Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Long-Range Jets Threaten Singapore Airport's Hub  
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5781 times:

Long-Range Jets Threaten Singapore Airport's Hub Status

Amazing how things work out, and with technology, there is always going to be unforseen problems, that will arise later.

http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/060105/15/3xo8j.html

Quote:

"Airlines with the B777-200LR can fly nonstop London to Sydney in 18 hours and there's very little any airport, be it Changi or Bangkok, can do if an airline decides to bypass," Shukor said.

SIA is already making nonstop flights to the U.S. using Airbus' (ABI.YY) A340-500 aircraft. What worries Singapore's Changi, Asia's sixth busiest airport by arrivals, is the 777-200LR (long range) that rival aircraft maker Boeing Inc. (BA) is developing.

The long-range version of the 777 is fitted with raked wingtips, a wider wingspan and is powered by higher thrust engines, giving additional cruise altitude and range. It has been designed to compete with the A340-500, which has a flight range of 16,700 kilometers.

With a list price of US$209 million to US$232 million, the 777-200LR has an advantage over the slightly cheaper Airbus A340-500 as Boeing claims its plane burns at least 20% less fuel, even as airlines are getting squeezed by high oil prices.



NO URLS in signature
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5689 times:

Quoting MidnightMike (Thread starter):
"Airlines with the B777-200LR can fly nonstop London to Sydney in 18 hours and there's very little any airport, be it Changi or Bangkok, can do if an airline decides to bypass," Shukor said.

I don't see how this can negatively affect an airport such as SIN or BKK. I believe it has already been discussed that if the 777-200LR was introduced by say QF, they would only serve a high yielding passenger base with these flights, while regular flights with such stopovers would continue for the rest, who want to pay less or just want the convenience of a brief layover to stretch their legs.

The A345 and 772LR are niche aircraft. I don't think this small C-Market they represent would put those airports in "danger". Besides, we don't even know if QF (or maybe even BA) is going to order the 772LR or not, otherwise, we won't see ULH flights from LHR to SYD/MEL for a while.


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5531 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1):
The A345 and 772LR are niche aircraft. I don't think this small C-Market they represent would put those airports in "danger". Besides, we don't even know if QF (or maybe even BA) is going to order the 772LR or not, otherwise, we won't see ULH flights from LHR to SYD/MEL for a while.

Maybe they are getting concerned with the future, what we have a niche aircraft now, could be the norm in the future?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineXiaotung From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 840 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5483 times:

Personally I can't stand the long hour flight. I would prefer a stop somewhere in the middle.

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5457 times:

The B787 will open up a lot more city pairs (bypassing hubs) than will the B777-200LR. However, hub carriers also benefit as they can then profitably serve more cities using newer generation aircraft, so it cuts both ways.

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9640 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

Eroding some of the high yielding passengers would definitely hurt SQ. SQ does well with all of the connections that it gets, but nonstop flights between Europe and Australia would hurt the bottom line because SQ would be flying comparatively more economy passengers where margins are less.

But that is not to say that SQ will lose a lot of its traffic. When the 744 came around the number of flights transiting through HNL shrunk. But it doesn't look like the ultra long haul jets will do the same since they are more expensive to operate since they have a fewer number of seats than the 747s and A380s. Transiting through hubs will still happen.

If you look at the New York to Singapore market, SQ has a nonstop EWR-SIN and a one stop JFK-FRA-SIN. If you price it out in economy, you are likely to find better fares on the more economical 744 flight through FRA.

If the 772LR can do Europe to Australia nonstop and take the elite passengers away from carriers like SQ, then SQ will suffer a bit. Profits will be down, but that probably doesn't mean that the carrier will be hurt too much.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5222 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Eroding some of the high yielding passengers would definitely hurt SQ.

Not to nitpick, but the article is about Changi Airport, not Singapore Airlines.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5083 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1):
believe it has already been discussed that if the 777-200LR was introduced by say QF, they would only serve a high yielding passenger base with these flights,

I don't believe that's true, given that QF felt that the economics of a 200 passenger 772LR (which Boeing said could do the nonstop) was unsatisfactory. Admittedly, they aren't looking to get 325 passengers, I suspect, but even if you go with 240-250 as a required passenger load, that's going to have a fair number of Y seats.

Ultimately, QF and BA will offer nonstops. It's just a matter of time and aircraft. Not having to stop in SIN/KUL/DXB is going to be their big differentiator in the end. Otherwise, they might as well hand the route over to EK.

