777-200ER (reasonably confi
55 PM : Quite possibly. I've no idea. I was just correcting the suggestion that the A346 continues to suffer from flexing. Of course, if all you want to do i
56 Post contains images N1120A : Well, that would require a slightly shorter, wider body, more cargo capacity, more floor space, removal of 2 engines, a swap to GE-90-110Bs...startin
57 Flying Belgian : Sorry if I missed an info, but do the A345s have to undergo c-check maintenances works ?? FB.
58 PM : Oh dear. I was afraid I was being too subtle. In both my posts (#47 and #50) I was ridiculing the implied argument that the 772ER was somehow 'better
59 Tsentsan : you might want to check out what operates SQ29/30 then. Anyway, from what I gather, the 777 replacing the 345 will not be on every flight, only certa
60 TGV : Ikramerica Thanks for answering my point, and giving interesting elements about the noise environment of cabin. I have learned things, this is a posit
61 ORDagent : Are you comparing the "standard" configuration with the same pitch and width of seats that you would find on a regular coach cabin with the executive
62 PyroGX41487 : I think the A340-500 is great technically. I mean, SQ was the first airline to put in service (wasn't it?). As far as we know, it didn't experience th
63 ConcordeBoy : ...ever wonder why that may be? Nope.
64 Ikramerica : I like a quieter cabin too, but being tall, i enjoy the tallness of the 777 over the A340. Either way, the squishy foam earplugs are the way to go fo
65 PlaneSmart : Joking aside, watch and see what happens. And who supplies the 777.
66 Gigneil : That's SAA's fault. That's because the A345 is intended to fly the route nonstop in two directions. Duh. Its not worth noting. Ugh. The 747-400 does
67 N1120A : Ugh, but they still cannot sell as many tickets based on a similar density
68 Post contains images SA7700 : Totally of topic, but I can't resist. If memory serves me correctly (I just wish I can find it on the search, black on white), one of our esteemed pos
69 Udo : Probably they don't need to sell more tickets and are just fine with the A346's capacity on certain routes? Regards Udo
70 ConcordeBoy : ...have you seen how SA configures its N.American 744s though? Some 772s carry more pax. I'd be quite shocked if the CASM on those muthaz was anywher
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...
JAT To Take Over Air Bosna Flights From Sarajevo?! posted Fri Sep 26 2003 13:21:45 by Sobelair
TWA To Take-over DFW-STL Route From AA. posted Mon Sep 10 2001 03:57:21 by N757tw
SQ B777-300ER To Serve SFO & LAX Nonstop? posted Sun Sep 5 2004 11:17:05 by Zvezda
Arkia Israeli To Take Over Axis Airways posted Wed Nov 8 2006 15:19:26 by LY777
Compass To Take Over Independence Certificate posted Tue Mar 28 2006 17:41:18 by NKMCO
Gulf Air To Take Over Management Of BAH posted Fri Jan 20 2006 00:15:26 by GF-A330
WN To Take Over TZ? posted Thu Oct 20 2005 22:21:37 by KensukeAida
GOL To Take Over Southern Winds? posted Fri Aug 5 2005 10:56:04 by EZEIZA
Air Asia To Take Over Some Of MH's Domestic Routes posted Tue Jun 28 2005 17:18:26 by SQuared
ASA/Comair To Take Over CO Express Ops @ CRW posted Thu Jun 2 2005 13:58:15 by CRWDude