Tdan From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 306 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 23156 times:
This was inevitable. SQ could never figure out how to make these routes work in a high fuel environment and notorious A345 fuel hogs. Sad to see them go from a spotters perspective.
We will ride this thunderbird, silver shadows on the earth, a thousand leagues away our land of birth... -Captain Bruce
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26726 posts, RR: 83 Reply 6, posted (7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 22937 times:
Quoting Tdan (Reply 1): SQ could never figure out how to make these routes work in a high fuel environment and notorious A345 fuel hogs.
They made it work for longer than TG did.
Honestly, I'm not sure the 777-200LR would have saved this route (or TG's). While flight-planning projections I have seen show the 777-200LR burned about 20% less fuel on the mission (at the same payload weight), those projections also showed that the savings worked out to about $20,000 per trip / $15,000,000 per year with a fuel price of $1.95/USG. The current spot price is now $3.19 so while the savings would now be close to $32,000 per trip, the 777-200LR's fuel bill would be higher today then the A340-500's was at the time the original projections were run.
If SQ was filling all 100 seats on the A340-500, then the route still would have been profitable. But clearly they were not, and the route was losing money. So applying the same loads to the 777-200LR would still have generated a loss, just not quite as large, but I believe large enough to warrant closing the service.
sonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 22927 times:
Thanks for that SFO. It looks like given the fleet orders by SQ, the only aircraft which could service these routes in the future would be the 359 (which I would assume they ordered). No other a/c in their fleet could operate these routes without significant penalties.
Interesting times ahead. I wonder how this affects the rumor that SQ is negotiating to be the launch customer for the 787-10?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26726 posts, RR: 83 Reply 8, posted (7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 22888 times:
Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 7): It looks like given the fleet orders by SQ, the only aircraft which could service these routes in the future would be the 359 (which I would assume they ordered). No other a/c in their fleet could operate these routes without significant penalties.
Well they could add the 777-200LR, but see above.
The 777-8XLR could also be a future option. Not sure how a hypothetical 251t MTOW "787-8LR" would work out...
sonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22736 times:
I don't see a 251t 788 being produced within the foreseeable future. As the 788 program matures, they will trim weight and improve engine efficiency. Perhaps this route could work with an all J class 788 going forward but SQ won't have 787's in their fleet. They are trending Airbus. The lack of a 787 order for SQ tells me they will eventually phase out their 77W's in favor or an Airbus replacement.
LondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22679 times:
It looks as though the news of the ending of these ultra long-haul flights was buried within the new aircraft order announcement.
There is some further analysis in Business Traveller. I chuckled when I read what AF's ex-CEO Pierre-Henri Gourgeon thought of the A340-500s when he described them as "flying fuel tankers with few people on board."
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2672 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22678 times:
Wow!
I was always shocked this was at EWR instead of JFK...but either way the equation (ULH, fewer seats, high fuel) does not make this flight work.
Quite the blow to EWR. I dare say they should ax EWR altogether...how many money losers NYC-FRA do they need? They already run the route from JFK and it is being downgraded from 380 to 777
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22581 times:
This is the sort of route that could have worked 15 years ago. It's just not viable to run these sorts of very long flights any more unless they are connecting really major hubs where the traffic is virtually guaranteed to come.
I am a little disappointed I'll never get a chance to do the flight though, as I doubt we'll see it return until something really major shakes up aviation (ie a completely new concept aircraft).
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22425 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 11): They already run the route from JFK and it is being downgraded from 380 to 777
When the decision was made, EWR was not a star alliance powerhouse. Now it is. LH really should ramp up operations there too, but we know like LHR, ppl outside the US automatically think "go to JFK". That is of course changing and I could see at some point UAL moving the PS shuttle across.... if they did that, they could combine some flights and send widebody aircraft at a few peak times, shuttling them inbetween hubs before they go off intercontinentally at each end, which would give them an advantage over the competition. particularly on the red eye. Even though UAL and singapore are hardly the best of friends, it does give Singapore's loyal star flyers a better connection option, at taps into the massive UAL frequent flyer base in the area much better. I could see a strong business case for SIA sending the smaller 777 to JFK to maintain a presence, and sending the A380 to EWR to maintain volume, get CASM right down, and fill it from UAL's huge connection possibilities. IE - premium class traffic largely headed to NYC, and fill up half of the back with locals and the other half from the UAL network.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22395 times:
Aww man, I always liked spotting the A340-500, it was like a giant DC-8 Super Seventy. Still, I can't say I'm altogether surprised, it seems like that sort of route+business plan only works for certain city pairs under certain conditions.
