Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ To End 747 At LHR  
User currently offlineAmciver From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 48 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 14242 times:

From my Krisflyer newsletter:

"London Heathrow welcomes the Boeing 777-300ER

From the 28th of March, Singapore Airlines is pleased to welcome the new Boeing 777-300ER service to London Heathrow, replacing the current Boeing 747-400. Upon commencement customers will be able to experience the brand new Economy Class and Business Class presently found on our A380 on all three flights to and from London. In addition, customers will be able to experience the brand new First Class product."

It will be a real shame to see the SQ 747 missing from LHR. How long have SQ had a 747 continuously serving this route?

Can anyone recommend a good spot and time frame to see an SQ 747 land and take off and an SQ A380 land and take off at LHR over the next 2.5 weeks?

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1651 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 14176 times:



Quoting Amciver (Thread starter):
It will be a real shame to see the SQ 747 missing from LHR. How long have SQ had a 747 continuously serving this route?

Agree completely. I hate it when an airline withdraws a signature aircraft from one of its important routes.


User currently offlineNicholaschee From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13960 times:



Quoting Amciver (Thread starter):
brand new First Class product

Wow. They still consider it brand new after 2 years.

The SQC 744F will still be visiting LHR.  Wink

The SQ 747s have been serving LHR since 1973/1974 starting with the 200s, then the 300s followed by the 400s.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8288 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13710 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

LHR was always the FIRST route at Singapore Airlines. The first 747-300 BIG TOP in the early 1980's nonstop to SIN. Then in 1990 the 744 MEGATOP. Now the A380.

User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13611 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3):
LHR was always the FIRST route at Singapore Airlines. The first 747-300 BIG TOP in the early 1980's nonstop to SIN. Then in 1990 the 744 MEGATOP. Now the A380.

SYD was SQ's first route for the A380


User currently offlineEric From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13561 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3):
The first 747-300 BIG TOP



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3):
1990 the 744 MEGATOP

By that logic, shouldn't the A380 be called ALLTOP or is it a bit too Transformers'esque


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8288 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EDICHC (Reply 4):
SYD was SQ's first route for the A380

FIRST here doesn't mean the first service operated but the most important and where most A380's are operated.


User currently offlineB742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13505 times:



Quoting Directorguy (Reply 1):
Agree completely. I hate it when an airline withdraws a signature aircraft from one of its important routes.

Couldn't agree more, espcially when it's the 747. Same goes for the MD-11 and DC-10's.

This is good for Heathrow in the long run; passengers will be offered with a superior product on all flights to Singapore now.

This was announced on a.net a few weeks back.

Rob!  wave 


User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13501 times:

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 6):
FIRST here doesn't mean the first service operated but the most important and where most A380's are operated.

So what you are saying is, SQ when launching the first service in the world using the A380, inaugurated it on a route other than it's most important route? Yeah I see the logic there.  

[Edited 2009-03-04 05:10:48]

User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4346 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13497 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 6):
but the most important

Doesn't the fact that the plane went into regular service on SYD first at least suggest that SYD is "more important" than LHR?



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13279 times:



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 9):
Doesn't the fact that the plane went into regular service on SYD first at least suggest that SYD is "more important" than LHR?

Not when 2 of the 3 LHR flights are A380 versus 1 A380 of the 3 for the SYD flights.

I'm confident the length of the sector for SIN/SYD was also a contributory factor in deciding the first A380 route for SQ. SIN/LHR is substantially longer and therefore not as useful for training/familiarisation, etc.


User currently offlineAirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13156 times:



Quoting N (Reply 10):
I'm confident the length of the sector for SIN/SYD was also a contributory factor in deciding the first A380 route for SQ. SIN/LHR is substantially longer and therefore not as useful for training/familiarisation, etc.

Yes, I would certainly tend to agree and I think this is unfortunately more getting into playing with words and changing........the poster clearly and distinctly stated the 'first' and only when corrected changed it to mean something different. Irrespective of what we may think is important to airlines, the fact remains that SIN-SYD was the FIRST route for the A380.


