Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?  
User currently offlinequig From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 93 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16233 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just wondering if their has been updates on this?

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ngapore/Story/STIStory_782957.html

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 16234 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It wasn't a successful strategy before, so I fail to see how it would be successful now.

Better to just retire the routes and the birds and do one-stops via HKG or NRT on the A380.


User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2468 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15785 times:

It's tiring reading about A345 bashers all day, when factually, a lot of their info is wrong. SIA isn't a charity, and the nonstops to EWR and LAX are hardly as loss-prone as this article reads. Loads on the EWR flight are persistently 65-85%, and SIA doesn't really offer discounted fares on this route.


oh boy!!!
User currently offlinetraindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15688 times:

I am a Boeing fan. However, I have flown the A345 from EWR to SIN, and it is a great A/C. And my last trip was in the premium economy, before the all J renovation. SIA knows what they are doing and they are adapting to the changing market, just as they did going from Y/J to all J a few years back.

User currently offlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 891 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15650 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2):
It's tiring reading about A345 bashers all day

I don't think they are bashing the plane itself ... just its economics. The reality is that ULH is very expensive and for the amount of profit they can make , its just not worth it.


User currently offlinedynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15619 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2):
It's tiring reading about A345 bashers all day, when factually, a lot of their info is wrong. SIA isn't a charity, and the nonstops to EWR and LAX are hardly as loss-prone as this article reads. Loads on the EWR flight are persistently 65-85%, and SIA doesn't really offer discounted fares on this route.

A345 bashing?

The fact is an aircraft that was designed for ultra long range operations is currently being used on 5 routes longer than 10,000 km, namely

SIN-EWR
SIN-LAX
AUH-JFK
AUH-MEL
AUH-SYD

The longest A345 route served by EK is less than 6,400 km (DXB-ACC), which can easily be served by an A332 or a 772.

Why do you think the A345 is not being regularly used for its design intent?

Also, achieving 65-85% LF on the EWR and LAX nonstop services doesn't mean SQ can breakeven.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8474 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15436 times:

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 5):
Why do you think the A345 is not being regularly used for its design intent?

Maybe because there aren't enough ULH routes with enough demand? Just a wild guess. How many 77L routes longer than 10,000Km do you know of? Heck, pick just about any aircraft at all and you'll find that 90% of the route it flies are well below it's maximun range. just because a plane is made to fly a certain distance it doesn't mean it will be used that way by the airlines. There are A332's and 77W's flying medium-haul segments around the world every day.


User currently offlinesq_ek_freak From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 1640 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15352 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2):
SIA isn't a charity, and the nonstops to EWR and LAX are hardly as loss-prone as this article reads. Loads on the EWR flight are persistently 65-85%, and SIA doesn't really offer discounted fares on this route.

And SQ is pretty notorious for being rather cut throat about axing loss making routes. Like look at Chicago and Las Vegas in the US. And you're right about the ticket pricing, fares for this flight are routinely decently higher than the one stop through Frankfurt, on an aircraft that now offers the same product than what's found on the A345.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 5):
The longest A345 route served by EK is less than 6,400 km (DXB-ACC), which can easily be served by an A332 or a 772.

Well EK's use for the A345 is no longer valid given that we have the 77L which came after the A345. If the airline wasn't so short of aircraft I'd imagine these aircraft would have been disposed of some time ago.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 5):
Also, achieving 65-85% LF on the EWR and LAX nonstop services doesn't mean SQ can breakeven.

Do you per chance have the breakeven load factor for this route? Wasn't aware that airlines made that information public.



Keep Discovering
User currently offlinedynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15170 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
How many 77L routes longer than 10,000Km do you know of?

A lot more than A345:

AC: YYZ-HKG, YYZ-PVG, SYD-YVR
DL: ATL-DXB, ATL-JNB, DTW-HKG
EK: DXB-DFW, DXB-LAX, DXB-SEA
ET: YYZ-ADD, IAD-ADD (both in one direction only)
QR: DOH-GRU, DOH-MEL, DOH-IAH
AI: BOM-EWR
PK: ISB/LHE/KHI-YYZ/JFK

5 more routes between 9,000-10,000 km.

Most of these routes are daily. Including the 5 9,000-10,000 km routes, it would require 35-40 aircraft to serve these routes. In another word, most of the 77L are being used on routes that the aircraft is designed for.

