Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Singapore Airlines Rules Out A345 Replacement  
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16089 times:

Flight International, 1 August 2006, by Nicholas Ionides (Fair Use Excerpt):

Singapore Flag Carrier Decides Against Acquisition of Boeing 777-200LR As It Orders A350 XWB And More A380s

...The airline has decided that it is not worth replacing the aircraft or increasing the size of the fleet and the five examples will continue to operate on the two Singapore-USA routes. It confirms it is "no longer considering the 777-200LR..."

As FI phrases it in the caption of the A345 picture illustrating the article: "Uncertainty hanging over the the future of SIA's A340-500 fleet has receded." This news should result in one less regular thread topic on A.net: "When Will SQ Order The 772LR?"  Smile

[Edited 2006-07-31 09:38:53]

[Edited 2006-07-31 09:40:17]

[Edited 2006-07-31 09:58:23]

86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6914 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16049 times:

Hmmm. A small vote of some confidence in the A345.

SQ do seem to do things differently from their regional competitors. For example, they were alone (until this month) in not flying the A330-300. Moreover, they have ordered both the 787 and A350XWB. They seem to know what they are doing.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15978 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 1):
Hmmm. A small vote of some confidence in the A345.

I don't think it has much to do with a vote of confidence, but more that Boeing isn't willing to provide a sweet deal that would involve taking the A345. I've argued before that SQ won't be willing to sell the A345 at a steeply reduced price to someone else, subsidizing that airlines operations and registering a loss on their books. Besides, if they take A333s, the A345 won't be such an odd ball in the fleet.

Quoting PM (Reply 1):
SQ do seem to do things differently from their regional competitors. For example, they were alone (until this month) in not flying the A330-300

Well they probably got a good deal on their derated 772ERs that their regional competitors wouldn't have gotten, and with the A330s coming online later this decade I suppose they will uprate them (I believe it is a software issue only).



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10025 posts, RR: 96
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15849 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
I've argued before that SQ won't be willing to sell the A345 at a steeply reduced price to someone else, subsidizing that airlines operations and registering a loss on their books.

Are you thinking that they'll persevere with the A345's until such time as an A350X or 787 long-range replacement is introduced?

Edit - thanks for the post, Leelaw.

Regards

[Edited 2006-07-31 10:07:35]

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15782 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
Are you thinking that they'll persevere with the A345's until such time as an A350X or 787 long-range replacement is introduce

Certainly looks like SQ has made the judgement that the increased payload capability, addition of first-class seats, more cargo etc., of the 772LR isn't worth the cost of acquisition for the relatively short "interim period."

[Edited 2006-07-31 10:16:40]

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15640 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
Are you thinking that they'll persevere with the A345's until such time as an A350X or 787 long-range replacement is introduced?

If they need additional long range capacity I think they would buy the 772LR. But they aren't going to do so unless they need extra capacity because they would have to offload the A345.

Or until someone introduces better equipment on that route. But that isn't likely to happen anytime soon as US airlines aren't buying anything capable of flying that SIN-EWR or SIN-JFK non-stop.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineGneissGuy From Singapore, joined Jul 2006, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15557 times:

Well, although the long range non stop SIN-EWK and SIN-SFO flight flights may not be making much money for SQ, i think they're pretty happy with the A345s and so are the passengers in the Executive Economy class.

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15482 times:

The rap against the A345 on SQ's ULRs was they couldn't outfit the cabin with first-class seats and still make the range, while the 772LR could. Perhaps this is a stretch, but maybe the subtle message here is that SQ has decided that after more than two-years of A345 operations, the typical first-class passenger doesn't much care for ULR flights at the high premium fare providing such service would require?

[Edited 2006-07-31 11:09:21]

User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15326 times:

Well there goes the 777-200LRs big opportunity.

I think many posters totally over-estimated the strength of first class these days. When I fly on Singapore Airlines long haul in first class there are only three or four other passengers in the cabin...and not because they couldn't rush out before the doors were closed either.

It is a similar experience among my acquaintances not just on Singapore Airlines but Cathay Pacific, another preferred carrier.

