CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2694 posts, RR: 1 Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8658 times:
When will SQ get the A330's they leased from Airbus? Any announcements on which routes they will use? Will they use the classes that the A380/77W use (not expecting suites though) or the skybed, or the older recline style or generic Airbus seats? IFE? How long will they be leased?
QantasHeavy From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8582 times:
Will these be replacements for the777As? Let's hope they do not put their tired old regional 777A interior into their nice new 330s!
Would imagine SQ would make them a nice region business class. Thai reconfigured their 777As to have a slightly less spacious "space bed" type seat they have on their new ERs. WOuld hope SQ would install a less fancy version of thie Space Bed.
Would be these will serve BKK, Manila, KUL, DPS, PER, ADL and maybe BNE at first. Just a guess!!!
AA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 533 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8478 times:
Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 2): Would be these will serve BKK, Manila, KUL, DPS, PER, ADL and maybe BNE at first. Just a guess!!!
I hope not! Everytime I have flown SQ BNE-SIN the plane has been jam-packed full. I don't understand why they don't put a 773 on the route or a 77W. EK manage to place a 77W on the BNE-SIN-DXB route.
Also, I much prefer the 772 than the 333 aircraft. I feel its much quieter and the pressure control is better.
LY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2446 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8264 times:
I agree with AA7295; maybe the A333 is quieter, but the ride on a 777 is much better than on a A330; plus the powerful take-off and the spaciousness of the cabin...
AA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 533 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8246 times:
Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 6): The A333 is quiter, and what pressure control are you talking about?
My ears don't pop as bad on the 77A as they do on the 333. I've only experienced JQ & CX's 333 so it could just be their planes. I'm guessing ear popping has something to do with cabin pressurization control?
QantasHeavy From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8049 times:
777s are typically drier cabins. For some that is good, but most prefer the more humid cabins for long flights.
The 777 flies "differently" and has a different feel to it than the 330s. I think it is the wing design. In smooth air I find the 330 much quieter but in turbulence the nose seems to swing a lot more. Had an EK pilot next to me one day when we were really getting blown around and I mentioned the nose seems to slip a lot on the 330. He said it was jsut the way it flies and that there is a lot of sway in the front end. Feels like much more yaw in the 330s but less in the 340s.
I am not a aeronaughtical physisict but do ride 747s/767s/777s and A33/4/5/6 a lot and I have found that in clear air turbulence the 777 will shake a little but keep the nose pointing true, where the 330 floats/drifts and the nose moves left to right more. I do prefer the 777 over the 330 when it gets bumpy... also like the 340s and the 747. Four engines/thrust points seem to balance the plane better. Just my opinion.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7807 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 5): Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 2):
Will these be replacements for the777As?
Seems likely range and capacity wise the A330 would fit perfectly
...only problem with that is that SQ doesn't actually operate 772As. Just derated 772ERs that they, for whatever inane reason, like to refer to as 772As.
Asianguy767 From Singapore, joined Oct 2003, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7648 times:
The A330s are expected to be delivered Nov/Dec 08..EIS is Jan09..planned deployment is short to medium haul flights..as the fleet will be leased, all the seats are catalogue ie they will not be anything on currently owned fleet.
All of SQ's 772s are inherently the same. However, only their 9V-SV* series are operated at 656,000lb MTOWs with the Trent892-17; thus enabling them to take higher weights, further distances. Those are the aircraft (obviously) used on their intercontinental longhauls.
The rest of their 772s feature engines whose thrust has been electronically limited, and their MTOWs restricted by paperwork. The benefit is that it costs less to operate and land these aircraft. The penalty is that their payload capability and range are artificially stunted. These are the 9V-SQ* and 9V-SR* series aircraft.
If, however, SQ ever saw the business case to do so, they could PIP the engines, recertify the MTOWs, and op the SQ* and SR* series on any routes the SV* series do currently. Couldn't do that to a real 772A.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6953 times:
I wouldn't call turning the unwanted 772ERs into home-made 772As insane, I'd say it is just the best way to rectify the unfavourable situation. What is insane is that SQ ever bought those planes in the first place.
Rather than ditch the A340 order and replace them with 772ER of which some were subsequently downgraded to wannabe 772As which are now going to be quietly replaced by A333s again, SQ should have made live easier for all and simply converted the A343s order into A333s.
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5512 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15): Rather than ditch the A340 order and replace them with 772ER of which some were subsequently downgraded to wannabe 772As which are now going to be quietly replaced by A333s again, SQ should have made live easier for all and simply converted the A343s order into A333s.
The A330-300 is only an interm solution. The regional 777s are actually being replaced by A350s/787s.
At the time, SQ ditched the MD-11 and went for the A340-300, and then went for the 777-200ER. They did quite thorough evaluations of all 3 makers' options, and they chose the 777-200ER. There is obviously something about the 777 they liked.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4701 times:
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 17): At the time, SQ ditched the MD-11 and went for the A340-300, and then went for the 777-200ER. They did quite thorough evaluations of all 3 makers' options, and they chose the 777-200ER. There is obviously something about the 777 they liked.
it was hardly a contemporaneous evaluation, IIRC it was more like they chose the MD11 but it was falling short during testing so they ditched that order and went with the A343 which in service wasn't quite up to their expectations and they dropped those for the 772ER
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4686 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15): I wouldn't call turning the unwanted 772ERs into home-made 772As insane
...the only thing "insane" in your comment is calling the B772ER's "unwanted"..
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3834 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19): the only thing "insane" in your comment is calling the B772ER's "unwanted".
Is it?
Then why is more than half the fleet turned into home-made 772As and kicked off the route network so swiftly and silently for more efficient A333s as soon as the first (half) opportunity for it arises???
It should be noted SQ phases out their home-made 772As not for a plane from a generation later like the 787 or the A350, but already for a plane which was around when they placed the order for the 772!
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 17): At the time, SQ ditched the MD-11 and went for the A340-300, and then went for the 777-200ER. They did quite thorough evaluations of all 3 makers' options, and they chose the 777-200ER. There is obviously something about the 777 they liked.
Yes, they went from MD-11 to A343 to 772ER.
At each switch SQ looked like having made the right choice, however, in hindsight, SQ should have spared itself from the last switch and simply converted their Airbus order to A333s..
They could then have ordered real 772ERs or just the 77W when it showed up and have flown the A330/77W combo they now so urgently want already years ago then!
Unless you need the extra range of the 772ER, the plane has shown to be greatly inferior to the A330, but sadly SQ realized it too late and thus missed out on the unique opportunity finding itself stuck with the 'all-round' 777, rather than the more optimised A330 for its inter-Asian routes.
SQ realises this and thus decided to take the first oportunity to get rid of all those 772ERs it doesn't want nor need.
Anyway, they shouldn't be ashamed, other airlines have stated they have misread the capabilities of the A330 too, and are now 'stuck' with the 772: British Airways comes to mind.
PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6183 posts, RR: 79 Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3678 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15): What is insane is that SQ ever bought those planes in the first place.
SIA also ordered the A380 - but I guess that was a wise decision, right?
Seriously, SIA simply had the option to use one type for different missions. It's very likely they evaluated all other options and rated it more economic to order only 772s and not a combo.
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15): Rather than ditch the A340 order and replace them with 772ER of which some were subsequently downgraded to wannabe 772As which are now going to be quietly replaced by A333s again, SQ should have made live easier for all and simply converted the A343s order into A333s.
How are they quietly replaced? And btw - how in the world would an A333 have been able to fly some of SIA's A343 long-hauls? It's also well-know that SIA always tries to keep a young fleet, therefore it's not unusual to replace aircraft after 10-12 years. SIA has most likely evaluated all options again and now rated an A333 solution to be more economic - note all the changes in the biz over the last 10 years. Different times, different fleet decisions.
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 20): Then why is more than half the fleet turned into home-made 772As and kicked off the route network so swiftly and silently for more efficient A333s
See above. Silence? What about all the reports and press releases?
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 20): At each switch SQ looked like having made the right choice, however, in hindsight, SQ should have spared itself from the last switch and simply converted their Airbus order to A333s..
A type not capable of operating on all of SIA's 772 missions.
