Enhanced B777-300ER Capable Of SFO/LAX-SIN? — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Enhanced B777-300ER Capable Of SFO/LAX-SIN?

Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65
Posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2204 times:

Do the recent or proposed enhancements to the B777-300ER bring SFO/LAX-SIN within year-round nonstop range with a full passenger payload?

11 replies: All unread, jump to last

Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

No, not without a special cabin interior and limited payload. Don't think SQ is planning on that.

Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.

RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

I very much doubt LAX, maybe SFO-SIN.

N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

At 7340nm, SFO-SIN would take some weight restrictions, but the main issue on that route is the massive amount of money SQ makes on the HKG traffic rights. This is the reason the A380 will first go to SFO. The O&D on the route would not be enough to justify the non-stop routing given that cargo would be a no go on the route. LAX-SIN, at 7621nm, would have a very tough time not taking pretty serious restrictions

Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss

Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
No, not without a special cabin interior and limited payload.

Do you mean the same special interior that is reportedly being offered to QF for the B777-200LR? Is that meant to become standard or will it remain an option?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):
This is the reason the A380 will first go to SFO.

I thought that plan had been superceded. There is reportedly doubt about the WhaleJet's ability to fly SFO-HKG nonstop year-round with an acceptable payload.

RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

Well it'll be able to carry more payload than any other plane in the fleet. So if that's not acceptable then what is?

AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4491 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1983 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 4):
Well it'll be able to carry more payload than any other plane in the fleet. So if that's not acceptable then what is?

If you are talking about:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
There is reportedly doubt about the WhaleJet's ability to fly SFO-HKG nonstop year-round with an acceptable payload.

Then I think what he means is not that the A380 can't carry an acceptable payload, but the weight restrictions that it would have to face in order to make it SFO-HKG nonstop year round would be a number greater than zero.

PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.

Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1962 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
There is reportedly doubt about the WhaleJet's ability to fly SFO-HKG nonstop year-round with an acceptable payload.

What?!

Jesus christ, no. No there is not. There has never been, except here.

I really don't understand where all this comes from. Its like makebelieve.net

N

Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 7):
I really don't understand where all this comes from.

I heard that from a mid-manager at SQ who was my seat-mate once-upon-a-flight. We've kept in touch by email. I didn't post anything about it until PhilSquares did. So, this seems to be the rumour going around SQ. That SQ switched their plan for initial WhaleJet service from SQ1/SQ2 to (SQ317/SQ322 and then later to SIN-SYD) gives some credence to the rumour.

N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
I thought that plan had been superceded. There is reportedly doubt about the WhaleJet's ability to fly SFO-HKG nonstop year-round with an acceptable payload.

Well, I don't think the A380 is going to lose THAT much range. If anything, the issues would arise with QF doing LAX-MEL.

Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss

Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26721 posts, RR: 83
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Could SQ moving to SIN-SYD with their A380s be either a competitve move against QF doing so, or if QF is not planning to run A380s between SYD-SIN to get on to LHR, a punitive move to note their displeasure about the Australian Government denying SQ the right to fly SYD-LAX non-stop?

I mean if 744s can do SFO-HKG and A388s only carry around 100 more people, I'd be pretty shocked that an A388 couldn't do it in "standard" 470-pax config.

RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

Right now, I think SQ is waiting for the fuel burn test results on the A380-800 flying at standard MTOW for the A388. If it meets the 8,000 nautical mile still-air range guarantee, then the A388 will likely be dispatched on the SQ 001/002 flight route as soon as SQ gets enough planes, given that the segment between SFO and HKG is perhaps SQ's biggest moneymaker virtually year-round.

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: