KL808
Topic Author
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 3:49 am

SQ And The A340-500?

Sat Oct 19, 2002 3:18 pm

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.

Any thoughts would be great

Drew

AMS-LAX-MNL
 
tsentsan
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:48 pm

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sat Oct 19, 2002 3:25 pm

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....
NO URLS in signature
 
Air Taiwan
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 3:06 pm

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sat Oct 19, 2002 7:54 pm

Can it do SIN-BKK-LAX?

Jimmy
 
kaitak
Posts: 8969
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sat Oct 19, 2002 7:59 pm

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
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sat Oct 19, 2002 9:04 pm

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.


Extract from Boeing 777X, Air Transport Business, October 2002.

SIN-LAX


Best regards,
Alain Mengus
ATB - "Flying Farther"
 
SQ325
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:54 pm

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sat Oct 19, 2002 10:09 pm

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
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 10:00 pm

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sat Oct 19, 2002 10:38 pm

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
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sat Oct 19, 2002 10:59 pm

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.


Best regards,
Alain Mengus
ATB - Airbus A340-8000
 
KL808
Topic Author
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 3:49 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 2:51 am

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.

drew
AMS-LAX-MNL
 
Guest

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 2:54 am

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
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:20 am

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.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Ex_SQer
Posts: 1351
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 5:43 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:27 am

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
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:35 am

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?

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Ex_SQer
Posts: 1351
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 5:43 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 6:00 am

I would think that SFO would have priority over JFK. In any case, I recall SFO being mentioned when I was in SQ
 
MIA777
Posts: 1110
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 10:47 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 6:52 am

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...
MIA777
 
danialanwar
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:13 pm

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 9:13 am

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!
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 11:04 am

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
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:21 pm

VirginFlyer: True, however, the public perception is cramped seats = D.V.T. However obviously as you say it has been known to happen in First Class.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:23 pm

Whats the 'still air distance' and how is it computed?

SailorOrion
 
AFa340-300E
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 7:29 pm

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.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt




Best regards,
Alain Mengus
ATB - Boeing 777X
 
9V-SVA
Posts: 1747
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 3:54 pm

RE: SQ And The A340-500?

Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:59 pm

Ex_SQer, I remember reading in a very old issue of Outlook that the A345 would have a premium config of 188 seats. Pretty close there, I would say.

9V-SVA
9V-SVA | B772ER