ordjoe From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 584 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22224 times:
Too bad, I always heard it was filled with, and SQ does not really discount those J seats or give them out as awards, but still even with all the wall street types filling it is still is not enough. This is a blow ULH for sure, so what is the I guess ATL-JNB is now the longest once this ends
usairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3100 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21985 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 11): Quite the blow to EWR. I dare say they should ax EWR altogether...how many money losers NYC-FRA do they need? They already run the route from JFK and it is being downgraded from 380 to 777
That is likely because LH already serves FRA-JFK/EWR quite well. SQ upping it from a 744 to a A380 was probably way to much capacity.
vincewy From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21923 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 16): I'm hoping SQ will eventually add a second A380 flight SIN-NRT-LAX to make up for the non-stop cancellation
SQ had in the past LAX-TPE-SIN (night) and LAX-NRT-SIN (day), both dailies. If SQ ever wants to resume redeye from LAX, it should fly through HND, PVG, ICN, or HKG instead. I doubt getting 5th freedom rights from those hubs will be easy.
avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4092 posts, RR: 18 Reply 20, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21835 times:
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 13): When the decision was made, EWR was not a star alliance powerhouse. Now it is. LH really should ramp up operations there too, but we know like LHR, ppl outside the US automatically think "go to JFK". That is of course changing and I could see at some point UAL moving the PS shuttle across.... if they did that, they could combine some flights and send widebody aircraft at a few peak times, shuttling them inbetween hubs before they go off intercontinentally at each end, which would give them an advantage over the competition. particularly on the red eye. Even though UAL and singapore are hardly the best of friends, it does give Singapore's loyal star flyers a better connection option, at taps into the massive UAL frequent flyer base in the area much better. I could see a strong business case for SIA sending the smaller 777 to JFK to maintain a presence, and sending the A380 to EWR to maintain volume, get CASM right down, and fill it from UAL's huge connection possibilities. IE - premium class traffic largely headed to NYC, and fill up half of the back with locals and the other half from the UAL network.
1. Newark is not equipped to handle the A380.
2. SQ will almost certainly continue to prioritize connecting traffic over JFK, just as most international carriers that serve both EWR and JFK do.
3. SQ sees the new United (and the new Delta) as major competitve threats to its North American services. The USA carriers have retooled themselves on costs, are leveraging fleet flexibility to unprecedented levels, and have increased premium cabin product quality to levels that are acceptable to business travelers. There's little desire on either side of the Pacific for SQ and UA to work more closely together than the Star Alliance requires.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21764 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 17):
A shame, hopefully the A345s will find a new home, probably as a gorgeous private jet!
since it looks like most of the fleet will be dumped, across the globe (i think thai's are parked at don muang?) I wonder if a good role for these aircraft lies with the military, who aren't so concerned about fuel burn?
They could potentially make a very good tanker. They can uplift lots, have lots of range, could be used as a troop transporter as well as a tanker. It's been called by some as a ridicule a 'flying fuel tanker'... so if that's what its good at why not put it to use for that very purpose? Sure its full range will never be needed in this role, but it has the potential to lift lots of very heavy cargo, or refuel lots of jets by uploading vast quantities of fuel, the rest of the A340 program will ensure a steady flow of parts and support (much easier than say, a VC-10 for instance) and they probably can be bought relatively cheaply. The A330 military version allows for a full PAX interior, so make it attractive to governments around the role by saying duel purpose... and fit the front of the cabin with a very nice first class. Therefore when its not needed for air force duties, it can be called on to fly VIP's over long distances (im thinking the British PM for example who politically won't be allowed to buy a dedicated plane for some stupid reason) and of course transport troops. The global fleet of them is relatively small and all the equipment developed for the A330 MRTT probably could easily be applied. And if it isn't politically correct in the west, well, the chinese could probably take 30 of them without too many issues.
