Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ's Interim Lift A330  
User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 660 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

For year after year SQ evaluated A330 versus B777 and continually rejected the A330 and went on to aquire the biggest B777 fleet (least until EK overtakes SQ)

Then came Farnborough 2006 and the A380 that SQ were avertising as first to fly in 2006 was delayed from mid 2006 to the end of 2006 to mid 2007 and then October 2007. Whilst the intention is not to discuss the A380 debacle what I would like to debate is why suddenly is SQ taking A330.

We know there has been much public criticism of A380 delays and problems and much by SQ themselves but I do think Airbus has been clever in leasing A330 to SQ but at what cost? Has SQ ever leased aircraft before off a manufacturer I cannot recall it.

It must have been a sweet deal but will this hurt Airbus in the long run or benefit them. The EIS is drifting out so far that a real possibility is that SQ aquire 787-10 to replace early 772.

It was quote here that Airbus delays A330F launch due to SQ.. reply 29

Surely the A330F would be a lucrative project especially if someone is ready to order 30 A330F yet Airbus delayed the launch because of 19 cheap leased A330 to SQ whilst waiting for A350XWB. Is this good for Airbus long term or have they been a little short sighted in trying to appease SQ over the A380 debacle? SQ have not signed for A350 yet and maybe they won't.

Leahy has already admitted the A350-1000 (7500nm)is already got less range than an aircraft that SQ is about to fly (77W nearly 8000nm) and will be 11 years newer by design.

The SQ Farnborough deal that seemed good at the time may prove very expensive for Airbus in the long term. The winner is SQ they can't lose with their leased A330 and have extracted compensation in the form of aircraft rather than cash.

I believe CRFP panels is the wrong way to go but time will tell... scratchchin 

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4786 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Thread starter):
For year after year SQ evaluated A330 versus B777 and continually rejected the A330 and went on to aquire the biggest B777 fleet (least until EK overtakes SQ)

IIRC they chose the 772ER to replace the A343, then they "abused" them for regional routes and its these 772Ers operated at lower TOweights that are being replaced with the A333. Given the success of the A333 with other east Asian carriers I suspect if SQ had ever truely compared the A333 to a 772A or even ER, the A333 would have been in their fleet a while ago.


User currently offlineBriguy1974 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

Airbus seems to be giving airplanes away to keep excisting orders from being scrapped. SQ and QF are prime examples of this. Will it work? Time will only tell. In the mean time its hard to listen to A.neters talk about the recent success??? of the A-330 when the orders seem to be part of compensation by Airbus to keep these big customers happy.
Also, do we take into account the discounts that Airbus is giving these customers on these aircraft into the profit/loss margin of the A-380???
Seems to me that these deals should be looked at.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2514 times:

Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 2):
Airbus seems to be giving airplanes away

Do you have anything to support this?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Thread starter):
It must have been a sweet deal but will this hurt Airbus in the long run or benefit them. The EIS is drifting out so far that a real possibility is that SQ acquire 787-10 to replace early 772.

Heck, with the latest EIS delays of the A350XWB-900, SQ might very well take the 777-200LR to replace their long-haul 777-200ERs that come up for replacement, since they supposedly have "hard" retirement dates they have to meet. Such a purchase would also allow them to replace their A345 fleet.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 1):
Given the success of the A333 with other east Asian carriers I suspect if SQ had ever truly compared the A333 to a 772A or even ER, the A333 would have been in their fleet a while ago.

SQ went with the 772ER because it allowed them to use one plane on (relatively) any route. If they had bought 772As or A333s, they could not use them on their long-haul routes as they lacked the range.

Because SQ waited too long for the 787-9 and now can't get them in time to replace their regional 772ERs, the A333 is the only real choice they have. That they could leverage the A388 delays into a better deal for them is just a "bonus", so to speak.


User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3545 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 3):
Do you have anything to support this?

If no existing leasing company would take the deal, the financial arrangements must be very favorable to SQ. It's hardly what you would call a sale since Airbus retains title to the airplanes. But with Airbus retaining the title, you can't say Airbus gave them away.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Heck, with the latest EIS delays of the A350XWB-900, SQ might very well take the 777-200LR to replace their long-haul 777-200ERs that come up for replacement

I speculate that SQ will order both to get first hand expericence on their performance and efficiencies before they commit to a larger order. Just like they did with the A310 and 757.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Such a purchase would also allow them to replace their A345 fleet.

SQ recently evaluated the 772LR to replace the A345 and decided against it.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Thread starter):
Leahy has already admitted the A350-1000 (7500nm)is already got less range than an aircraft that SQ is about to fly (77W nearly 8000nm) and will be 11 years newer by design.

There are currently only 2 maybe 3 SQ routes that would be a problem for. All the others should be in reach with either a full or sizeable payload year round.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Thread starter):
For year after year SQ evaluated A330 versus B777 and continually rejected the A330 and went on to aquire the biggest B777 fleet (least until EK overtakes SQ)

SQ always had an A310 fleet working the lighter routes in Asia. When they went they were stuck with the 772ER which were overkill so the A330 may now offer a more regionally optimised aircraft. As well as replace some of the 777s like others have mentioned.