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 20): Unless you need the extra range of the 772ER, the plane has shown to be greatly inferior to the A330, but sadly SQ realized it too late and thus missed out on the unique opportunity finding itself stuck with the 'all-round' 777, rather than the more optimised A330 for its inter-Asian routes.
The 777 offered flexibility which the A333 couldn't. And with low fuel prices many years ago, savings by standardizing on one type most likely outhweighed disadvantages by using heavier 777s on regional routes.
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 20): Anyway, they shouldn't be ashamed, other airlines have stated they have misread the capabilities of the A330 too, and are now 'stuck' with the 772: British Airways comes to mind.
Sure, all these airlines ordering 777s must have been oh-so-wrong by chosing a type with additional payload, capacity and range for their needs...
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6179 posts, RR: 74 Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3545 times:
Those stunted 772s are "unwanted" ??? WTH? It's not as insane as it looks!
SQ's 777 fleet is divided into:
14 x -SQ* = 3 class, 84klbs engines
16 x -SR* = 2 class, 84klbs engines
15 x -SV* = 3 class, 92klbs engines
(11 + 4?) x-SW* = 3 class 773ER
12 x -SY* = 3 class 773 standard
The SQ* series (cn 67 - 487) are on average older than the SR* (144 - 449) and SV* (350 - 471), SV* being the newest... but SQ* having the newest 772 in their fleet.
It all looks "silly" at first by stunting it down and then seeking to replace them with 330s. But...
The SR* series are mainly to replace the 310s, flying 2 class sectors on shorter and low yielding routes...
SQ* series has the ORIGINAL SQ requirements. A 3 class mid size to fly anything from short to long sectors... with the 343 to fly the longer sectors (and transpac)
With the 343s gone and SQ series not having the biggest MTOW available, SV series were put in to totally replace the 343 requirement... and are put into the longer sectors.
Some of the SQ* series are now getting worn and old, the SR* series will gain the cycles faster than the rest of the fleet.
When the time comes, the older SQ and SR series will be replaced with the 330s pending delivery of the 350/787... Perhaps some SR series will be converted back to 3 class... and the SV series will stay until the 350/787 comes.
The 333s will definitely cover the SR* series mission profile.
If I remember correctly, SQ didn't get a good deal on the 333 until recently (perhaps given a bargain to pay off the delays in the 380).
It's not as silly as it seems now does it? And they don't want to end up being stuck with a plane for more than 15 years, like they ended up doing with the 744 and 313s...
They went for all 772 for the sake of commonality, now why does that sound silly when doing it with a Boeing when everyone else goes for 330/340 combo for commonality? Did anyone say SQ was silly when they decided to use the 343 for short haul too? Heck, they've been flying the 744s for about 20 years doing short and long haul (even that SIN-KUL sector), and still does fly them to Jakarta!
Quote: Unless you need the extra range of the 772ER, the plane has shown to be greatly inferior to the A330, but sadly SQ realized it too late and thus missed out on the unique opportunity finding itself stuck with the 'all-round' 777, rather than the more optimised A330 for its inter-Asian routes.
It's not that simple. Have a look at MH's 330/772 combo ops, each one has a particular mission despite similar lengths between several sectors. For them, the 333 is the people mover (ie: best for low yield high volume routes), and the 772 is the premium catcher (higher yield routes or those shorter routes with heavy cargo loads).
Now back to SQ's 772s... Just have a look at their route distributions... Anything above 2hrs is what the real missions are, anything less is just to fill the damn hours.
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
BrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1271 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3222 times:
I'm sure all those de-rated B772s can and will be pimped back by SQ prior to them leaving the fleet and being sold/leased to a new operator. Which then will show their true value over any real B772A. The original B772A is a cow, these tweaked B772Bs have retained a high reselling value and that is an important part of the original decision to order.
SQ did make the right strategic decision at the time. And they are making the right strategic decision today.
QantasHeavy From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3190 times:
Gotta say SQ generally makes good decisions. Wonder what will happen to their niche 345s though. At the time they made sense, but I think they will opt for commonality and get some 777LRs. At least the 330s will be similar, but still 5 air frames in a fleet like SQ is a bit awkward if you do have another option which matches your fleet profile.