Also for several years now they have been playing with frequency going less then daily for various periods.
Anyhow for fun here is their 2011 load factors on the routes:
EWR
Jan - 77
Feb - 63
Mar - 80
Apr - 61
May - 83
Jun - 78
Jul - 72
Aug - 59
Sep - 76
Oct - 72
Nov - 60
Dec - 60
Average = 70.1%
LAX
Jan - 76
Feb - 74
Mar - 70
Apr - 73
May - 86
Jun - 82
Jul - 77
Aug - 69
Sep - 80
Oct - 81
Nov - 77
Dec - 69
Average = 76.2%
Quoting vincewy (Reply 19): SQ had in the past LAX-TPE-SIN (night) and LAX-NRT-SIN (day), both dailies. If SQ ever wants to resume redeye from LAX, it should fly through HND, PVG, ICN, or HKG instead. I doubt getting 5th freedom rights from those hubs will be easy.
For LAX, I am sure SQ will resurect its 3rd flight (which would now become the 2nd one).
SQ already holds rights to operate via a host of stops including TPE, ICN, HKG, KIX, etc..
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26726 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21630 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 17): A shame, hopefully the A345s will find a new home, probably as a gorgeous private jet!
Airbus agreed to take them in as trade on the A350+A380 deal. I expect they'll be broken up and sold as OEM spares as the planes are worth far more in pieces than complete.
olympic472 From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 406 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21557 times:
Quoting avek00 (Reply 20): 3. SQ sees the new United (and the new Delta) as major competitve threats to its North American services. The USA carriers have retooled themselves on costs, are leveraging fleet flexibility to unprecedented levels, and have increased premium cabin product quality to levels that are acceptable to business travelers. There's little desire on either side of the Pacific for SQ and UA to work more closely together than the Star Alliance requires.
Insightful and well stated.
The "non-cooperation" from scheduling to lounge makes me think that they are in different Alliances.
Reading the posts here and previous posts, there are so many that believed in the SQ KoolAid. This is hardly a surprise if they have flown this sector and understand the numbers.
As previously suggested, they will make good tankers and troop carriers for the RSAF. Despite the fact that they are traded back to Airbus as part of the 380 and 350 deal.
[Edited 2012-10-24 09:05:47]
Civil Aviation has a "Need for Speed"!
25 Stitch: SQ has always struck me as an airline that considered Star more an alliance of convenience than as an actual strategic alliance.
26 kaitak: Sad to see, purely from an enthusiasts' perspective; one less airline to fly A345s on and five fewer of the most beautiful aircraft flying today. Not
27 migair54: Actually the load factor of 76% is not bad, but if they can´t manage to make money with that load factor is better to reroute the flight and try to
28 mogandoCI: But then again, how many Star carriers are SQ actually working closely with anyway ? The fact that SQ is doing fine even on their 5th freedom segment
29 MadameConcorde: I think I am going to break with my First to Fly habit this time. I'd really like the idea of being "last to fly" the world's longest route on that fi
30 Stitch: If SQ is actually averaging a 76-80% load factor, than the 20% fuel savings of the 777-200LR over the A340-500 might very well have kept the route vi
31 PHX787: I wonder if the 787/A350 could do such a route with such a seating layout. I hope you post a trip report Exactly. Sad but true.
32 IrishAyes: Well, this will create some bragging rights for any DFW or SYD-based fans. Now, QF 7 will officially become the world's longest route (although it sti
33 LAXintl: These are not normal flights. We are talking about ULH flights where the block times are at 18:30 and 17:45 respectively. Currently I doubt even clos
34 N62NA: I suspect they'll drop EWR and just stick with the "international gateway/prestige" NYC area airport, JFK. We'll never see an A380 at EWR and SQ will
35 ipodguy7: Can anyone else confirm this officially? I'm really hoping so, I just flew SYD-DFW in August.