Long haul business class on competent airlines has become too good compared to the fare in first. It will continue to expand in opulence in the new product initiatives we will see next year, yet shrink in numbers. Eventually it will cease, but for the time being you'll see the airlines aiming to serve not the 10-14 seats typically found in first but half unoccupied, but something between 9 and 6 seats.

It is balderdash to suggest by the way that the Singaporeans would subsidize an airline to buy them for next to nothing and then run them. Really. These jets rip tens of millions of dollars worth of lost premium revenue off the American carriers that are all but clueless about what it takes to be an Asia quality carrier, and that alone makes the small margins they earn on the A345s worth a lot more than the direct contribution to the balance sheet.

Antares


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10025 posts, RR: 96
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 4):
Certainly looks like SQ has made the judgement that the increased payload capability, addition of first-class seats, more cargo etc., of the 772LR isn't worth the cost of acquisition for the relatively short "interim period."

Interestingly, when you look at the specifications that have just been published for the A350X, the 265t A350-900's that SQ intend to order have a near-identical published capability to the 375t A340-500's that SQ fly today, namely 314 pax over 8500Nm for A359X vs 313 pax over 8650Nm for A345.
That's pretty impressive given the A359X is only 70% of the MTOW of the A345.

Regards


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15106 times:

My opinion: this decision is more about the ability to make money flying ULH routes than it is a decision about airplanes.

There has been speculation that SQ's two ULH routes have not been as successful as SQ had hoped.....it could be that passenges are simply not willing to pay a premium to fly on the ULH services and/or there is not adquate demand for the ULH services, or its a function of both factors. Thus, SQ is not investing in new airplanes for the services....thus the A345s will stay for the near term future and maybe ULH will make more sense when the super-duper versions of the A350 come on line. For now, the business case for buying new 772LRs (which are quite expensive) to replace rather young A345s (which have limited value on the second hand market....the ULH market is very small) is not there if the ULH route's financial result is marginal.

SQ had far greater ULH plans.....dont forget that SQ dropped five options for additional A345s (and its very unlike SQ to not exercise options)....SQ will continue to fly the SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR routes with the A345 and will like take a look at the entire ULH situation in the coming years, when new airplanes are available and when fuel prices have hopefully moderated.


User currently offlineKdm From New Zealand, joined Feb 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15056 times:

Quoting Antares (Reply 8):
When I fly on Singapore Airlines long haul in first class there are only three or four other passengers in the cabin

You are right. I flew Singapore to Auckland first class and was the only passenger (there may have been no one on the plane for all I knew  Smile )

Long haul to London/Singapore in first class is usually quite busy but rarely full.

Business class on SQ is excellent, the only slightly annoying thing is the beds whch are not completely flat.

I can usually justify the extra cost to fly business but hardly ever can justify large jump to first class.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15038 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 11):
There has been speculation that SQ's two ULH routes have not been as successful as SQ had hoped.....it could be that passenges are simply not willing to pay a premium to fly on the ULH services and/or there is not adquate demand for the ULH services, or its a function of both factors.

Alas, the speculation is incorrect. The Airline is happy with demand, especially in Raffles Class.

Unfortunately it is the macro environment (jet fuel price) and the operational economics that has put a dampner on the ULR services.

It would be interesting if someone could find out when SIA cancelled the A345 options considering that Mr. Chew said that ULR operations were unprofitable from the end of calendar year 2004.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14990 times:

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 13):
Alas, the speculation is incorrect. The Airline is happy with demand, especially in Raffles Class



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 13):
Mr. Chew said that ULR operations were unprofitable from the end of calendar year 2004.

Well, demand and fares are not good enough, are they? If the flights are losing money, then either fares for the ULH service must increase and/or higher loads are required.

If SQ can make money in general from its operations with high fuel prices, then why are the ULH flights not profitable?


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14698 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
Well they probably got a good deal on their derated 772ERs that their regional competitors wouldn't have gotten, and with the A330s coming online later this decade I suppose they will uprate them (I believe it is a software issue only).

SQ will be selling those B777-200s starting in 2009 (probably selling them in 2008 with a short lease-back). I expect SQ would let the buyers decide on whether or not to uprate them.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
Are you thinking that they'll persevere with the A345's until such time as an A350X or 787 long-range replacement is introduced?