The A345 routes listed before would need no more than 7 aircraft.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):

Maybe because there aren't enough ULH routes with enough demand?

And at the economic level the current aircraft can provide. That's why the demand for A345 and 77L is limited.



Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
Heck, pick just about any aircraft at all and you'll find that 90% of the route it flies are well below it's maximun range

I have demonstrated above that's not the case for 77L. Of course airlines will operate a mix of short, medium and long haul routes with their long haul aircraft. But you certainly shouldn't buy an aircraft that you don't use close to its capability at all, especially when alternatives are available.


Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 7):
Well EK's use for the A345 is no longer valid given that we have the 77L which came after the A345. If the airline wasn't so short of aircraft I'd imagine these aircraft would have been disposed of some time ago.

In another word, you're saying A345 is not efficient, right? Otherwise, why would they get rid of them?

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 7):
Do you per chance have the breakeven load factor for this route? Wasn't aware that airlines made that information public.

Of course I don't have. My point is just by stating their LF doesn't mean they can make money or not. But I know what you're trying to say, because you mentioned:

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 7):
And SQ is pretty notorious for being rather cut throat about axing loss making routes. Like look at Chicago and Las Vegas in the US.

The difference here is the 777 equipment used on those routes could be redeployed on other routes. The A345 has no where else to go. Perhaps losing some money on the EWR/LAX routes is better than parking the A345s.


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1689 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15049 times:

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
DL: ATL-DXB, ATL-JNB, DTW-HKG

FYI, you're missing LAX-SYD there for DL. Additionally, DL has several 10,000km+ routes that it schedules with the 772 and occasionally operates with the 77L depending on availability. Obviously other carriers also operate many longer routes with the 772 (or 77W) rather than the 77L.


User currently offlinedynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15009 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 9):

FYI, you're missing LAX-SYD there for DL. Additionally, DL has several 10,000km+ routes that it schedules with the 772 and occasionally operates with the 77L depending on availability.

You caught me. I knew I forgot to include it. I was going to edit it, but I thought no one was going to check every detail.  


User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8142 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 14877 times:

The A340-500 routes SQ fly - Newark and Los Angeles - wouldn't exist if they didn't make money. Maybe they would have lasted a year if the business model didn't work, but actually those routes have run for quite a few years now. That proves they are profitable.

SQ do enough incredibly cool stuff - how many Asian carriers run transatlantic and transpacific A380s? And they have probably the best economy product and almost certainly the best business product in the sky - so they don't need to gild the lily with loss-making vanity projects.

(On an a.net-related note, I love how these two routes are of constant fascination and discussion on this site, like BA's A318s to JFK. Every time a thread starts on the subject, you know it's going to run to 60+ replies. What will this one get to?)

[Edited 2012-07-26 15:20:56]


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlinefalkerker From Seychelles, joined Apr 2012, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14795 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 11):
The A340-500 routes SQ fly - Newark and Los Angeles - wouldn't exist if they didn't make money.
Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 7):
SQ is pretty notorious for being rather cut throat about axing loss making routes

Totally agree. SQ is a well known brand that needs no money-losing, branding gimmicks. I believe if they have ran the route for so long it's because it's profitable. Maybe not the highest yield in SQ but certainly profitable. More on topic, I think having full J is probably more profitable than the Y/J product they used to have...

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 11):
(On an a.net-related note, I love how these two routes are of constant fascination and discussion on this site, like BA's A318s to JFK. Every time a thread starts on the subject, you know it's going to run to 60 replies. What will this one get to?)

At least 60. I was going to post that even if they lost money, those routes give nutters like us things to talk about!

Besides, if SQ slashed EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN, my bucket list would suffer tremendously!! (but probably the feeling is limited to a.netters!)


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6625 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14773 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 11):
The A340-500 routes SQ fly - Newark and Los Angeles - wouldn't exist if they didn't make money.

Lots of carriers fly money losing routes for a long time if they feel it provides them advantages in other areas (getting corporate contracts, keeping FF's happy, etc).


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1689 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14774 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 11):
The A340-500 routes SQ fly - Newark and Los Angeles - wouldn't exist if they didn't make money. Maybe they would have lasted a year if the business model didn't work, but actually those routes have run for quite a few years now. That proves they are profitable.