[Edited 2006-11-21 17:43:59]

User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2317 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 6):
SQ recently evaluated the 772LR to replace the A345 and decided against it.

Because the SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR is not performing as expected, not because of the plane. If SQ is forced to purchased the LR because XWB is not ready yet, then it is a no brainer to dump A345.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4786 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2242 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 7):
Because the SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR is not performing as expected, not because of the plane.

as in the fares will not cover the price of fuel which has skyrocketed and you have to carry so much of that stuff to get you that last thousand , two thousand miles! their loads aren't low, they just can't make it work with the high price of fuel the way it has been recently. which is why I see ULH as a bigger niche product than even the whalejet. lots of carriers will be better off having a stop somewhere than try doing it all non stop.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 6):
SQ recently evaluated the 772LR to replace the A345 and decided against it.



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 7):
Because the SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR is not performing as expected, not because of the plane. If SQ is forced to purchased the LR because XWB is not ready yet, then it is a no brainer to dump A345.

Bingo. This was the point I was trying to make. If SQ has to take the 772LR to replace the 772ER, they might as well replace the A345 with the 772LR, as well, and return to the advantages of a single fleet flexible enough to handle all non-VLA mission profiles.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8481 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2202 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Thread starter):
For year after year SQ evaluated A330 versus B777 and continually rejected the A330 and went on to aquire the biggest B777 fleet (least until EK overtakes SQ)

At the time oil was not at $60+/barrel so SQ chose to abuse the 772's. At current oil prices, the A330 is a far better option for the routes that SQ is abusing the 772's on.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12518 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2195 times:

What really surprised me is not so much the A330 deal - this aircraft seems to make more sense on regional routes operated by SQ - but the A350 deal, particularly before Airbus formally launches the aircraft. The continuing delays and apparent lack of definition seems to be rather embarrassing to SQ. However, I'm sure the deal Airbus gave SQ to come on board was so good that Airbus is winning, whatever happens.

By the time the A350 comes on board, which will now be about 2015, the eldest 777s will be well past their retirement date, by SQ's standards, so we will probably see SQ using this aircraft to replace the older machines.

As for the 772LR, I still wouldn't rule it out, despite SQ's recent decision - particularly now that SQ has also introduced the 773ER (which also has GE engines).


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2195 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 7):
Because the SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR is not performing as expected, not because of the plane.

Well it is down to the economics which is a lot to do with both planes and little to do with the performance of the route. The main argument for the 772LR is costs savings per flight - the potential to increase revenue is comparatively small and that's mainly through additional cargo. So it's largely irrelevent how many pax are flying in the cabin, the cost savings will be similar regardless. In this situation the savings over the 772LRs lifespan don't justify the purchase of the new planes minus their and the A345's resale value.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 7):
If SQ is forced to purchased the LR because XWB is not ready yet, then it is a no brainer to dump A345.

In this example SQ was forced to purchase 772LRs to replace the 772ER. Why would the economics of replacing the A345s suddenly change? Well purchasing more 772LRs at one time will mean cost per frame is cheaper and may justify the switch. But still, not a no brainer. SQ may rather give the A345 it's typical SQ lifespan then replace it with a 787 or A350 in the future.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days ago) and read 2153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 12):
In this example SQ was forced to purchase 772LRs to replace the 772ER. Why would the economics of replacing the A345s suddenly change?

Well a larger fleet would probably bring it's own efficiencies, as well as the flexibility of using a 772LR on all their routes. So SQ might not have to buy a 1:1 772LR to A345 replacement.

Quote:
But still, not a no brainer. SQ may rather give the A345 it's typical SQ lifespan then replace it with a 787 or A350 in the future.

Quite true.

I imagine Boeing can get the 787-10 to SQ in a time and form that would cover at least the first wave of their long-haul 772ER replacements, which would give SQ the luxury of waiting to see what the 787LR/A350R programs bring to the table.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days ago) and read 2153 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 11):
However, I'm sure the deal Airbus gave SQ to come on board was so good that AirbusSQ is winning, whatever happens.

There, fixed that for ya.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
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...
Qantas Acquires Two A330s For Interim Lift posted Wed Jul 26 2006 17:32:48 by Singapore_Air
SQ A350/A380/A330 Order - Part Deux posted Sun Jul 23 2006 04:56:18 by Stitch
SQ's Recognition Of The A330: Belated? posted Wed Aug 16 2006 03:02:04 by PM
A350: What About Interim A330's Post 2012? posted Tue May 23 2006 12:51:24 by Art
777-100X Revived To Counter A330 At SQ posted Thu Jan 13 2000 11:49:03 by Pandora
Why No SQ, CX & TG Service At IAD? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:59:37 by Mk777
My Travel A330 @ ZRH posted Sat Nov 18 2006 13:12:51 by Rw774477
US A330 "New" Livery posted Fri Nov 17 2006 15:21:04 by Boeingguy1
Excel Airways Orders A330's posted Fri Nov 17 2006 01:06:53 by UKA330
SQ 772ERs Being Refitted With New C And Y Class? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 03:04:25 by Intothinair