I can't see SQ keeping them longer than that and SQ seem to have rejected letting them go before that.

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 7):
Perhaps this is a stretch, but maybe the subtle message here is that SQ has decided that after more than two-years of A345 operations, the typical first-class passenger doesn't much care for ULR flights at the high premium fare providing such service would require?

That seems like a stretch. This looks to me like the capital cost of buying 5 B777-200LRs minus the revenue from selling 5 A340-500s (probably about $1B net) was more than the additional revenue expected minus the lower operating costs between 2008 (when the B777-200LRs could be acquired) and arrival of the B787-9s in 2011.

In other words, SQ added up the savings in operating cost for 5 B777-200LRs over three years vs 5 A340-500s and added to that the additional revenue that could be gained by operating the more capable aircraft for three years and found that the sum was less than the $1B or so it would cost to replace the A340s in 2008 (factoring in resale value of both types).

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
Interestingly, when you look at the specifications that have just been published for the A350X, the 265t A350-900's that SQ intend to order have a near-identical published capability to the 375t A340-500's that SQ fly today, namely 314 pax over 8500Nm for A359X vs 313 pax over 8650Nm for A345.
That's pretty impressive given the A359X is only 70% of the MTOW of the A345.

I've been suggesting that the B777 will not be competitive with the A350. Thanks for helping make that point with a fine example.

If anyone wants a large VIP aircraft for delivery in 2011 or 2012, give SQ a call.


User currently offlineSparkingWave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14308 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
I've been suggesting that the B777 will not be competitive with the A350. Thanks for helping make that point with a fine example.

The 777 of 2006 won't be competitive with the A350 of 2012? Okay, but what about the 777 of 2012 or shortly afterwards? Do you think Boeing is going to really stand still in about 6-8 years worth of time?

SparkingWave ~~~



Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
User currently offlineIrobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13922 times:

As I'm a big fan of the "baby-340s" (-200 and -500), this is good news to me. Nice to hear another vote of confidence for this great aircraft.

User currently offlineAndyHunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13884 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Well, I just flew the A345 LAX-SIN in Executive Economy three days ago, what a great flight.....and talking to the crew, the flight is ALWAYS 100% full!

Regards

Andrew
A Happy A345 passenger!



Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlineCHANGYOU From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Again...Since when it mentioned the ULH service is not profitable or making marginal profits? All i know from the mgt before that because of ETOPS issues that the 345 is more preferred for the time being. But some SQ pilots here always stay firm that the 345 will go or be replaced by the 777LR. Hmm...Wonder how accurate they can be.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13788 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
Are you thinking that they'll persevere with the A345's until such time as an A350X or 787 long-range replacement is introduced?

I've thought this for a while. The 789, to me, looks to be the jet SQ has chosen for this long/thin routes. With more range than the 345 and more cargo capacity, it can carry a similar number of pax more efficiently.

NYC, DFW, SFO, LAX, IAD, ORD, MIA etc. are within operational range of a 200 seat 789...

Quoting Antares (Reply 8):
Well there goes the 777-200LRs big opportunity.

An unbiased comment as always. AC, EK don't present big oportunities...

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 16):
As I'm a big fan of the "baby-340s" (-200 and -500), this is good news to me. Nice to hear another vote of confidence for this great aircraft.

I think the 345 is one of the best proportioned jets around, so I'm glad to see it remain in SQ colors.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSingaporegirl From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 302 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13732 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 7):
The rap against the A345 on SQ's ULRs was they couldn't outfit the cabin with first-class seats and still make the range, while the 772LR could. Perhaps this is a stretch, but maybe the subtle message here is that SQ has decided that after more than two-years of A345 operations, the typical first-class passenger doesn't much care for ULR flights at the high premium fare providing such service would require?

actually none of our 772ers are equipped with the sky suites/first class seats as well. anyway, so we have to wait until airbus comes up with 359lr for us to replace the 345s?



Ladies & Gentlemen, we will now demonstrate the use of the safety equipment on this aircraft...
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13646 times:

Quoting Singaporegirl (Reply 20):
actually none of our 772ers are equipped with the sky suites/first class seats as well. anyway, so we have to wait until airbus comes up with 359lr for us to replace the 345s?