I'm not 100% sure we can say that, though. They originally were operated with a different configuration and were not profitable, so SQ axed them and hoped to shed the 345s from its fleet. However, they couldn't find any takers for the planes and they're too expensive to have sitting around, so they re-tooled to the current premium configuration and decided to reinstate the LAX/EWR routes rather than fly the 345 on much shorter routes for which they already had more efficient aircraft.

My point is that was can probably safely say that operating LAX/EWR is likely a net positive compared to eating the cost of the planes, but we can't say for certain that they are truly profitable.


User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14391 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 9):
you're missing LAX-SYD there for DL

You don't need a ULH plane for LAX-SYD. The route is also flown with 77Ws, A380s and 744s. Likewise DOH-MEL is a similar distance to DXB-MEL and AUH-MEL which are served non-stop with 77W and A346.

ULH remains a very difficult market to operate effectively with any aircraft.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlineDocpepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13503 times:

EK send the 77W DXB-LAX. It is just 300 miles shorter than SIN-LAX. Can't SQ send a 3-class config 77W to LAX nontstop from SIN?

If SQ can SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR, that's up to 200 pax a day they're potentially giving away to CX and the myraid of other airlines that offer a one-stop service from SIN to these cities. After all it's not like the one stops to LAX and JFK are flying empty. I guess SQ had to do the analysis of weighing losing pax to other airlines vs maintaining these routes, plus writing off the residual value of the aircraft.

I've always wondered why they do SIN-LAX because LAX is not a financial centre like NYC is. Does LAX release stats on load factors of flights like Houston Airport does?


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17657 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13417 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 14):
My point is that was can probably safely say that operating LAX/EWR is likely a net positive compared to eating the cost of the planes

I think the cost of the planes = 0 since no one wants them. I also think SQ isn't making a dime on EWR, let alone LAX.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineafterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1213 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13352 times:

Putting back Y seats on A345s means SQ can use them to fly short hop flights like SIN-CGK-SIN between ULH flights like the airline used to do. It was very nice to fly on premium economy class seats with regular economy class fare.  

User currently offlineintothinair From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13014 times:

What we have learned from this thread is that everybody seems to be more interested in bashing the A345 or the whole A345 vs 772LR battle.

Now, back to what the original thread was about; does anybody know if SQ intends to still refit the A345 with Y class? I just went on SQ's website, looked at SIN-EWR for early next year, and it appears that only J class can be booked?

Thanks!

Kind Regards


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12669 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting intothinair (Reply 19):
does anybody know if SQ intends to still refit the A345 with Y class?

Internet searches come up with nothing and SQ still markets it as an all-Business Class product on their website.

So if they are planning on doing so, they're keeping it close to the vest.


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1689 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9469 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 17):
I think the cost of the planes = 0 since no one wants them. I also think SQ isn't making a dime on EWR, let alone LAX.

You could argue that makes the value of the planes zero, but they still have a cost to SQ regardless. Even putting them into storage costs money and I wouldn't be surprised if they are also still paying for those birds (anyone know?).


User currently offlinesq_ek_freak From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 1640 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9460 times:

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):

In another word, you're saying A345 is not efficient, right? Otherwise, why would they get rid of them?

If you are talking about the A345 as a standalone aircraft, then I'm not in a position to speak to that to be honest - but if you are comparing it with the 77L on ULH missions then yes from what I've read I think the 77L is more efficient.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
The difference here is the 777 equipment used on those routes could be redeployed on other routes. The A345 has no where else to go. Perhaps losing some money on the EWR/LAX routes is better than parking the A345s.

Well that might be a possibility - but since neither you or I have access to the information that would answer the debate definitively one way or another, arguing about it would be moot.

Quoting falkerker (Reply 12):
Totally agree. SQ is a well known brand that needs no money-losing, branding gimmicks. I believe if they have ran the route for so long it's because it's profitable. Maybe not the highest yield in SQ but certainly profitable.

I didn't even think of the time frame - the route has been running for nearly 10 years now right?

Quoting steex (Reply 14):
My point is that was can probably safely say that operating LAX/EWR is likely a net positive compared to eating the cost of the planes, but we can't say for certain that they are truly profitable.

