Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 16 Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2369 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....
AFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 27 Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2241 times:
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.
AFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2163 times:
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.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2091 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, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2058 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: 5 Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2051 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 (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2045 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?
Danialanwar From Switzerland, joined Mar 2001, 421 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1954 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, 4537 posts, RR: 48 Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1934 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.
"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: 27 Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1821 times:
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   and General Electric GE90 [Go] articles.