Theres a -900R scheduled for 2015 with a range of 9500nm carrying 310 passengers approx.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13601 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Being able to haul more cargo AND passangers is so overrated. So is using less fuel.

Good to see that SQ is supporting Airbus.


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13560 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 1):
Hmmm. A small vote of some confidence in the A345.

SQ do seem to do things differently from their regional competitors. For example, they were alone (until this month) in not flying the A330-300. Moreover, they have ordered both the 787 and A350XWB. They seem to know what they are doing.

They sure do. I used to think SQ really knew what they were doing but I am not so sure. Firstly they bought A343 and it underperformed and was ultimately replaced by the B777 which came to the market two years later. SQ would eventually build up the biggest fleet of B777(Although EK are destined to surpass them and I don't think SQ are too impressed with that)

Then SQ order A345 which also underperforms on their ULH sectors. Whilst there is no doubt the 772LR performs better there is doubt whether the difference is enough to make good money but obviously not enough to warrant fleet changeover.

You would think they would have learnt their lesson by now but they have gone back for third go which makes me believe this A350XWB order has originated from the negotiations for A380 delays.

I will get flamed for this but I believe the options for A380 and MOU for A350 originated out of these negotiations. I am sure they have been offered at a price that NOBODY could refuse. Whatever the price they got them does not matter to Airbus as they have gained credibility by having a blue chip customer ordering A350 and finally some good A380 news because someone finally placed an order/firmed up options after so much bad A380 press.

Make no mistake SQ can't lose the deal will have performance contract guarantees that will have A sweating but the killer deal here for SQ is that they have shocked Boeing who will came to the next negotiations with a much sharper pencil thats for sure.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 9):
Interestingly, when you look at the specifications that have just been published for the A350X, the 265t A350-900's that SQ intend to order have a near-identical published capability to the 375t A340-500's that SQ fly today, namely 314 pax over 8500Nm for A359X vs 313 pax over 8650Nm for A345.
That's pretty impressive given the A359X is only 70% of the MTOW of the A345.

Very impressive Astuteman but they are paper only and how much credibilty do you give Airbus when they spend two years getting it wrong and then design or should I say produce a brochure of a 777 killer that is still 6 years from launch in about 8 weeks... "Yeah Right!!!! . When will Y3 appear and what improvements will Boeing make to 777 before then.

On Airbus's current form I have my doubts but bring on the competition. I just can't see A350 having anything like payload uplift and range of 777-300ER with 95K engines... time will tell.

Things may change a little when SQ get first hand experience of their GE powered 77Ws, then they will know why their competitors at EK have 74 long range 777's on order(54 77W 12 772LR and 8 777Fs)

Is this a ploy on SQs part to get rock bottom prices 772LR????


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13496 times:

Quoting Singaporegirl (Reply 20):

IIRC, a member who is SQ cabin crew has said some passengers were complaining that the A345s weren't oufitted with first-class seating...perhaps you'd like to comment based on the feedback you've received from passengers?


25 Danny : The only operator so far: PIA had serious concerns about 772LR performance.
26 Post contains images Astuteman : It's interesting that (IIRC) initially SQ are placing the 789's on shorter routes, and the A350X's on longer routes. It will be interesting to see wh
27 Post contains images Scbriml : Halibut, is that you? As Zvezda clearly explained, the very high purchase costs of the 772LR obviously couldn't be overcome by their superior perform
28 Post contains images Manni : One of the more popular airliners.net legends in regards to SQ gone up in smoke. And it all started with SQ removing the name 'Leadership' from their
29 KrisYYZ : Isn't that serious concern due to the airport elevation in Pakistan? Would SQ be interested in AC's 2 A345's? They will be leaving the fleet in about
30 FCKC : This declaration of SQ , means they will not order anymore either 777-200ERs or LRs , but probably only 300ERs.This , coupled with the arrival of the
31 Dutchjet : The 773A probably has a secure future at SQ......its perfect for high demand shorter haul runs. It will be interesting watching the SQ fleet evolve..
32 Zvezda : I have no doubt that there will continue to be incremental improvements to the B777 line and that those (along with increased flexibility in pricing)
33 Stitch : Plus so far Airbus does not seem to be interested in producing an A350 model that would service the high-density short-haul market, so the 773A will
34 Ikramerica : Either way. Both are fleets of 20. I assumed the 350 would be used on regional routes because it will replace the 777 doing the same as well as the 3
35 YULWinterSkies : Well, after having trained the crews, after having invested in all the logistics related to management of this small fleet, I'm not sure it would be w
36 Airbazar : Correct me if I'm wrong but when SQ ordered the A343 the 777 was not yet available. Moreover, the underperforming issue with the A343 was the engine
37 Singaporegirl : in the beginning yes, but like i've mentioned before, our pax used to ask about the lack of sky suites on our long haul 772s as well. obviously the c
38 CHANGYOU : I believe it was the weight issue that's preventing the skysuites being install on the 772ER. And the coming 773W will not be install any FCL seats si
39 Post contains links and images Halibut : No ! However , the propping up of Airbus by SQ saved them millions , no doubt ! Hhmm Halibut Airbus Saved By Airline Industry?Monopoly,no Way! (by Ha
40 StuckInCA : Maybe it's more related to payload. I (and my coworkers) are certainly willing to pay a premium (more than they charge) for LAX-SIN rather than conne
41 Morvious : I always thought that the A350 was bought for the long range routes, while the 787 was there for regional. The 777 was always to big for its purpose?
42 Texfly101 : So true...its all about the money. These airlines work A and B against each other, taking advantage of either maunfactors weakness or vulnerability.
43 Trex8 : SQ was quoted on some other thread saying that
44 Post contains links Leelaw : The full text of the FI article is now available online and the second half relates to: ...SIA is meanwhile reviewing offers for engines to power the
45 Dutchjet : There was a discussion concerning SQ orderding both the 789 and A359 (which surprised a lot of us) and an a.net member proposed that the 789s would b
46 Post contains images Glideslope : Agreed, good for the competition.
47 CRJ900 : "Extensive test flights" by manufacturers are always great, with fantastic results, but the truth really comes out when airlines start flying them on
48 DAYflyer : Well, it is exactly what may here have said: They will order and operate what makes sense to them as an airline.
49 Post contains images Stitch : If the 773ERs will have a different (and inferior) First Class to the A380s, then why has SQ consistently pushed back delivery of their 773ER fleet o
50 Sllevin : There are two factors in SQ's decision: 1) What would it cost to switch to the 772LR? 2) what would it get them? I suspect that SQ does not believe th
51 Post contains images Pieinthesky : ROTFLMAO. Yep, never made a full year loss. They obviously have NO IDEA what they are doing. God I love this website.
52 Antares : Another major non-design factor is at play. China. SQ used to trade on its utility as a hub to all Asia. This is being destroyed by the rise of China
53 Post contains images Jacobin777 : it turned out to be nothing more than bad journalism....the -200LR is performing well... I thought VS was making money...
54 Antares : VS is making money. But the 600 million quid spent on the 49% stake six years ago and the dividends collected since then wouldn't constitute an accept
55 Atmx2000 : Hey, I've arguing that SQ's success was partly due to Singapore's avoidance of the long term economic mismanagement of countries in the South and Sou
56 Brons2 : Are these RR powered -200ER's that SQ will be selling? If so, they should be calling up Delta headquarters.
57 Zvezda : Yes, all B777s currently in the SQ fleet have RR engines. Of course, the B777-300ERs will have GE engines.