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12777 times:



Quoting AirNz (Reply 11):
Yes, I would certainly tend to agree and I think this is unfortunately more getting into playing with words and changing........the poster clearly and distinctly stated the 'first' and only when corrected changed it to mean something different. Irrespective of what we may think is important to airlines, the fact remains that SIN-SYD was the FIRST route for the A380.

And SQ's first 747(-200s) Service with ships 9V-SIA & 9V-SIB was deployed on the SIN (Paya Lebar) -HKG (Kai tak) -TPE (Sungshan)-TYO (Haneda) run daily. Not my fav airport LHR...

Sad to see SQ 747 Pax svcs ending at LHR, but happy that I've got tons of shots of them there!

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineAmciver From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12443 times:



Quoting EDICHC (Reply 8):

So what you are saying is, SQ when launching the first service in the world using the A380, inaugurated it on a route other than it's most important route?



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 9):
Doesn't the fact that the plane went into regular service on SYD first at least suggest that SYD is "more important" than LHR?

I think SQ wanted to beat Qantas to be the first A380 operator to Australia


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11782 times:



Quoting N (Reply 10):
Not when 2 of the 3 LHR flights are A380 versus 1 A380 of the 3 for the SYD flights.

Except that it seems SQ will soon be operating 2x daily WhaleJet service to SYD plus 1x daily to MEL.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12411 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11627 times:



Quoting B742 (Reply 7):
This was announced on a.net a few weeks back.

I recall that they said that they were adding 77Ws on the LHR route, not that they were ending 744 (pax) services. Still, I guess one follows from the other!

Anyway, I had the pleasure of flying SQ between SIN and LHR back in 2000 and enjoyed it immensely. Fine airline! Look forward to flying the 77W and 388 sometime soon.

I guess that the 77W will be flying the morning (9am) departure from SIN to LHR and the early evening return?


User currently offlineFlyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11451 times:

This is bound to happen with the newer types like the 777-300 and A380 replacing the older 747-400's, not just at LHR but probably all the big airports that handle them.

I know we all love the 747 and hope it survives with airlines for many dacades to come but it cant last forever, I think in 2050 we will be worrying about the A380 dissapearing as much as the 747-400 starting to now.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10760 times:

There's been a noticeable decline in 744s over the last few years at LHR - mostly replaced by the A346, 773ER and now A380. None of which have anywhere near the grace of the 747.  Sad

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10457 times:

How many flights does SQ have a day to LHR? 2x? Or does it vary by day/season?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7363 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10386 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Operates 3 daily. To think when they wanted MAN rights, they were told they had to reduce their then daily LHR ops to get the license!

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10213 times:

They do fly to MAN don't they?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Wilson



User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7363 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10107 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 20):
They do fly to MAN don't they?

5 weekly for now, 3 weekly from May. They've got to fill the A380 out of LHR, so why not drop capacity here to get BD to get pax to route MAN-LHR-SIN-elsewhere.


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2176 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9706 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 6):
FIRST here doesn't mean the first service operated but the most important and where most A380's are operated.

When SQ only had one A380, LHR was not possible as to operate the route daily, one needs more than 1 aircraft. (around 1.5). Therefore, the first destination was for a shorter route, and SYD got it.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineDavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1634 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9076 times:



Quoting N (Reply 10):
I'm confident the length of the sector for SIN/SYD was also a contributory factor in deciding the first A380 route for SQ. SIN/LHR is substantially longer and therefore not as useful for training/familiarisation, etc.

Yes, SIN-SYD allowed a complete return trip to bve done in a day, so a daily operation could be run with one aircraft. For SIN-LHR, two aircraft are required.

Quoting David_itl (Reply 21):
They've got to fill the A380 out of LHR, so why not drop capacity here to get BD to get pax to route MAN-LHR-SIN-elsewhere.

. . . and whatever happened to passenger convenience here? Abandoning a route so that you can deploy a larger aircraft on another route doesn't seem like very smart marketing to me.



This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7363 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8961 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DavidByrne (Reply 24):
Quoting David_itl (Reply 21):
They've got to fill the A380 out of LHR, so why not drop capacity here to get BD to get pax to route MAN-LHR-SIN-elsewhere.