That is another consideration I didn't think of, and quite possibly might be the case here too.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Internet searches come up with nothing and SQ still markets it as an all-Business Class product on their website.

So if they are planning on doing so, they're keeping it close to the vest.

Either that or they are still going back and forth as to whether they are going to go ahead with the refit or not...



Keep Discovering
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8474 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9389 times:

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
A lot more than A345:

Wrong answer. The correct answer is: Very few. My point is, there are very few viable ULH routes, regardless. Even the 787's aren't being deployed in ULH routes.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
In another word, most of the 77L are being used on routes that the aircraft is designed for.

Most but not all. Same applies to the A345. The difference is the 77L is a newer more capable airplane.


User currently offlineordjoe From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9214 times:

My thoughts, SQ is probably making some sort of money on this route, probably not the most profitable, but still makes money.

As for adding Y, it is tough to say. On these flights it is pretty much impossible to redeem miles to use (you have to use Kris miles and SQ is known to charge a boatload for their premium routes), so whomever is on this flight likely bought a ticket. Ticket prices on these flights seem to be only full fare J. If the load factors are low enough they can sacrafice these seats with Y (I am sure you can get a good amount of Y seats in for every J seat that is removed) then that could work to get some people on that might only pay $1200 or what ever. It is my understanding though that the EWR flight is usually pretty full with wall street types.