58 PM : You mean that neither Boeing nor PIA realised that some of Pakistan's airports were high when the 772LRs were ordered?! Perhaps Airbus are right. Boe
59 Stitch : It's 60 more 777s sold, improving the ROI of the program. And many of those customers who bought 773As went on to buy 773ERs, so it helped generate s
60 PM : Agreed. I'm not suggesting that Boeing made a mistake adding the -300, merely that it isn't selling any more and so Airbus has no great incentive to
61 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ok..got ya.... ...so its not making as "much" money as should be...well..they invested in an airline company, and given how things have changed the p
62 Antares : Jacobin777, Despite their robust financial success SQ was far too late in recognising that the most profits in airlines are made from well run, well b
63 Post contains images Pieinthesky : Yep, a profitable airline holding a large chunk of slots at the worlds most sought after airport was a strange thing to buy into.
64 Airbazar : This is only half true. SQ developed Silk Air long before the term Low Cost Carrier had made it into the main stream of the aviation industry. Whethe
65 Antares : Airbazar, I was talking about the offshore options available (or maybe not yet available) to Singapore Airlines. Silk Air is interesting, but tainted
66 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Antares..........as you well know, every investment won't "pan" out as one would want it to...for example, who would have thought 3 years ago AA's sto
67 Ikramerica : This was what I figured as well. I never remember SQ saying much about the 787 order, let alone specifically how they will be used. Now with 330s as
68 Zeke : From SIN a 330 will gladly reach over half of the worlds population. In my view a lot of people from the USA on here have an overrated opinion of the
69 Ikramerica : Always arguing pointless tangents by partially quoting people. Why do you do this Zeke? The 333 (the ones they are getting) will cover the same route
70 Antares : Jacobin777, Good points. But the 8 fold profits on AA represent trading opportunities with a seriously lowered stock price. It is also a timely remind
71 Zeke : Thats your view, I respect that. My view is talking about the current 772/773 fleet or yahoo stock prices on this thread is also a tangent. Do I thin
72 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Actually Antares, AA was basically days away from bankruptcy...I think it is a testament to AA's Chair, Arpey that they were able to avert it... He h
73 Post contains images RIX : - meaning, they don't need anything else flying anywhere else? - here is what Ikramerica said: "787s, in my UNINFORMED opinion, will be used to segme
74 Zvezda : It would make sense to fly the B787s with narrow 9 abreast seating on shorter routes and the A350 with more comfortable 9 abreast seating on longer r
75 Zeke : RIX, I have been living and working in Asia now for the best part of a decade, I consider myself a local here in Hong Kong. Judging by your comments I
76 RIX : - "more comfortable" will be less than 1 cm per seat; I think, it will rather be defined by economy reasons. Sad, but in not so distant future "truly
77 Post contains images Zvezda : You're suggesting that the difference in interior cabin width at seat level between the A350 and the B787 is less than 9cm? In general, customer serv
78 Post contains images Gigneil : I was intentionally avoiding this thread, but I decided to make a harmless observation: The A340-500 is larger than not just A340-200 but -300 as well
79 Ikramerica : so why quote me? i know that...
80 Gigneil : Meh. I felt like it. No real reason. They sorta went together. N
81 Stitch : They used to give good service, and were union then, as well. The vast majority of my flying is on UA and AS, and find service on both to be "decent"
82 Ikramerica : Good enough reason.
83 Kdm : Although I have only flown 1st class a dozen or so times I haven't seen any movie stars etc (at least none I recognised) Normally their seems to be a
84 RIX : - it was 5 inches, wasn't it (correct me if I'm wrong)?
85 Zvezda : Then how do you get less than 1cm per seat? 5 inches divided by 9 seats is about 1.5cm per seat.
86 Post contains images Trex8 : its a US inch, not imperial
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...
Singapore Airlines "Running Out Of Planes & Seats" posted Sat Mar 25 2006 10:31:58 by PlaneHunter
Singapore Airlines With Slides Out At AMS? posted Wed Jul 7 2004 08:18:21 by Airtrader
Retro Skinny Seats On Singapore Airlines A345 posted Tue Jan 6 2004 13:35:19 by Airmale
Singapore Airlines Takes Delivery Of First A345 posted Fri Jan 2 2004 12:17:29 by Singapore_Air
Singapore Airlines A345 Seating Configuration: 181 posted Fri May 2 2003 02:38:16 by Singapore_Air
Singapore Airlines/TATA To Bid For AI|Hindujas Out posted Fri Jul 6 2001 23:01:31 by Singapore_Air
How Is Singapore Airlines An Industry Leader? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 09:03:50 by Shinkai
JAL Chief Rules Out A380. posted Tue Oct 31 2006 06:46:37 by Manni
Singapore Airlines To MAN - Quick Question posted Sun Oct 29 2006 15:50:12 by B742
Singapore Airlines Fleet posted Fri Oct 27 2006 12:44:06 by Sfilipowicz