330s will do well for them as an interim step and no doubt the deal was right. Too bad they are getting stock interiors, but economically that makes sense for regional routes... sorry Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane looks like you are staying "regional" with SQ!
25 Danny: 4 in 2008, 5 in 2009 and remaining in 2010.
26 SQ452: Good, I thought I was crazy when I thought Airbus A330's/A320's pressurize funny (especially the A321's)...now I know I am not alone!!! 777's are muc
27 QantasHeavy: Did SQ configure some 777s from the original batch to be used for long hauls -- or were the "space bed" 2 class 777s delivered new with their respecti
28 ConcordeBoy: Course, if you'd actually pay attention to the timeline, you'll notice that the A340s were replaced by the 9V-SV* series, which fly routings no A333
29 Jacobin777: ..... Oh...I see...do you have any proof of this? PlaneHunter...don't let the fact the B777's have sold over 1,000 frames get in the way of a good ar
30 Gigneil: I'm sorry, sometimes you make sense and I enjoy that you're so blatantly pro one thing or the other because it drives other people crazy, but what th
31 WINGS: Please do elaborate more in regards to the A310-300. From my understanding Singapore Airlines operated a total of 23 A313's, for a period of nearly 2
32 ConcordeBoy: Why do you assume that their operating of those aircraft, was the bad decision being referred to here? In regard to the A310s, SQ got rid of them "to
33 WINGS: I assumed the most logical theory, but it seems that your theory was rather the opposite. What I find more interesting about the history of the A310-
34 ConcordeBoy: ...you still f^cked up by assuming, no cutesy nonsensical statement will change that. Deal. They wanted to, lest you forget the A330Lite and in parti
35 WINGS: Had you been more clear in your initial statement, then I'm sure i would have not f*cked up like you kindly pointed out. I'm well aware of those proj
36 ConcordeBoy: ...I'm not to blame for your choice to assume, dude. Well, yeah, why would they have. No one showed any real interest in even the proposals.
37 QantasHeavy: Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 24): Gotta say SQ generally makes good decisions. ...the 757, A310, M11, and A343 might disagree with you [sorry not sure I
38 Mandala499: I think SQ got a good deal by Boeing taking those 343s and in effect giving the 772s perhaps the cheapest rate at that time without thinking about dis
39 RayChuang: I wonder will SQ use the A330-300 on the SIN-HKG route, unless they need a larger plane such as the derated 777-200ER's and 777-300's.
40 QantasHeavy: I think HKG is a bt of a premium route for SQ, so you find a 744 (SFO flight), the 77W, sometimes 777s with space beds (though maybe not now that the
41 ConcordeBoy: make sure it opens with |quote| and closes with |/quote|, though in this case, use ] and [ instead of | and |. Correct One thing one could certainly
42 QantasHeavy: OK... but I flew on a China Southern 777 in the late 90's that said something to the effect of "First Pacific ETOPS" on the side of the aircraft. Who
43 LurveBus: And, of course, there's also the risk that five cheap A345s on the market might encourage nearby competitors to make their own ULH flights that bypas
44 LXA340: THe entire cabin will feature AVOD and I could imagine that SQ might only offer 2 Classes on all it's regional flights instread of the 3 classes on s
45 Scouseflyer: It may be my imagination but, I don't think that A345s are basically worthless as the AC ones had several airlines interested (US and TAM publically)
46 ConcordeBoy: You seem to be ignoring the A345's strikingly swift depreciation. Yes some airlines might be interested in them, as well as able to make a use for th
47 ZK-NBT: AKL and CHC are both 772ER's with Spacebeds plus of course the daily leased 744 to AKL. MEL is currently getting 2x daily 744's plus the 77W though 1
48 PM: You mean like buying five (so far) versions of the RR Trent with the possibility of a sixth to come imminently?
49 ConcordeBoy: lol, perhaps you mean "PIPed back by SQ"?
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2694 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2004, 2347 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, 
From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1600 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Singapore, joined Oct 2003, 263 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Aug 2007, 111 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined May 2006, 509 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6179 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