36 jfklganyc: Actually, it's not. While the 90s was very much about secondary hubs as gateways, the 2000s to today has seen a return to hubs with large O and D: JF
37 STT757: That's more indicative of their own poor performance and not the airport's, case in point would be UA while dropping international flying from EWR in
38 mogandoCI: With load factors like these, it's stupid not to release some award seats to Star partners. It's much much lower rev per head than actual paid J, but
39 FlyPNS1: But that's not really growth, it's just DL replacing AF/KLM flights because DL flights are effectively AF/KLM flights given the joint venture.
40 STT757: It's a new airline on a route. Also AF leaving EWR, and ORD, is indicative of AF's ills and not the airport's otherwise DL would not be picking up th
41 slcdeltarumd11: Its the economy and more businesses letting fewer and fewer people fly premium classes
42 caljn: You failed to mention Jet Blue and their contribution to JFK's increase in traffic. If it is the leading gateway it is a pity that international trav
43 MaverickM11: The load factors weren't that bad; if those are actually paid seats with no or few rewards, then they're fantastic LF for an all premium layout. EWR
44 Ben175: This is such saddening news to me as these flights are always my #1 choice when flying PER-NYC or PER-LAX. I have flown these ULH routes three times a
45 N62NA: I smell a revival of the old "EWR vs JFK" topic once again! Correct. This makes no sense. An airport in the context of these comments IS the airlines
46 777law: That's not entirely true. Having lived in Singapore for 5 years (left in January) the SIN-EWR / SIN-LAX flights were the expat favorites - generally
47 AirbusA6: Yes, sadly it is the parts commonality with the super popular A330 which will condemn these planes to an early death
48 MadameConcorde: Doubt you will get any award seat on any of these EWR-SIN-EWR flights. There are none available now. I doubt they will release any in the future. Sor
49 changyou: Just hope these flights will return someday with more fuel efficient planes...
50 babybus: If a route isn't carrying enough traffic it has to be dumped, that's just pure economics. I'm surprised a direct route to America couldn't support eno
51 777law: Just to give you all a flavor of some facebook comments from my American friends in Singapore on this news: " Noooooo!!!!!! That is the best way home!
52 ltbewr: The higher costs of a relatively small sub-fleet of model and cabin set up to service the EWR and LAX - SIN flights, that SQ has smart bean counters t
53 STT757: The reason why SQ was operating the nonstop flight out of EWR and not JFK was because JFK was unable to support an all business class flight to Asia
54 RayChuang: I think what SQ might do is get more passengers to fly the SIN-TPE-LAX, SIN-HKG-SFO and SIN-FRA-JFK routes more. With the phaseout of the A340-500, al
55 RWA380: I am very sad to see these pioneering routes go. I see these much like the pioneering routes in the 1970's that the 747sp was able to provide. My soft
56 JerseyFlyer: Given 70% load factors, I am surprised that SQ did not order 5 x A358s to replace the 345s directly, and accept break even at best until they were del
57 caljn: Yes. Typically initiated by a certain commentor(s) who bristle at the mere mention of EWR, and who then go on to defend JFK's "prestige". It's quite
58 VC10er: I can confirm one case; mine. Of the 7 or 8 RT flights I have taken to SIN, the non-stop was so expensive that compared to UA, with an upgrade to F ma
59 qf002: Only if they fit some midair refueling capabilities... They'd need about 30% more range than their 744s offer.
60 sshank: Now you are talking. That will also make for some exciting Channel 9 action as the tanker is maneuvered into position!
61 qf002: If only the aviation industry was run by the community on this site... Everything would be so much more interesting!
62 N62NA: JFK could support an all biz class flight to Asia as well as or better than EWR. And despite that, JFK is still NYC's prestige airport.
