QANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5950 posts, RR: 35 Posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9675 times:
straight from the boss himself tonight on local TV discussing Qantas and SQ merger rumours, anyway he is in Sydney and confirmed that 'the first A380 revenue flight will be Singapore-Sydney' just a matter now of what date!
[Edited 2005-07-09 13:20:48]
a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
B742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3824 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9652 times:
Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter): straight from the boss himself tonight on local TV discussing Qantas and SQ merger rumours, anyway he is in Sydney and confirmed that 'the first A380 revenue flight will be Singapore-Sydney' just a matter now of what date!
I thought it was to be to LHR?
I also thought that the first A380 flights were going to be on the Kangaroo route: LHR-SIN-SYD?
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4539 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9426 times:
Plus that at day 1 of operations, they might plan it around 1 aircraft in service (with the second A380 or a 747 as back up option) and SIN-SYD-SIN can be done within 24 hours with time to iron out small teething problems, while for a daily flight SIN-LHR-SIN you need at least 2 aircraft with a lot more mess up of your bookings if 1 goed technical. So I guess they switch or extend to LHR when they have at least 3 A380s available.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
1. SQ lacks the authority to fly SYD-LAX, LAX-LHR, LHR-EWR, and SYD-EWR.
2. No pax A380s at EWR.
3. An A380 on LAX-SIN nonstop would likely prove to be an absolute yield killer, as well as a poor LF performer - believe it or not, the USA-SIN market is thin, and SQ's USA success primarily comes from its 5th freedom rights (e.g., SFO-ICN, LAX-NRT, JFK-FRA). SQ's current nonstop flights EWR/LAX-SIN, especially if upgauged to 772LRs, can accomodate virtually all of the nonstop SIN demand.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9188 times:
This makes sense - using the A380 first on the SIN-SYD-SIN turn will allow a one aircraft operation, as pointed out, will keep the aircraft closer to home (the SIN-SYD run is only about 8 hours), and will allow crew to build up experience on the type during the first couple of months. I image that the second aircraft will also do some regional type services at the outset and when the SQ A380 fleet builds to at least 4 of the type, it will then be assigned to the LHR-SIN route.
Lets be fair, there will be lots of issues to deal with when the A380 goes into service - it will be a brand new type, SQ will be one of the first operators, its first deliveries will be early build examples, and the A380 is a whole new size and category of aircraft that ground staff will have to deal with. It will take a (hopefully short) period of time until everything is in order with both the airplane and its operation. Keeping the first A380 based at SIN and using it on the SIN-SYD-SIN route will allow SQ to gain experience with its newest toy.
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 7748 times:
On a busy morning I've just digested Chew's comments.
Clearly SQ is in favour of more cross border ownership of airline shares, equally clearly as he said, no one told SQ why merging with QF would be a good idea.
"I feel like I've learned from someone else that I am about to be married" was the gist of his comment on that.
Chew recognised the value of consolidation, but also the issues in the way.
I stand by my view of business in Asia, formulated over many decades, that consolidation in that part of the world means the winning team kills/screws/ guts the loosing team.
Co-operation is another matter of course.
The end result of this debate will be to give Qantas to access to the foreign equity (and much higher share price that it wants. They have the support of many in the financial community on that, including myself.
Chew pointed out that the first four A380s will be SQ's and that the delivery timetable was first march 06, then June 06, and now November 06.
I suspect that not only will Sydney be first as he stressed, but that daily London may be first, once the initial jets are in place, via Changi of course and its new terminal three.
On a side note, I'm in our Canberra office on this dismal Sunday morning and about to go back to the high plains where unfortunately a light aircraft with three people on board has been missing for over a day.
There is very heavy snow in the crash area, which is near the Mt Hotham airstrip, the highest in this country. The plane was heard 'labouring' about the time it was due on a private flight from Essendon in Melbourne. People are searching by horseback as well as skidoo today and yesterday. With over a metre of fresh snow on top of the base of around half a metre before this dump, this is a sad and difficult task.
SKA380 From Norway, joined Jun 2005, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6347 times:
It seems to me that SQ's flight from SYD to SIN actually continues with the same aircraft to LHR. so i definatley think they will send it on the cangaroo route, its just a matter of starting in one end.
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6034 times:
Don't worry. SQ's idea of consolidation is eradication. Qantas knows that. It just wants to foreign ownership cap lifted (which isn't a bad idea.) After that is achieved there will still be a Qantas and a Singapore Airlines, but I wouldn't like to be a small vulnerable carrier.
There are a lot of false tracks being drawn across a totally unquestioning media by this. Pity we can't have an Airliners net aviation show where we get to ask the difficult questions.