SASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 549 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7562 times:
The SQ 777-200ER will be replaced by A330-300s and B777-300ERs. Some ( I don't know if it applies to all of them) of them are going to the new low cost carrier. The main question is, what will happen with the current B777-200ER destinations? For instance AMS which is a true leisure destination for SQ, I think the A380 (with a tag-on) or a B777-00ER are too premium. The 747-400s do not have a long life to go and the A330-300 do not have the legs for this flight.
What will be the future for the current SQ 777-200ER routes such as AMS?
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9067 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7514 times:
You said it yourself, the A330-300 and 777-300ER will take over those 777-200ER routes as an upgrade to the A380 will probably be too much of a capacity increase on those routes. AMS would probably see the SQ 777-300ER.
Looking it up on the Airbus website the A330-300 has a range of 10,800 km and the distance from SIN to AMS is 10,517 km according to the Great Circle Mapper so the A330-300 probably won't make it non-stop without any (serious) penalties. But again as I said, SQ will probably use the 777-300ER in this case (SIN-AMS-SIN). I think most other routes currently flown by the 777-200ER (especially in Asia) can be taken over by the A330-300 if SQ doesn't decide to transfer those routes to their new low cost division.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1194 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7397 times:
When will the last SQ 77E's be retired? My thought was that they would stay at least until 2014, when the first A350's will arrive. These are the natural 77E successors.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9067 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7324 times:
I also think it will take some time before all SQ's 777-200ER's are retired and/or transferred to their low cost division. And yes, eventually the A350 will be replacing the 777-200ER models as soon they will be delivered to SQ. SQ will have two options for their SIN-AMS route: the A350 and the 777-300ER. Which one will be chosen will most likely depend on the market conditions by then and how those conditions will effect their network planning. This is just my opinion and it is still far away to tell either.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7086 times:
Do not forget that SQ has 787-9s on order and as those are delivered, A330-300s will be returned to their lessors.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7340 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6999 times:
Singapore recently ordered 8 77W's since the original 19 777-300ER's are flown so extensively all over the SQ route system.
infinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 299 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6693 times:
My guess is it'd be a 77W on AMS. Would be nice to finally have the new J to AMS. My Dutch friend was disappointed on his first SQ flight out of AMS, he expected to see the huge 1-2-1 new J but got the older one they use on this route.
flythere From Hong Kong, joined May 2010, 384 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6501 times:
SQ wont deploy 77W in near future for both pax and cargo load isnt justifiable for an upgauge yet.
It would remain as a 77E destination until its 787 got delivered. Or worst case would be transferring the AMS mainline service to the low-cost long-haul subsidiary, which is likely to happen.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2694 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6349 times:
Quoting flythere (Reply 8): SQ wont deploy 77W in near future for both pax and cargo load isnt justifiable for an upgauge yet.
Keep in mind, there are in fact more seats on the SQ 77E than the SQ 77W, the key difference is the amount of Business Class seats. Although putting the 77W on routes such as AMS, FCO and CPH would be a decrease in seats, there would also be a significant increase in J-Class seats and a significant decrease in Y-class, in rather Y-class oriented routes.
However, that being said, I think that AMS will eventually get the A350, same with FCO, while CPH will get the 787-9 (slightly smaller, so maybe an increase in frequencies). This all depends on how the 787's will be configured (regional vs. long-haul product).
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1194 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6283 times:
Quoting flythere (Reply 8): Or worst case would be transferring the AMS mainline service to the low-cost long-haul subsidiary, which is likely to happen.
Arrgh... I hope not. That would mean we'll keep the 77E, which I didn't particularly like on my last SQ flight last year. Seats were worn out and hard as a rock, very uncomfortable.
Still, SQ has a very good reputation as a quality airline, here in the Netherlands just like the rest of the world, and many people prefer it over other airlines like KL, EK and MH. If SQ sends their LCC product, this will very likely be over, especially when MH sends their A380 to AMS.
Quoting CXfirst (Reply 10): all depends on how the 787's will be configured (regional vs. long-haul product).
I thought the 787's were meant for regional routes, and the A350's for long-haul.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2694 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6010 times:
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 11): I thought the 787's were meant for regional routes, and the A350's for long-haul.
I've heard that as well, but the regional product on the A330 isn't any worse, in fact it is better, than the 77E product, so I could still imagine it going to CPH. I think CPH would do a lot better with a little bit less seats and possibly more frequencies. The A350 could be a bit too much plane for CPH.
The Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1410 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5902 times:
The other option is to put a regionally configured 772 on the leisure routes. They are configured 38J/228Y so whilst there is a slight reduction in Y capacity, it can be flown with a more leisure-oriented product.
infinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 299 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2361 times:
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 11): Still, SQ has a very good reputation as a quality airline, here in the Netherlands just like the rest of the world, and many people prefer it over other airlines like KL, EK and MH. If SQ sends their LCC product, this will very likely be over, especially when MH sends their A380 to AMS.
Precisely. I've always thought the LCC arm would hurt the parent airline's brand. And I wont want my favorite part of Europe to end up with the LCC but that's just me ranting haha.. I absolutely love Holland, did a semester there in Utrecht this year.
Quoting SR4ever (Reply 12): Do we have any more news on the plans for this LCC subsidiary of SQ? (name, destinations, timing, product...)
Its going to be called Scoot. Yes, they probably wanted a name that sounds nothing like them to differentiate it but I have no idea why they chose Scoot.. The unfortunate naming aside, little else is known
Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 15): You know that the current B77W have actually less seats than the B772? The 77W have way too much premium seats to operate the route to AMS profitably.
So their yields to AMS are really that bad.. Why is that?
SASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 549 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2128 times:
Quoting infinit (Reply 16): So their yields to AMS are really that bad.. Why is that?
AMS is a diffcult market because of their low yields. This is one of the reasons that we still do not have AA at AMS.
A lot of (Dutch) tourist fly to their holiday destinations in South East Asia and Australia with airlines such as SQ, CX, MH, CI and BR. I have seen people form Germany, Belgium and the Nordics flying to AMS to take one of these flights.
Of course C seats are sold but not as many as BA, AF, LH and LX do with their flights to Asia and Australia.
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 549 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9067 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 299 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2410 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined May 2010, 384 posts, 
From Australia, joined May 2000, 1457 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2694 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Mar 2010, 765 posts, 
(and of course according to what Boeing promise) this will still take 4 or 5 years, doesn't it?
Printer friendly format 
