B773A346 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 77 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 9037 times:
I was looking through the seat map of the SQ A380.
I feel that the Business Class has taken up a lot of space on the Upper Deck with fewer seats. Also What was the point having the little bit Economy Class on the Upper Deck. I feel they should have made the Upper Deck for First and Business Classes only. Do you think this would be economical ? Will all the A380 have the same seating ?
Aslo the B773ER , The Business Class has taken up a lot of space for few seats. Do you think this is Economical ?
B773A346 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8888 times:
I dont really think so becuase they failed to do ti for their A345 because the EWR Route is not very sucessful and they want to change the config. of the aircraft. Imagine the new Business Class on the A345, would reduce the seats by a third.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8877 times:
Quoting B773A346 (Thread starter): I feel that the Business Class has taken up a lot of space on the Upper Deck with fewer seats.
SQ's new Business Class seats trade pitch for width. So while you can only have six across instead of seven, you can fit in more rows in the same area. You don't need that much pitch for sitting and by sleeping at an angle, you get plenty of "stretch space". And I love the extra width in First Class on the 77W for "spreading out" my stuff so I expect the wider seats in Business Class offer a similar benefit. And each seat has direct aisle access, which is a plus.
Quoting B773A346 (Thread starter): What was the point having the little bit Economy Class on the Upper Deck. I feel they should have made the Upper Deck for First and Business Classes only.
The R Suites might not have been properly supported on the Upper Deck or it might not have been possible to fit them in the desired 1+2+1 configuration. Also, I expect the lower deck between Door 1 and Door 2 is going to be the quietest part of the plane, which is a benefit to First Class.
Ex_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8421 times:
With respect to the question as to whether it is "economical":
When an airline chooses - like SQ does - to install fewer seats in an aircraft and equip it with heavy equipment (like PTVs. In fact, even little things like SQ's use of porcelain instead of foil casseroles in Y increases CASM), it means that the CASM (Cost Per Available Seat Mile, ie the cost it takes to fly one seat one mile) of that aircraft is higher than it otherwise would be. In order to make it "economical", the airline then has to focus on two things: (1) Managing variable costs so that overall costs decrease (there isn't much you can do about the fixed costs); and (2) Making sure that revenues are sufficient to cover the costs and that RASM (Revenue Per Available Seat Mile) is above CASM. In theory, you make a profit when RASM>CASM. Also bear in mind that for most aircraft, when you have fewer seats, you can carry more cargo, so that boosts the revenue part of the equation.
Quoting Afterburner (Reply 1): SQ would not use the configurations (for the 380 and 77W) if they didn't think the configurations are economical.
Yes and no. It would be nice if all airlines could come up with one single configuration for each aircraft type that is "economical" across all routes flown by that aircraft, but unfortunately different routes have different passenger, cargo and performance profiles and hence different configurations are optimal for each route. Unfortunately, configuration isn't something you can change quickly, especially given SQ's hardware and product. In addition. too many configurations create operational difficulties. So, the configs that an airline chooses for any one aircraft type would probably be the most "economical" given the macro-level circumstances, but may be sub-optimal for certain routes.
A great example was when SQ operated the A313s. They chose just one config - 12F/34J/143Y config (later 12/28/143). This config worked well for regional routes like BKK or MNL. The F/J cabin was too small for some business-heavy routes like CGK. And, the A310 in this config was also sub-optimal for less business-heavy routes such as MLE, SDJ and HIJ. But, if SQ had chosen three configs for its A310s, that would have presented operational challenges for a 17-aircraft fleet.
Choosing a config is therefore pretty much about striking a balance between the various tradeoffs - economical and non-economical.
NEMA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6924 times:
Quoting B773A346 (Thread starter): I feel they should have made the Upper Deck for First and Business Classes only. Do you think this would be economical ?
You have to assume they know what they're doing. We can all speculate with our own ideas but they will have had experts putting hours of thought into their needs, with help from Airbus too, to arrive at the current configuration.
There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
Thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6396 times:
I also think the low density J class was a pretty strange decision. You could have 6 abreast with no one sitting in the middle and lie flat beds at a 60in pitch vs 4 abreast at 55in pitch. I think the comfort is only likely to favour the latter when trying to sleep, and then it is pretty debatable. Has anyone tried SQ A380 J class beds vs regular J class beds?