Amciver From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 48 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13146 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?
Directorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1569 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13080 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.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12614 times:
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.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12515 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.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12451 times:
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.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12405 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.
Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4092 posts, RR: 18 Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12401 times:
N From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 55 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12183 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.
AirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12060 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.
BN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5288 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11681 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
Amciver From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 48 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11347 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
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11952 posts, RR: 37 Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10531 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?
Flyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10355 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.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9664 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.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9361 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.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7145 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9011 times:
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.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2109 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8610 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.
DavidByrne From New Zealand, joined Sep 2007, 1527 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7980 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
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7145 posts, RR: 14 Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7865 times:
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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 48 posts, 
From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1569 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 661 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2005, 3760 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11952 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
