9V-SPK From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2001, 1646 posts, RR: 6 Posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2324 times:
9V-SMB is parked at the catering centre alone this time with maintenance cars surrounding the lonely SMB. Also 9V-SMD, was parked at the bay area, forgot the number but it was next to gates F at the end of terminal 2, opposite the flight kitchen building, sitting there without any maintenance vehicles or stairs to approach SMD, parked next to 9V-STA and 9V-STQ if I'm correct, also with 2 other B744s 9V-SMP and 9V-SPB. I believe the SMB and SMD, especially SMB probably will not enter service unless necessary (Well SQ have quite a number of spare planes anyway).
Maybe SQ will lease the older B744s of probably sell them I suppose.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 23466 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2274 times:
Actually Singapore Airlines has 4 B747-400's for sale. 9V-SMB & SMD are available now for delivery, while SMA and SMC will be available in October and November respectively. These four aircraft are Singpore's oldest B747-400's are are considered middle aged based on having 50,000+ flight hours each.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Singapore 777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 1008 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2247 times:
In fact, even though the oldest A310s are approaching 13, if you have a good look at the interior, you wouldn't even be able to tell that it's 13. I recently went to Bali on 9V-STC (which was delivered sometime in 1993 if my memory did not fail me) and the interior looked brand new. The seat covers had been changed and with exception of the lack of PTVs, you probably would not be able to tell that this was a 9 year old plane.
They recently wrote in a letter that they had refurbished their A310 fleet with new upholstery, new lavatory facilities, new curtains and new carpets. Haha, what a great way to fool your passengers!
Singapore 777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 1008 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2217 times:
Apparently the couple of 747-300s and A340-300s SIA sold to Dragonair as well as Cathay Pacific had a lot of technical problems (mainly with the engines) during their first few weeks so I guess he took that as an example.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
When it comes to Singapore Airlines, Boeing, China Airlines, and the United States, Hkgspotter1 has a way to twist the facts a little bit to make these parties look worse than they are. He made his claims based on limited data. He claimed ex-SQ A343s that CX got were in bad shape. When I went to check Airbus data, SQ's A343 fleet had slightly better dispatch reliability than CX. Both airlines had similar utilization rate and CX had slightly longer legs on each flight which should favor CX. On subjects that are not related to the four parties mentioned above, Hkgspotter1 is credible. But I suggest no one should take him seriously when it comes to SQ, Boeing, CI, and the US.
9V-SVA From Singapore, joined Aug 2001, 1859 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2075 times:
OK, this is why SIA ordered the A343 and dumped it.
SIA ordered the A340-300 in 1994 after cancelling the MD-11 order. At that time, it didn't want to order the 777 as no -ER version was available. SIA purely ordered the A340 due to the fact it wanted to launch SIN-CDG daily, and with the 744 operating SIN-CDG, load factors were pretty low and the 744s could be despatched to other services.
When the first A340 came, SIA had already ordered the IGW version of the 777-200, to be used on Asian routes. SIA then made orders for the 777-212/ER in 1998 or 1999, and the decision was that to remove A340s from service as 777-212ERs came in.
The first A340-300 was removed early last year while the first 777-200ER entered service in July last year. They might be keeping the newer A340s for pilot training(A340-500). The A345 order is actually uncertain as of now.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2045 times:
SIA ordered the A343 in 1991/2. They had an add-on order in 1994. Even in 1991/2, Boeing was offering the IGW. SIA didn't consider the B777 in 1991/2. In 1994, SIA was close to considering the B777, but only as a supplement to the A343, but SIA stuck with the A343.
In 1995, Airbus was struggling with meeting the SIA's specs on the A343, SIA wasn't pleased with Airbus' progress, and Airbus had to delay the delivery of the aircraft to March of 1996 instead of the contract date of late 1995. At the time, they were requesting the two manufacturers to make their bids for replacing the A312/3s. Originally, the order was for 17 firm plus 17 options. Because of the A343 performance problems, SIA more than doubled the orginal requirement and asked the two manufacturers to make fresh bids. In November, Boeing won the 34+43 B777 order. The future fate of the A343 was long penciled in with the B777 order, but SIA only officially announced it in 2000.
Mr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22 Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2009 times:
I guess after all debates almost everyone knows why SQ have decided to sell the A340s. The B777s are excellent, but I sure will miss those beautiful A340s, so ever graceful, in fact climbing much more beautifully in my opinion.
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1999 times:
I was my understanding that since SIA rotates out their fleet every ten years--they tend to defer major maintenance since they receive no benefit from the cost.
It would appear the new owner would be responsible for making sure all the maintainence and directives are up to date.
Andyhunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1302 posts, RR: 53 Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1971 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Ok, then let's talk about SQ's planes. Who has said that they are not in a great condition???
And yes, I would fly China Airlines. My chances of dying would probably be one in so many millions versus one in so many hundreds of millions if I took another carrier. I have flown them many times, but the service wasn't that great
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1950 times:
There is a fine line between truth and your personal opinion. You're a credible person, but when it comes to certain topics, your subjectivity often weakens your credibility. I don't remember any concrete examples at this time. Next time when I see one, I'll point it out. But I'll re-use the CI example. CI has a horrible safety history. I personally will avoid them at all cost. When you slammed the whole airline as if all the pilots are hooligans with no understanding of flight safety at all. That's a bit too much. All those pilots who were involved in CI's crashes had family. I bet all of them would wish that they could live longer. Certain things you said about CI were not facts. It was your opinion.
Aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1472 posts, RR: 15 Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1924 times:
Hkgspotter1: Talking about the shabbiness of airliners, I can guarantee that if you were to view the ramp of HKIA objectively, you will find half a dozen more shabby airliners in a very familiar livery for every shabby SIA plane that you could find.
There are many on this forum who contribute quality comments, both for or against an opinion. There are many who respect that every plane, airline, manufacturer or even image is liked and disliked by someone on this forum . . . but each time you put in your half penny's worth of flippant remarks, your side-track the entire discussion. That notwithstanding, your remarks have been tolerated, except for a few who still think that you could be convinced to be a little more intelligent in putting your thoughts to work.
Greg: This notion that since SIA roll over its fleet (not rotate) at the age of 10, it defers all major maintenance is pure utter rubbish. Even if a plane has one day left of service, an accident would absolutely tarnish the airline's image and viability. Just look at the fall-out of China Airlines B742 B-18255 which met with its destiny on its final flight! Where do you even get that notion . . . not one of those "I have my source which I cannot reveal" type of industry intelligence is it?