63 krje1980: Does anyone with more familiarity with the airline business with than me know whether or not these winter changes may remain permanent? I am scheduled
64 astuteman: Does that mean the worlds longest scheduled flight might become one flown by ...... a 747? Rgds
65 VC10er: Not to over do the 747 thing, but didn't UA have 2 JFK to HK 747's about 10+ years ago? Just curious if they have left the fleet. I recall them, bran
66 nycdave: Though I'm loathe to go back into this whole thing again, just look at the PANYNJ's *own reports*. EWR has a higher percentage of business pax as tra
67 mogandoCI: But compared to that miserable JFK T-3 (with operations split across T2/3/4), if you fly DL, LGA is relatively a much better experience already
68 CV880: What's to say that DL couldn't try the same routes with the 77L's, using the current seating configs, then adjust the seat density according to deman
69 N62NA: I know, I know, but a certain contributor makes such outlandish pro-EWR statements.... And as we discussed back then.... if airport "E" has 10 passen
70 daviation: Agree completely! Having lived in NYC and the surrounding area for over 50 years, I never once thought of NYC as having a "prestige" airport. The who
72 Aircellist: So true! We'd still have the choice between Concorde and a Super Constellation to cross the Atlantic!
73 LAXDESI: On the marketplace radio program(NPR) today, there was a brief discussion about discontinuation of SIN-LAX/EWR flights. Richard Aboulafia indicated th
74 NWADTWE16: EWR attracts the North Jersey crowd from my daily dealings...and JFK has become very popular the past couple years with B6 operations and the Transcon
75 rwy04lga: WHAT? The EWR fanboys NEVER mentioned that! To be so lacking in facilities that allow service by the world's largest airliner is unforgivable and har
76 bwvilla: I don't think that's correct. The aircraft on this route had a mix of business class and economy plus until they were reconfigured to all business cl
77 mogandoCI: let's get 4 things straight among everyone going off tangents : 1. International carriers *do* prefer JFK over EWR, even Star Alliance ones (e.g. ANA,
78 MaverickM11: Having started flying through the airport on PA 741s, JFK and prestige in the same sentence is a little ridiculous. It is definitely the largest in t
79 caljn: To continue the childishness, let's get a few other things straight. JFK is a dump. A cluster F of buildings, parking lots, confusion and surly peopl
80 mogandoCI: I would actually give "best NYC terminal" crown to AA Terminal 8 at JFK.
82 pellegrine: You call that struggling on an all business class layout? What are you smoking? Unfortunately, as usual, this issue is more complicated than many pos
83 docpepz: The interesting thing is, these flights operate close to full from Fridays to Mondays and maybe at 50-60% on Tue to Thu getting to an overall load fac
85 LH422: Well, it's downgraded to 77W this Winter. Maybe this change will make the route go A380 year-round. I also think they'll be using the lower-density A
86 LAXintl: SQ confirms that even with 80% LF the routes were loss making. Carrier states it remains committed to both LA and NY with 1-stop service, while it con
87 coolfish1103: There isn't much SQ can do in exploring options to the US unless they utilize their 5th freedom rights in NRT, HKG, TPE, or ICN. In that case, no non-
88 changyou: Can the 77W do SIN-LAXvv all year round on an all jcl configuration as compared to 3 class config? Bloomberg mentioned the 77W can fly up to 7930nm wh
89 SInGAPORE_AIR: Hello Changyou ! In previous discussions it was mentioned that SINLAX was around 7600 - 7700nm depending on routing but because of headwinds on the r
91 LH422: I seem to recall SQ has done this flight nonstop with a 77W before, but not scheduled. Can anyone confirm?
92 jfk777: A 77W could probably do the nonstops to the USA but if an airline that can sell all its Business Class seats can't make it work then its about econom
93 LAXintl: Unless a random substitution, the LAX nonstop was never on the 77W. What LAX did get using the 77W was the daily service via TPE.
94 changyou: So the 77W does have the range if push to its limit. Even so when configured with roughly 100-110 jcl seats. Having said that...The new 77W which are
95 Megatop747-412: I thought that was using the 77E (SV series birds)? IIRC the SIN -LAX-TPE flights were discontinued before the arrival of SQ's 77W...
96 LAXintl: Airbus business jet division looking to resell the SQ A345s as VIP jets. Airbus Corporate Jets will soon have some additional A340-500s to put into th
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 104 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1203 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2559 posts, 
From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3075 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
