Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ's Recognition Of The A330: Belated?  
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6892 posts, RR: 63
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

We are told that SIA are leasing 19 A330-300s from Airbus to bridge them over until their 787s and A350s arrive.

Might it be argued that they have been a bit belated in recognising the suitability of the A330-300 in the south-east Asia regional market? Consider how many airlines fly them and when they first put them into service.

1995 Cathay Pacific
1995 Dragonair
1995 Thai
1995 Malaysian

1996 Garuda

1997 Philippines
1997 Korean

These seven airlines have a combined fleet of 101 A330-300s and have been using them for a decade or so. During this time SQ looked at the A330 several times but always rejected it, preferring to 'misuse' 777-200ERs on some regional routes.

A second wave of airlines also decided that the A330-300 was what they needed. Again, these are the dates when they entered service.

2002 Qantas

2003 EVA (they actually have -200s but they use them on regional routes)

2004 China Airlines
2004 Asiana

2005 China Southern (their initial order for -200s has been followed by a larger one of -300s)

2006 China Eastern
2006 Air China (-200s)

And now Hainan is adding seven A330s.

In short, almost every serious competitor in south-east Asia chose the A330 (mostly the -300) while SQ considered it but then looked elsewhere. Now, belatedly, they are acquiring the large fleet of A330s that they could and, arguably, should have been flying ten years ago.

A rare example of SQ simply getting it wrong?

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

Quoting PM (Thread starter):
In short, almost every serious competitor in south-east Asia chose the A330 (mostly the -300) while SQ considered it but then looked elsewhere. Now, belatedly, they are acquiring the large fleet of A330s that they could and, arguably, should have been flying ten years ago.

They are leasing the A330's, not buying them, and the fact that we suddenly haven't heard any complaining from SQ regarding the A380 delays speaks volumes regarding the deal.

Looks like Airbus and SQ are both winners here.


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

Quoting Khobar (Reply 1):
and the fact that we suddenly haven't heard any complaining from SQ regarding the A380 delays speaks volumes regarding the deal.

Maybe about the deal, perhaps about the performance of the A380.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 1):
Looks like Airbus and SQ are both winners here.


Every aircraft deal should have two winners, if not someone shouldn't be doing what he's doing.

Quoting PM (Thread starter):
A rare example of SQ simply getting it wrong?

At the time of low fuel prices SIA might not have had it wrong with misusing the 777 rather than having a subfleet of A330's. However, how many airframes does one carrier need to operate of a certain type to make it an economical viable fleet? 19 certainly sounds nowhere near a small fleet.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2771 times:

SQ have been well aware of the A330's performance. SQ chose at a time when fuel was inexpensive to operate B777s in order to enjoy the savings of commonality instead of a mix of A330s and B777s. Now, SQ are leasing A330s at a time of high fuel prices to bridge the gap between the time SQ will start retiring B777s and the time they will start taking delivery of A350s and B787s. Also, SQ's cost of leasing A330s now is quite low compared to what it would have been several years ago.

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6892 posts, RR: 63
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2679 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
However, how many airframes does one carrier need to operate of a certain type to make it an economical viable fleet? 19 certainly sounds nowhere near a small fleet.

Indeed. Cathay have a fleet of 32 (in service or on order) but SQ's fleet of A330-300s will be bigger than Dragonair (16), China Airlines (16), Korean (16), China Eastern (15), Thai (12), Malaysia (11), Qantas (10), Philippines (8), China Southern (8), Garuda (6) or Asiana (6). Some of the above also have -200s but only China Eastern (20) and Air China (20) will - just - exceed the SQ total of all models of A330. "Belated" their decision may (or may not) be but SIA will have one of the largest fleets in the region.


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...
The Future Of The A330 posted Mon Jul 24 2006 23:03:15 by Astuteman
What Is The 'Economic Range' Of The A330-300 posted Fri Dec 16 2005 00:07:02 by Boysteve
Price Of The A330 posted Thu Jun 16 2005 18:11:00 by Dsa
Your Impressions Of The A330-200? posted Sun Apr 25 2004 12:43:21 by Jkw777
10 Years Of The A330 posted Sat Nov 16 2002 04:08:26 by Gigneil
What Do You Think Of The A330? posted Thu Nov 29 2001 20:23:46 by EGFF
Is Air Transat Using The L1011 Instead Of The A330 posted Fri Sep 7 2001 05:46:37 by Gmonney
Why No Further Development Of The A330? posted Wed Aug 15 2001 14:48:47 by Rabenschlag
The Details Of NW's Selection Of The A330... posted Mon Jul 2 2001 08:33:50 by XFSUgimpLB41X
Popularity Of The A330...More Orders! posted Tue Jan 30 2001 06:36:53 by VH-BZF