. . . and whatever happened to passenger convenience here? Abandoning a route so that you can deploy a larger aircraft on another route doesn't seem like very smart marketing to me.

Back from the intital cut from daily to 5 weekly, what one analyst said. I wouldn't have thought there has been a significant difference in the number of J class pax flying ex-MAN between then and now as some airlines seem to think that type of passenger doesn't exist in sufficient numbers therefore if we allow ourselves a look at the January performance, over 90% load factor does not indicate a slackening of demand which is part of the reasoning for the latest cutback?


25 EDICHC : Not to mention the extra inconvenience of transiting terminals, at LHR. To be honest if I were flying MAN-SIN and no direct flight was available, I w
26 David_itl : What SQ is losing out on is the onward connections ex-SIN - this could play into the Gulf carriers plates; but LH is carting greater numbers from MAN
27 Ncfc99 : I hadn't heard this. When EK start to send the A380 to MAN, do you think this will see the end of SQ service? If I have got to one stop to get to SIN
28 M11Stephen : The 747 is no longer SQ's signature or flagship aircraft. It has been replaced by the A380 sadly.
29 SInGAPORE_AIR : The problem with SQ328/SQ327 is SIN's geographical position I think. The stage length is among the highest in their network and hence the cost of the
30 Haggis79 : true... but the best looking 747 was the -200 anyway, imho. I never really got used to that stretched upper deck...
31 Nicholaschee : Should SQ want to retain SQ233/234 to SYD in the long run, we might be seeing 1x388 & 3x773/77W instead. Definitely, remember the time when SQ had th
32 JQFlightie : i have never flown SQ, but i fly QF alot SIN-LHR. If SQ's 747 are like QF's 747 then i think that the 777-300ER is a welcome change!
33 The Coachman : I would argue that SQ's 744's inflight product means that most other airlines have overtaken it. The screens are small, the seats have not been upgra
34 LeftWing : SQ 744 gone...CAL 744F gone is it the death of the great B747....
35 Warren747sp : No. We still have the B748 yet to come.!
36 Max Q : Agree with that, I like all the 74's but the -200 was the best looking without a doubt. Especially with the RB211'S !
37 Ag92 : The naming convention of SQ disappeared for some reason - I do believe due to a change in management I think people are failing to realize whats actu
38 Col : Sadly they messed up. Operating daily, then down to five per week, up to daily, back down to five (but different days), realised they got the non rev
39 LHRlocal : Great news! Out with the old in with the new.....thats progress for you.
40 Nicholaschee : Simple logic. By giving aircraft specific names, there is a risk that the company faces when the names become more frequently used than the main bran
41 Olympic472 : On a related note: When will SQ discontinue 744 to FRA and JFK?
42 Haggis79 : just an uneducated guess: once they are ready to switch SQ 325/326 (SIN-FRA-SIN) to the A380, SQ 25/26 (SIN-FRA-JFK-FRA-SIN) will switch to the 77W.
43 Zvezda : That's very unlikely. SQ25/26 has greater demand than SQ325/326. It seems that both will be going 777-300ER.
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...
New Threat To UK Domestics At LHR posted Tue Jan 29 2008 14:04:41 by Bmiexpat
BA Ground Staff Knock Cargo Door Off 747 At LHR posted Wed Jan 23 2008 10:46:20 by Gh123
What Happened To The 747 At TIJ? posted Mon Aug 13 2007 18:39:42 by Marcus
Why So Many 747 At LHR? posted Sun Apr 8 2007 13:03:57 by LHStarAlliance
SQ A380 (Model) Arrives At LHR posted Sat Jan 21 2006 02:05:06 by Xkorpyoh
BAA To Rebuild Terminal 2 At LHR posted Fri Nov 11 2005 00:51:40 by Willyj
Finnair To Use T5 At LHR? posted Mon Feb 28 2005 15:40:21 by Richardw
USAirways To End Service At Evansville posted Thu Nov 11 2004 14:58:06 by FlyPNS1
Air France 747 At LHR Today! posted Wed Jun 16 2004 14:43:31 by Bigpappa
Why Was A Lufthansa 747 At LHR Today? posted Sun Mar 14 2004 19:17:57 by Bigpappa