Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?  
User currently offlineAa87 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6698 times:

I recall that the current longest scheduled non-stop commercial flight is the Singapore Airlines EWR-SIN at, I believe 18+ hours. Does anyone know how often, roughly, they've had to stop due to headwinds or other reason for refueling ? I imagine that flight is close to the endurance limit, and wondering how often they've been coming up short. Thanks.

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6620 times:

I dont recall SQ on that route having to stop anwhere for fuel stops. However what i can tell you is that

DL's (BOM-JFK) has had to stop at MAN and EDDF a few times due to strong headwinds.

conversely i dont believe CO's EWR-HKG has had to stop for a fuel stop. I think we can say that most flight that follow a more northernly route over the arctic have to deal with less headwinds.



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6601 times:

CO's EWRHKG route is a polar route. DL's BOM flight is considerably further south but is still the world's longest scheduled 772ER flight based on time.

SQ also has far fewer seats on their A345s than the aircraft should have based on its size - just so they can carry enough fuel to make the flight. As has been pointed out in the US A340 discussion, no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft. The fact that SQ is still flying the A345 on EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN says more about SQ's need to maintain key markets than it does about the aircraft it is using to fly it.


User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6220 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft.

Really? I wonder what EK would say about that...



M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlineAlexPorter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6133 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft.

Not sure how true that is, but at least in SQ's case, it probably makes more sense these days to sell their A345s in favor of getting the 772LR. The 772LR wasn't yet available when they ordered the A345, but now the 772LR has an even longer range. Plus it would help out with fleet commonality since they have all those other 772s, but only a handful of A345s that exist solely for EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9637 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6125 times:

Since SIN-EWR is a truly polar route that has the shortest distance over the pole, strong winds will never hurt it if it takes the shortest route possible. But actually, strong winds helps the flight. If there are strong winds, the flight can alter its path in order to ride the wind and save fuel. Strong winds shorten the flight time.

EWR-SIN can be flown as a polar route or across Europe and Asia. It depends on the winds. If there are strong winds, they'll take the route over Europe and Asia. If the winds are weak, they will go over the pole. There are few strong winds north or south, and since the plane can make it by going that way, then there will not be a reason to make a stop.

SIN-EWR typically takes a route over the Pacific and then crosses North America. It finds where the jetstream is and travels along that route, so it can vary, but I know that when I took the route the key points we went over were Tokyo and then Vancouver. If the winds are not strong or good for the route, the flight can take a polar route.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1486 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6095 times:

If this is any indication of whether the flight ever needed to make an unscheduled stop anywhere . . . the EWR-SIN flight often arrives in SIN up to an hour early.

KC Sim


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8363 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6027 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
As has been pointed out in the US A340 discussion, no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft. The fact that SQ is still flying the A345 on EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN says more about SQ's need to maintain key markets than it does about the aircraft it is using to fly it.

No offense but I'll take SQ's word over the experts here at a.net any day and what SQ has said on more than one occasion is that for their specific use, no other aircraft today offers enough operating savings that will justify replacing fairly new A345's, even at today's fuel cost. Bottom line is, SQ is still operating the A345 despite the fact that just about every expert here predicted that they would dump the aircraft the minute the 772LR was available. That hasn't happened and that must be making a lot of people uncomfortable because heaven forbit that an Airbus aircraft may actually be good enough for a blue chip carrier like SQ.

Lets look at some facts: the 772LR is a much better aircraft than the A345, true, but SQ would still continue to operate ULH flights with the same capacity. Their reputation rides on it and they can charge a premium for it too. So the fact that the 772LR can carry more people over the same distance is a mute point. The 772LR can carry more cargo over the same distance. True but SQ has a Cargo subsidiary for that so carrying cargo on passenger aircraft is not nearly as critical of an issue. More over, SQ's NYC cargo airport is JFK not EWR. Fuel burn, well, the 772LR is better but does it justify the investment on brad new and very expensive aircraft? I think SQ's actions speak louder than words and their actions lead me to belive that no, it doesn't justify it.


User currently offlineFly2CHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5896 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
SQ also has far fewer seats on their A345s than the aircraft should have based on its size - just so they can carry enough fuel to make the flight.

This is incorrect. It was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route. Same way they are equipping their great A380s with less than 500 pax.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
As has been pointed out in the US A340 discussion, no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft.

Again this is incorrect. EK, from a very reliable source, are extremely satisfied with their 345s which they operate every day to SYD, MEL, AKL, CHC, JFK, KIX and others. They have had plenty of opportunities to swap to 772 LRs, and prefer the 345 fit in their fleet.


User currently offlineNorcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1447 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5823 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft.

huuh? What the heck are you talking about?

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 4):
it probably makes more sense these days to sell their A345s in favor of getting the 772LR.

Not really. SQ has said they'll keep it because the cost of replacing it with the 772LR isn't worth it.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 7):
No offense but I'll take SQ's word over the experts here at a.net any day and what SQ has said on more than one occasion is that for their specific use, no other aircraft today offers enough operating savings that will justify replacing fairly new A345's, even at today's fuel cost. Bottom line is, SQ is still operating the A345 despite the fact that just about every expert here predicted that they would dump the aircraft the minute the 772LR was available. That hasn't happened and that must be making a lot of people uncomfortable because heaven forbit that an Airbus aircraft may actually be good enough for a blue chip carrier like SQ.

