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.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 11052 posts, RR: 45 Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 3158 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.
Zu fettigem Käse und kalorienreicher Kunstmarmelade, nehme ich einen Doppelkorn.
MidnightMike From United States, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 23 Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3000 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?
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 9660 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2926 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.
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5280 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2781 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.
I design airplane parts for a living and am that guy that mechanics hate and blame for everything... the Design Engineer
Sllevin From United States, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2552 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.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2508 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.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 11052 posts, RR: 45 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2457 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?
Zu fettigem Käse und kalorienreicher Kunstmarmelade, nehme ich einen Doppelkorn.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2423 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?
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5280 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2313 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.
I design airplane parts for a living and am that guy that mechanics hate and blame for everything... the Design Engineer
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 1957 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2237 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.
Lightsaber From United States, joined Jan 2005, 3881 posts, RR: 71 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2093 times:
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! 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.
Swissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1245 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2081 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.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1831 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1923 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.
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 12773 posts, RR: 57 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1570 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 11052 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jan 2006, 258 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 9660 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3739 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
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. 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1245 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1831 posts,