KL808 From United States of America, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 1573 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1948 times:
Hey guys I was wondering, other than SIN-LAX that this aircraft will fly to, what other route(s) do you think that SQ will put this aircraft on?
SIN-ORD? can that be done? how about direct SIN-LAS? though you will loose chinese customers from HKG.
Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 16 Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1925 times:
Dont think SIN-ORD or SIN-LAS direct would be good, since the loads for HKG-LAS and AMS-ORD arent extremely good... perhaps SIN-SFO or maybe even SIN-LHR-JFK? Cant think of many places in the US that a direct flight from SIN would be beneficial for SIA....
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11950 posts, RR: 37 Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
The aircraft was originally ordered with SIN-LAX in mind, so Airbus would lose a lot of credibility with SQ if the aircraft couldn't do it.
SIN-BKK-LAX should also be feasible, BUT (a) it depends on the Thai-US bilateral and (b), the aircraft will be configured in an all F/C configuration, so this might not be completely suitable.
Perhaps, Tsentsan, you might confirm: are all 5 345s going to be in a single configuration, all First/Business Class. Any idea of numbers?
AFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 28 Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1797 times:
Hello,
SIA in particular wanted an airplane that could fly non-stop between Singapore (SIN) and Los Angeles (LAX), year-round, carrying at least 206 passengers. LAX-SIN has a still-air distance of 16,260km (8,790nm) [...].
In its official presentation, Airbus revealed it had increased the gross weight of its A340s by 8,980kg (19,800lb) mainly at the request of the very coveted carrier, Singapore Airlines. Now at 364,670kg (803,960lb) MTOW, the A340-500 and -600 had range for 15,740km (8,500nm) and 13,890km (7,500nm).
A major defeat in the battle against Airbus occurred in May 1998, when key prospect Singapore Airlines placed an order for ten A340-500s and five options. While both the 777-200X and A340-500 were able to match the required performance for non-stop transpacific flights, Airbus had come up with a better pricing for its four-holers.
SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1437 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1764 times:
LHR-SIN =6765mi and this is a really tough ride! especially in Economy-class!
But SIN-LAX is 8770mi and even BKK-LAX is 8262mi!
The idea of this flight as a nonstop is horrible!
A340-Fan From Germany, joined Apr 2002, 252 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
Is it possible that SQ will send them to CDG? A long time ago they flew a -300 to CDG. SQ said that they will use their A340 for long and thin booked routes.
AFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 28 Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1719 times:
Hello,
The A340-500 would likely be an overkill for SIN-CDG. They'd be far better off flying a 777-200ER or even better a 747-400 daily on that route.
SIA ordered only five A340-500s, whereas it had a initial requirement for 10 ultra-long-range airplanes. As I outlined in an article (Boeing 777X), the airline might still order the 777-200LR and the -300ER sometime down the road. That's one of the few A340-500/-600 vs. 777X cases that will be of some interest to follow.
KL808 From United States of America, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 1573 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
I doubt, if SQ will order the 777-LR, unless boeing comes up buying there A340-500 fleet.
Besides, I believe these aircraft will stay and grow probably.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1647 times:
SQ will not order the 777-200LR because the GE90 is the only powerplant available on this model. All of SQ's widebody fleet except the A340-300s are powered by either P&W or RR powerplants. Maybe they may go for PW or RR powered 747-400ERs.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1614 times:
SQ325 - Never fear. It is quite obvious that staying in the A340-500 (I wanted it to be the 744XQLR) is not a nice experience in a 33" seat pitch seat. Singapore Airlines will introduce a premium Economy class.
And anyway, just think of the D.V.T. lawsuits against them if they were going 16 hours or thereabout non-stop in 33" of Economy class seat - no matter how ergonomically they are designed.
Ex_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1435 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1607 times:
SQ is only planning to put in about 185 seats in this a/c (as opposed to the Airbus-recommended 3-class config of 313). Not sure about exact P/J/Y breakdown but there will apparently be a large J cabin. There are rumors that it'll be seven-abreast in Y.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
If only 5 -500s were ordered by SQ, that means that they only plan to use them on 2 daily routes (for such long flights, 2 are needed for each flight as the first one is not back in time for the next day's departure, plus one spare). SIN-LAX is an obvious one, but which is the most likely second one? Is SIN-JFK possible?
Ex_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1435 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1571 times:
I would think that SFO would have priority over JFK. In any case, I recall SFO being mentioned when I was in SQ
MIA777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1551 times:
if SIN-LAX is 8790 nm...then no way in hell can they pull of more than that...SIN-JFK...impossible...I could be wrong... but from what AFa340-300e said...i dont think so...
Danialanwar From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 421 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
From what I've heard, SQ will first introduce SIN-LAX and SIN-SFO. SIN-LAS will not happen since their SIN-HKG-LAS flight is mainly to ship passengers from HKG to LAS. I also doubt that SQ will fly SIN-BKK-LAX as Thai is thinking about that route along with BKK-JFK.
Best Business Class: Royal Brunei. Best Economy: Singapore Airlines. First: please send money first!
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 16, posted (10 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
Sinagpore_Air - seat pitch may not be a determining feature in DVT cases - don't forget it has shown up in pax travelling in First and Business class too. The important thing is to get up and move around regularly, or at least move around in your seat. While economy class may be slightly less condusive to doing the former, small seat pitch is hardly causal in DVT.
V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
AFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 28 Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
Hello,
The problem when you compare an airplane's range and geographic distance is that you don't take winds into account. "Still air distance" is a physical representation of the impact of winds on the flight time, ie. the actual distance with winds = the virtual still-air distance.
On the LAX-SIN route, that gives you an idea about how wrong one could be by comparing actual distances and range performance without taking winds into account. So, the 777-200LR and A340-500 can fly the SIN-LAX-SIN sectors year-round but with about ~200 seats. There's absolutely no way these airplanes could fly JFK-SIN non-stop (unless you remove all seats, don't paid the aircraft, ...).
SIA's requirement for the LAX-SIN route has probably been the most serious one (as compared to JFK-HKG or PER-LHR for instance). But this sector has given both manufacturers a hell of hard times. This is clearly outlined in my Boeing 777X article. The 747-400X, ER & QLR article [Go] has a paragraph on how Boeing tried to make a case at SIA with its 747-400ER and -400XQLR, arguing that the airline could have a load of nearly 250 passengers and thus be less dependent on high-yield traffic.
AFAIK, the second route slated to get A340-500s is SIN-SFO.
SIA not ordering the 777-200LR because of its GE90 powerplant is clearly not a valid argument. The airline along with MAS, wanted an airplane that would meet its requirements, whatever the powerplant. I have multiple developments on this in the Boeing 777X [1] [2] and General Electric GE90 [Go] articles.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined exactly 14 years ago today! 
, 1573 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 1999, 1516 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11950 posts, 
From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1437 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 421 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