25 CHRISBA777ER : Blows my mind the hammering the A345 takes on here. Sometimes it feels like (*sarcasm on*) "How can something that burns 147.5 metric tonnes of fuel p
26 Flighty : Almost. We can say it is the best business plan for their existing A345 at SQ's system and brand level. Knowing whether it makes or loses money would
27 Polot : Don't have to worry about that, TAM parked theirs too! Qatar doesn't operate the A345 in commercial service, there single A345 is for the Amiri fligh
28 AeroWesty : LOL, well done you. Though you could probably post this same thing on the MH 747 retirement thread and be just about as accurate. Anything not the ne
29 CHRISBA777ER : Aye. A very sad symptom of a modern consumerist society, sad to say. My little brother doesnt play his PS2 any more. Its a waste of time apparently.
30 Polot : Except the A345 is not some old discarded jet, it is suppose to be a current (well, current up to the A380/787) gen jet. That would be analogous to y
31 steex : In fairness, it only took until Post #3 for someone to bring up that they hate the bashing the A345 takes, at which point nobody had bashed the A345
32 Polot : Just to note, I don't think they ever axed the flight. It was transitioned to an all J product (with EWR getting it first, then LAX) but they never s
33 steex : You're correct, and I have edited accordingly. I was recalling the temporary reduction in LAX service during the modifications.
34 747400sp : It too bad, I love that A345's, was fling premium ULH routes. As I have said before, to me, an A340NG, looks like a hybrid of DC-8 and A300, and with
35 Post contains images dynkrisolo : Hmmm... 3-4 times more 77L routes than A345 routes, 5-6 times more 77L long haul weekly frequencies than A345. That's what I said ... "A lot more tha
36 Aesma : I see a lot of MD-88 and even DC-9 defenders on this website, so I would not agree entirely. Somehow it's very smart for some airlines to fly those g
37 MaverickM11 : With the exception of DMEIAH, EWR/LAXSIN are really the only routes that ever get reduced to less than daily. Since the two ULH routes started, and a
38 steex : I think that's a bit extreme, but there's a critical difference between the DC-9/MD-88 compared to the A340-500. I think it's generally reasonable to
39 LHCVG : Notice as well how UA decided to add E- into the PS fleet, which has until now been all E+ in back. Granted U.S. transcon is not ULH, but perhaps the
40 Post contains images Viscount724 : It was more like a premium Y product that standard Y, with much more spacious 7-abreast seating rather than the usual 8, and 37 inch seat pitch. Also
41 mogandoCI : I know, they think if a plane is full depreciated and paid off, even the Convair 990 could make money if you put in WiFi and AVOD.
42 col : It was sold as Exec Economy. Flew EWR-SIN in both classes when the route started, and it was a great way to get to and from SIN quickly. The 345 is f
43 MaverickM11 : Neither really draws anyone; one of EK's executives was mentioning the take rate of wifi on flights longer than 12 hours was below 4%
44 spink : No one wants to pay to work on a plane, esp for a long flight. And likewise, a large number of people doing 10+ hour flights already have laptops or
45 huaiwei : And your point being? Lots of other routes have their frequencies reduced during those difficult times, so how is this supposed to contradict his com
46 MaverickM11 : It's pretty crystal clear. The only routes SQ has pulled down have been the EWR/LAX nonstops. LAX is still only 5/week.
47 RWA380 : I'm guessing there is some profit in the route, or like an other carrier, SQ would drop it. I have sold many a J ticket on these flights, mostly alwa
48 spink : I think the issue surrounds what is the profit. Is it revenue greater than the operating costs or is it revenue greater than the operating costs + th
49 huaiwei : And so? No it is not crystal clear, so perhaps you should elaborate on the point you are trying to make, rather than I make assumptions on your flawe
50 MaverickM11 : Why do you think they pulled only the ULH flights, and nothing else?
51 falkerker : The problem with narrow minds is wide mouths... Since you've never been on an airbus, tell us how much experience you have on the A345 or about SQ's
52 Stitch : Considering that CHRISBA777ER's statement was facetious hyperbole - and specifically stated by him as such...
53 neutrino : That's the problem with narrow eyes and a wide mouth! (partially stolen line)
54 huaiwei : Why don't you share your reasoning instead, since I do not work for SQ and have no privy to their planning processes and operational/financial data?
55 Post contains images bestwestern : If the A345 was as noisy as a 77L, it would be more successful to LAX and EWR, because, as you know, we americans like noise!
56 Post contains images Stitch : Evidently Americans are not alone in this preference, considering how the A340 fared against the 777 around the world.
57 MaverickM11 : Airlines generally don't cut profitable flying. Of all the currently operated SQ nonstops to the US, only the ULH flights have been cut back; it's cl
58 neutrino : Huh? The ULHs are the only currently operated SQ nonstops to the US. The others are onestops.
59 huaiwei : Weakest amongst which flights? Because as neutrino pointed out, you seem to think Sq flies non-ULH non-stops to the US? And does being the weakest fl
60 MaverickM11 : See above. Yes, it probably does. Why else would SQ reduce them? I don't believe for a second LAX is profitable, and I believe EWR generally covers c
61 col : During the ULH days SQ has cut a few one stop routes, but kept the ULH running. I am not sure what SQ will do, but I am sure they have a handle on it
62 MaverickM11 : Those routes had opportunity costs--flying LAXTPE for example meant not using a 77W/772/744 elsewhere. Canceling it meant SQ could add capacity elsew
63 SKAirbus : Terrible that so many people still have this "if it ain't Boeing it ain't going" nonsense. Give me an A340-500/600 with 2-4-2- config over 3-3-3 and 3
64 Post contains images neutrino : And give me a 767 with 2-3-2 over an A345/6 with 2-4-2 anytime. Or a DC-9 with 2-3 over a 737/A320 with 3-3. Or a private jet with my personalised co
65 shankly : That is the Airliners.net Olympics Gold medal post....bloody classic Chris and reading the posts afterwards makes it even better. Did Stitch even bit
66 Post contains images Stitch : I'm inclined to say the same of the "Airbus or Bust" crowd, but the fact is that as consumers, people have preferences and companies - including Airb
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...
SQ Biz Class Seat: A345 Size Same As A380? posted Sun Oct 19 2008 22:21:51 by Ctrav11
SQ First Class On 777-300 posted Thu Jun 8 2006 19:57:39 by KL565
Why Did SIA Didn't Install First Class On A345 posted Wed Nov 19 2003 00:22:12 by Joleb
Any News Or Update On The SQ Order? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 15:02:40 by UALMMFlyer
Any News On EK "new" Business Class posted Mon Mar 29 2004 19:04:48 by Nflippa
Any News On California Pacific Airlines posted Wed Dec 28 2011 05:33:15 by ridgid727
Any News On Baltia Air Flights? posted Tue Dec 27 2011 13:02:35 by vlad1971
Any News On TP's Rumored LIS-TLV Service? posted Wed Nov 30 2011 08:55:30 by LHLX
Any News On Libyan Airlines Or Afriqiyah Airways? posted Mon Nov 28 2011 05:48:45 by Tobias2702
Any News On Meridianafly's New C/s Yet? posted Fri Dec 31 2010 06:52:54 by Giancavia