Steve


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5039 times:

Singapore's government has wisely leveraged their strategically excellent location to make the city into an important destination unto itself.

I think scheduled ULR flights will become a reality someday but I think the expense of them will keep one-stops around for a long time to come for the majority of passengers.

Who knows-- perhaps more and more businessmen will, after a few runs on the non-stop LHR-SYD run, ask their counterparts to meet them halfway--in Singapore. It could happen.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4988 times:

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 7):
I don't believe that's true, given that QF felt that the economics of a 200 passenger 772LR (which Boeing said could do the nonstop) was unsatisfactory. Admittedly, they aren't looking to get 325 passengers, I suspect, but even if you go with 240-250 as a required passenger load, that's going to have a fair number of Y seats.

The 772LR can make the route I believe with a only J and Y+ cabin and the just 200 PAX you mentioned, but not year round as it is (due to the strong headwinds on westbounds in the winter if I'm not mistaken). I recall Boeing did propose a 777-200ULR with an over 10,000 nm range but would in this case the economics still be unsatisfactory and what about possible weight restrictions on SYD-LHR during the winter?


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4954 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 9):
I recall Boeing did propose a 777-200ULR with an over 10,000 nm range but would in this case the economics still be unsatisfactory and what about possible weight restrictions on SYD-LHR during the winter?

Whose winter?


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9640 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 6):
Not to nitpick, but the article is about Changi Airport, not Singapore Airlines.

Very true, I didn't really bring up the point that a 772LR operated by British Airways or Qantas would affect SIN because fewer 744s would stop through there. I think the bigger factor will be the affect on traffic drawn by SQ. QF and BA already have much of the traffic and will only keep if not take more traffic if there are nonstop flights. SIA is the reason why Singapore is an air hub, not the few transiting BA, SQ and EK flights.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8272 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4768 times:

While a non-stop between Australia and the UK would work for some people I don't think that most travelers will pay the extra money. SIN has been a very handy hub for QF, with flights from, say, PER feeding the SIN-LHR flight. I think that will continue for a long time.

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13124 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
When the 744 came around the number of flights transiting through HNL shrunk.

Good example. Slowly but surely the role of hubs deminishes. I'm not saying they'll disapear. Eventually, we'll have a number of "super hubs" around the world to service the "regional" markets. But the days of less viable hubs will drop. Since Changi has good O&D (anyone have the numbers?), it won't disapear. But this could be like HNL where the # of overflights impacts the economy.

I actually thought with the a330 HNL would be used as a hub more... but it seems I was wrong and that the 787/350 will be out soon enough allowing mega bypass of hubs.

from the article, I foung this interesting:

Quote:
Currently, only one of the top 10 destinations from Changi - London - is long haul.

I guess LAX and NYC don't count as most of the traffic is with a stop? Or are they true niche markets?

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 7):
Ultimately, QF and BA will offer nonstops. It's just a matter of time and aircraft. Not having to stop in SIN/KUL/DXB is going to be their big differentiator in the end. Otherwise, they might as well hand the route over to EK.

More ULH aircraft will appear. It is only a matter of time. Personally, I think around 2012 (or earlier) we'll see a 788HGW that will rock the ULH world. Will Airbus counter? I hope so!  bigthumbsup  There is some speculation that the 787-10 will get a wing extension. If so, imagine if you will the 788 or 789 with that wing doing ULH.  Smile  Smile  Smile

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineSwissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4612 times:

I think so too that the high end traveler will shift to these ultra long flights and
surly will effect some airlines like SQ, CX......... but PhilSquares pointed out
some airports will feel the effects even more.

I always enjoyed stopping in BKK, HKG or SIN stretch my legs for a short time and take my connection to .......... Most people can handle 10 to 14 hrs.
in a AC, but 17 to 22 hrs. ????? Not me I still will stop somewhere in between.

Cheers,


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 10):
Whose winter?

I meant European winter, or at least the time where headwinds are the strongest.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4557 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 15):
I meant European winter, or at least the time where headwinds are the strongest.

Thanks. How about the Australian winter?


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4986 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4454 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 9):
due to the strong headwinds on westbounds in the winter if I'm not mistaken).

You guys don't get it... instead of flying west bound you fly east bound and take advantage of the +- 40k tail wind.
Taking the tail wind into account there is very little in it east bound or west bound on the basis of still air.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4252 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
Eventually, we'll have a number of "super hubs" around the world to service the "regional" markets.

