kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14707 times:
This is a operation analysis of Singapore Airlines' A380 fleet.
They currently have 12 aircraft, that operate the following:
2x daily LHR, 2x daily SYD, daily MEL, daily ZRH, daily CDG, daily HKG, and daily NRT-LAX-NRT.
There are 2 proposed routes to my knowledge. (the 3rd LHR flight, and possibly the FRA-JFK-FRA flight)
Illustrated here are the schedules.
(click on the image to enlarge)
Illustrated here are the allocation of the aircraft.
(click on the image to enlarge)
To do the 3rd LHR flight and the FRA-JFK-FRA flight they will need 4 more A380s. The JFK route by itself would take up 2.5 A380s.
The way the allocation is illustrated is by aircraft "lanes." Specific aircraft can switch lanes when they are both at SIN for a period of time. So, this is NOT the specific aircraft allocation. The CDG or ZRH routes could both fit in the HKG flight in between them. Singapore Air could ideally fit in another local route here, but I guess they left that space there for fleet maintenance.
If they go forth with bringing the A380 to the FRA-JFK-FRA route, they will only have 2 more planes left for new A380 routes (basically 1 long-haul route).
TCASAlert From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14536 times:
Surely they will also need extra frames to give some capacity in the even that one goes tech - as it is here they would have to sub the A380 with a 744, and shift the remaining pax across to other flights.
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14477 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 2): The MEL flight is returning to a 744 early next year, so there could be another route out of that...
Quoting TCASAlert (Reply 3): Surely they will also need extra frames to give some capacity in the even that one goes tech - as it is here they would have to sub the A380 with a 744, and shift the remaining pax across to other flights.
All 747-400s will be gone by the beginning of next year.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7350 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13347 times:
IF JFK an A380 worthy market for Singapore Air ? Wouldn't a 777-300ER be a better plane for the route. Anyone needing J class Singapore - New York flights would be better with thte A340-500 nonstop.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6891 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13172 times:
I don't see FRA-JFK-FRA going to A380 any time soon, if at all. In my opinion, the only way we'll seen a SQ A380 at JFK is when Airbus can deliver one that could fly JFK-SIN non-stop at a profit.
If SFO can't sustain an A380, then JFK sure as hell can't either.
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11704 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8): Anyone needing J class Singapore - New York flights would be better with thte A340-500 nonstop.
LAX had an all J A340-500, as well as the A380. They surely make it work.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 9): If SFO can't sustain an A380, then JFK sure as hell can't either.
SFO does have double daily 777-300ER. upguaging that to 777-300ER and A380 may be a bit excessive.
The JFK route (and another LHR distanced route to go with it) requires 4 aircraft as you can see above. Question is, do they have 4 free 777-300ERs? I guess they could take the ones from the SIN-HKG-SFO route, but that would still not be enough.
They should have ordered extra 777-300ERs much earlier.
bonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 398 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10797 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 9): I don't see FRA-JFK-FRA going to A380 any time soon, if at all. In my opinion, the only way we'll seen a SQ A380 at JFK is when Airbus can deliver one that could fly JFK-SIN non-stop at a profit.
The SIN-FRA-JFK route is already a 744. I think an upgauge to an A380 is pretty logical for a 1-stop route. I don't think they could fill a nonstop A380, even if it had the legs for the route. That market is handeled pretty well by the all J-configured A345 from SIN-EWR.
maxfly From Austria, joined Oct 2003, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10487 times:
well, they could also go A380 on SQ 326/325 SIN-FRA-SIN and replace the 744 on SQ 26/25 SIN-FRA-JFK-FRA-SIN by a 77W, the proposed 3rd LHR and FRA flights served by A380s would require 3 units, two of which are in the cabin test flight phase in XFW and the third one being pulled from the MEL route. The three required 77Ws coming from the turnaround flights to LHR and FRA being replaced by A380s. Just a theory of course but maybe possible...... any comments from people who have more insight in SQ's strategies and thinking?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5733 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 10): Quoting airbazar (Reply 9):
If SFO can't sustain an A380, then JFK sure as hell can't either.
SFO does have double daily 777-300ER. upguaging that to 777-300ER and A380 may be a bit excessive.
They have different routes. SIN-HKG-SFO and SIN-ICN-SFO.
Quoting bonusonus (Reply 11): The SIN-FRA-JFK route is already a 744. I think an upgauge to an A380 is pretty logical for a 1-stop route.
LH422 From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 278 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3647 times:
Quoting maxfly (Reply 12): well, they could also go A380 on SQ 326/325 SIN-FRA-SIN and replace the 744 on SQ 26/25 SIN-FRA-JFK-FRA-SIN by a 77W
The only problem with this is that SQ 26/25 SIN-FRA-SIN could use an upgrade capacity-wise and SQ 26/25 FRA-JFK-FRA could use a downgrade.
SQ 326/325 is not as popular as its counterpart due to the daytime flight between SIN and FRA. It is also hard to catch it coming from Australia, since it leaves too early. It should probably stay a B77W.
I think the timing of these flights is bound to change once the B744 leave the route.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3433 times:
Quoting LH422 (Reply 15): SQ 326/325 is not as popular as its counterpart due to the daytime flight between SIN and FRA. It is also hard to catch it coming from Australia, since it leaves too early. It should probably stay a B77W.
I don't know much about the route -- could the flights be switched? Ie SQ326/325 extended to JFK with a 77W and SQ26/25 moved to an A380, but terminating in FRA??
AustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3076 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 16): SQ326/325 extended to JFK with a 77W and SQ26/25 moved to an A380, but terminating in FRA
That would be a departure from FRA to JFK at approximately 10:30 pm with an arrival in New York around 1 am. The return flight would leave JFK at 6 am for an arrival into FRA at 8 pm to match the current SQ325/326 schedules with arrival in FRA at 8:40 pm and a departure back to SIN at 10:00 pm. Very inconvenient flight times for the Atlantic crossing...
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2559 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Panama, joined Jan 2011, 140 posts, 
From Austria, joined Oct 2003, 99 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Aug 2011, 10 posts, 
.
From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 278 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