Lets look at some facts: the 772LR is a much better aircraft than the A345, true, but SQ would still continue to operate ULH flights with the same capacity. Their reputation rides on it and they can charge a premium for it too. So the fact that the 772LR can carry more people over the same distance is a mute point. The 772LR can carry more cargo over the same distance. True but SQ has a Cargo subsidiary for that so carrying cargo on passenger aircraft is not nearly as critical of an issue. More over, SQ's NYC cargo airport is JFK not EWR. Fuel burn, well, the 772LR is better but does it justify the investment on brad new and very expensive aircraft? I think SQ's actions speak louder than words and their actions lead me to belive that no, it doesn't justify it.

 checkmark 



If you're going through hell, keep going
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5823 times:

Let us not forget with such a long flight, and over areas with potential difficulties for available airports in case of diversions, (weather, isolated airports) a 4 engined a/c may be a better choice. I have never seen here of any diversions of this or other ULH SQ flights.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting The Coachman (Reply 3):
Really? I wonder what EK would say about that...

...or EY

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 7):
but SQ would still continue to operate ULH flights with the same capacity.

That's only an assumption on your part.

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
It was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route

Curious, are you TRULY naive enough to believe that?

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
They have had plenty of opportunities to swap to 772 LRs, and prefer the 345 fit in their fleet.

....in case ya didn't notice, they ordered the 772LR and could "swap" at any time post-delivery.


User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2997 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5433 times:

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 1):
conversely i dont believe CO's EWR-HKG has had to stop for a fuel stop.

Because it can basically go straight over the North Pole and avoid headwinds, it has not stopped often, but I can think of at least one occasion when it had to stop at SEA due to solar activity which I believe caused dangerous radiation levels over the Arctic. I do not know if SQ's flights have ever been similarly affected--more likely, they are able to choose a different route to the south on those occasions (see below).

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Since SIN-EWR is a truly polar route that has the shortest distance over the pole, strong winds will never hurt it if it takes the shortest route possible. But actually, strong winds helps the flight. If there are strong winds, the flight can alter its path in order to ride the wind and save fuel. Strong winds shorten the flight time.

Exactly. Because SIN and NYC are basically on opposite sides of the earth, there is considerable flexibility in choosing the best route on any given day. Other long flights, like BOM-JFK, on the other hand, have no choice but to fight headwinds most of the way when flying west.



Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5426 times:

Quoting FoxBravo (Reply 12):
to solar activity which I believe caused dangerous radiation levels over the Arctic

Thats amazing, never heard of that happening before.



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5390 times:

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
IIt was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route.

SQ is most certainly weight limited on this route.

Steve


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 13):
Thats amazing, never heard of that happening before.

Indeed, it's rare-- but still more common than some would believe.

Concorde was the first (and IINM, still only) non-military aircraft to be equipped with cosmic radiation sensing and shielding material outside the cockpit; due to its higher exposure.


User currently offlineOnewickedboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5342 times:

It may raise a few eyebrows around here to learn that SQ have also deployed the A345 on some shorter sectors.

In addition to several daily flights using the T7, SQ fly the A345 2x daily between SIN and CGK (Jakarta) (SQ 954/955, 962/963). The configuration on the A345 aircraft is the same Business + Executive Economy as the ULH flights to LAX and EWR.

I think, but am not positive, that SQ may have also flown the A345 to DPS at some point.

This would suggest that SQ take into account factors other than fuel burn and "specific mission" (as previous posters have suggested) with the A345.

R E G A R D S



"instant gratification takes too long . . . "
User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2997 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5276 times:

Quoting Onewickedboi (Reply 16):
This would suggest that SQ take into account factors other than fuel burn and "specific mission" (as previous posters have suggested) with the A345.

Yes they do, such as aircraft utilization (better to squeeze in a short round-trip than have the aircraft sitting on the ground all day at SIN until its next ULH departure) and crew training (so the pilots get enough takeoffs and landings each month, which they otherwise might not on the ULH flights).



Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5250 times:

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 4):
at least in SQ's case, it probably makes more sense these days to sell their A345s in favor of getting the 772LR.

No, SQ found that the resale value of the A340-500s was so low that selling them to buy 777-200LRs was not a good trade.

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
It was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route.

Incorrect. The SQ plan was for 202 seats in 3 cabins, but it had to be revised to 181 seats in 2 cabins due the payload/range performance falling short of promises.

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
Same way they are equipping their great A380s with less than 500 pax.

Yes, exactly the same problem: overweight.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5239 times:

Quoting Onewickedboi (Reply 16):
It may raise a few eyebrows around here to learn that SQ have also deployed the A345 on some shorter sectors.