Except when the super hub becomes too large and requires higher landing fees and slot restrictions.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

Quoting Swissy (Reply 14):

I always enjoyed stopping in BKK, HKG or SIN stretch my legs for a short time and take my connection to .......... Most people can handle 10 to 14 hrs.
in a AC, but 17 to 22 hrs. ????? Not me I still will stop somewhere in between.

the whole "shopping" thing gets a bit old after a while.....a few times here and there is nice...but after a while, I just prefer flying nonstop.....and 20-30 years ago, who would have thought even a 10-15 hour flight...now those are becoming standard......



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3641 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
There is some speculation that the 787-10 will get a wing extension.

Unless you mean different raked wingtips, I doubt that the B787-10 will get a wing extension. I think it is more likely that Boeing would fit fuel tanks to the horizontal stabilizers (for a B787-8ER also). In the (I think unlikely) event that Boeing build a (A340-600 length) B787-11X, then a wing root extension would be almost mandatory -- as would a new undercarriage.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3557 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
the whole "shopping" thing gets a bit old after a while.....a few times here and there is nice...but after a while, I just prefer flying nonstop.....and 20-30 years ago, who would have thought even a 10-15 hour flight...now those are becoming standard......

And then it hit me. Airbus is obviously catering towards the womenfolk who like shopping. Boeing is screwed.  Smile



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3529 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 16):
Thanks. How about the Australian winter?

That would be the European summer IIRC, and that's a time where headwinds aren't that strong if I'm not mistaken.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 17):
You guys don't get it... instead of flying west bound you fly east bound and take advantage of the +- 40k tail wind.
Taking the tail wind into account there is very little in it east bound or west bound on the basis of still air.

Yes, but can it make an eastbound SYD-LHR flight nonstop? I tried to find a possible eastbound route SYD-LHR with the Great Circle Mapper but I get the impression that eastbound SYD-LHR is just too far away, even for the proposed 777-200ULR or without ETOPS compliance. I don't see how tailwinds can help in that direction with such distance.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3492 times:

Why can't it be -

Long Range Jets Open up new Oppoertunities for Singapore Airport

Imagine being able to fly direct to so many more places?



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

The only flights I can see SQ losing out to as a result of longer range aircraft are North America to India. OZ/NZ to Europe are a hypothetical possibility in the future. On the other hand, SQ benefits from being able to offer nonstop service to North America. On balance, I think the advent of longer range aircraft is a net benefit for SQ and Changi.

25 Cloudyapple : I think Dubai is a bigger threat than ULRs.
26 Zvezda : I agree that DXB is a bigger threat to SIN than ULRs are. However, URLs are a bigger threat to DXB than to SIN.
27 Cloudyapple : However(!), ULRs are a bigger opportunity than threat to Dubai. Imagine Emirates flying to 50 gateways in North America, and 25 in South America, non
28 Zvezda : I can just as easily imagine nonstop flights from BOI to HRE (bypassing DXB). Neither seems more or less plausible than the other.
29 SunriseValley : If you input into Great Circle Mapper : SYD- 89.5N 110W-LHR you will get a distance of about 9754nm. The shortest great circle distance over Russia i
30 David_itl : and in the case of the UK, there are tens of thousands of passengers who already bypassing hubs....specifically LHR! A recent survey by the CAA sugges
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...
ULR Planes Threaten SIN Airport's Hub Status posted Wed Jan 11 2006 15:11:30 by UALMMFlyer
Seattle PI: Airbus Vs. Boeing Long Range Jets posted Wed Feb 4 2004 12:20:33 by United777
Long-range Jets posted Wed Jun 23 1999 04:42:05 by Gattboy
UA 757s Long Range International Flights? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 05:59:40 by MIAUA777
Long Range, Comfortable RJ posted Mon Aug 28 2006 18:29:14 by Boston92
Small Planes Equal Long Range? posted Thu May 18 2006 22:03:01 by ContinentalGuy
Bwia Long-range posted Sat Apr 8 2006 21:02:55 by BA747YYZ
B737 / A19 Flying Long Range - Special Version? posted Wed Mar 15 2006 04:16:03 by GBan
Big LH Long Range Order To Be Announced In March posted Tue Feb 28 2006 00:44:04 by Bolu340
Turn Around Times For Long Haul Jets posted Wed Jan 25 2006 09:53:09 by Qfa763