SQ has 5 A345s.....two for each ULH route and a spare that SQ schedules on ths short SIN-CGK route. Aside from keeping an airplane that would otherwise sit idle busy, it allows pilots to keep their take-off and landing statistics at acceptable levels. Due to the very long flight times and multiple crew members on each segment, combined with the small A345 fleet, SQ had to ""think outside of the box"" and come up with a way to ensure that its A345 pilots meet regulations. Thus, the ""extra"" A345 is used on quick hops between SIN and CGK when it is not needed to sub for another A345 on one of the ULH routes.

Quoting Onewickedboi (Reply 16):
This would suggest that SQ take into account factors other than fuel burn and "specific mission" (as previous posters have suggested) with the A345

Here the other factor is crew regs, as mentioned.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 9):
Not really. SQ has said they'll keep it because the cost of replacing it with the 772LR isn't worth it

SQ is looking at the big picture.......and the big financial picture when it comes to ULH. It seems (from reports) that SQ is not making tons of money on its ULH services (some reports say break-even, some say modest profits) and those financial results do NOT justify SQ replacing A345s with 772LRs. Consider that the 772LRs are very expensive airplanes and consider that the second hand market for the A345 is rather small.....thus while it seems so logical for SQ to move along from the A345 to the 772LR, they are not making their move just yet.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
while it seems so logical for SQ to move along from the A345 to the 772LR, they are not making their move just yet.

Unless someone offers SQ a fabulous price for their A340-500s with lease-back for two or three years, SQ will never order the 777-200LR. The replacement for the A340-500s will be either A350s or 787s. Note that the 787-9 which SQ have on order may match the payload/range performance of the A340-500. It might be a drop-in replacement with 20-30% lower operating costs on the ULH routes.


User currently offlineAbrelosojos From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 5090 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4758 times:

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
This is incorrect. It was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route. Same way they are equipping their great A380s with less than 500 pax.

= I am sorry but you are incorrect on this. SQ 345 suffer weight restrictions on this flight.

-A.



Live, and let live.
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4680 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
thus while it seems so logical for SQ to move along from the A345 to the 772LR, they are not making their move just yet.

because not even SQ can throw away a US $750M investment since there is very little market for used A345s. SQ is not happy with the 345 but as often happens, the lack of performance on one Airbus type is what Airbus uses as a credit for a future type. While we may not know the exact concessions, Airbus is giving SQ SIGNIFICANT concessions for its delayed A380s and its underperforming 345s.


User currently offlineAznCSA4QF744ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

How many aircrafts are being used today? And how operate them?

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8371 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3700 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SQ is the Pan AM is its time, they do the leading edge research and always have the most advanced new airplanes. The world buys what SQ buys. The A345 may be less desirable then a 772LR, but not that much less. The A345 fleet is doing what it is supposed to do, it must be profitable if not SQ would kill the flights and sell the planes. The just wonder why SQ doesn't operate to SFO and ORD with this type of service ?

25 Dutchjet : You make it sound so easy........as mentioned above, most reports indicate that SQ is breaking even or making a small profits on its ULH services and
26 Viscount724 : Except, unlike Pan Am, SQ is consistently profitable. Pan Am rarely was.
27 WorldTraveler : SQ is also facing the possibility that a number of airlines in S. and SE Asia will be buying their own ULH aircraft, eliminating the advantage SQ has
28 RedChili : So you're saying that the A380 overweight problem is the reason why their A380 will have less than 500 seats? The 777-300ER must obviously be serious
29 ConcordeBoy : Not really anymore. SQ's current reputation is more for getting it WRONG in the initial order... ...to whom?
30 Zvezda : Compared to a possible 787-11 with the same payload/range performance, the 777-300ER is 80-85,000 lbs (40 tonnes) overweight.
31 Col : I believe that the EWR/LAX flights do very well up front. There is talk of them converting to all Business class on the ULH, with the new wide seats.
32 Airbazar : The fact that SQ won't swap the A345 for 772LR speaks more about the ULH segment potential than the aircraft themselves. Everyone knows that the 772L
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...
SQ EWR-SIN-EWR Loads Help posted Fri Mar 10 2006 05:54:09 by PropilotJW
SIN-EWR-SIN On SQ Is A Round-the-world Flight posted Sun Jan 22 2006 10:44:40 by Aukahkay
SQ A345 Routing SIN-EWR-SIN posted Fri Sep 17 2004 22:20:35 by Klmyank
CO IAH/EWR-GUM Nonstop? posted Sat Aug 28 2004 00:26:16 by Whiskeyhotel
What Is SQ Doing PR Wise To Hype Up EWR-SIN In US posted Tue Jun 15 2004 06:34:46 by SQ452
SIA's New EWR-SIN Route On June 28 posted Mon Jun 14 2004 21:06:42 by FrontierCPT
SIA's New EWR-SIN Route On June 28 posted Mon Jun 14 2004 21:03:11 by FrontierCPT
EWR?!-SIN 28 June posted Fri Jun 4 2004 07:03:02 by UALongHaul
SQ - EWR-SIN, Non-Stop A345 Leadership posted Thu May 6 2004 01:02:37 by LImamura
EWR-HNL Nonstop Didn't Quite Make It Today posted Sun Jan 12 2003 04:49:30 by 762er