andrewtang
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 8:51 pm

SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:17 pm

Earlier on there was a thread about SIA removing the title Leadership on the A340-500. And there is now a photograph on a.net (9V-SGE)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Bleus



If you look at the front of the cabin, you found that it only writes A340-500. When during test flight, the logo and Airbus name was also on 9V-SGE.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © French Frogs AirSlides



So now. Is SIA so ashamed about the Airbus that they don't wish their passengers to know that they are onboard one?

See other A345 in SQ. All have the AIRBUS name and logo till date I believe.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Richard Covington, Jr

9V-SGA

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © French Frogs AirSlides

9V-SGB

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TTT

9V-SGC

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bailey - AirTeamImages

9V-SGD

This doesnt sound like the title flew off during a flight. Looks like it's removed by purpose?
 
GoAround
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 8:59 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:20 pm

It appears to me that on 9V-SGE, the titles are covered with a temprary sheet, most probably to be removed during a naming/acceptance/delivery ceremony, rather than because SQ is 'ashamed' of flying Airbus. That's the way it looks, anyway.

Time will tell!
GoAround
 
AndersNilsson
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:09 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:24 pm

I haven't read anything about any bigger problems with A340-500s
Ashamed is a strong word. Airbus is probably doing their outmost to
satisfy their customers.

Anders
Airliner photography is not a crime.
 
andrewtang
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 8:51 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:28 pm

My concern here is not too much about the word Leadership. Anyway it has been delivered for sometime. So no reason for it to be still sealed temporarily for reasons stated.

The biggest query is WHY IS THE WORD AIRBUS and AIRBUS LOGO removed also?

I assume it was removed when the title LEADERSHIP got covered. As it was there even after delivery.

Not really sure about it... Maybe ashamed is a strong word. Just seeking some answer to clear my doubt as I love the A340-500.





[Edited 2004-06-14 08:33:15]
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:32 pm

GoAround - I would say the opposite - the LeaderShip title has been removed, exposing a slightly cleaner patch below where it was.

V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
 
tsentsan
Posts: 1921
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:48 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:12 pm

Apparently SGA now has the Leadership titles removed as well.

Dont think the Airbus or Boeing logos or titles ever featured on the newer SIA models. You dont see a B747-400 on the Megatops, neither do you see a B777 on the Triple seven, heck SIA even removed the RR logos on the 777 engines!

Dont think a removal of a title, or the lack of the display of a title indicates that an airline is ashamed to operate it. Think of the SIA advertisements where they proudly advertise the non-stop SIN-LAX service as being flown by an AIRBUS A345LeaderShip.

TT
NO URLS in signature
 
9V-SPK
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:53 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:27 pm

If SIA is so ashamed of the airbus, then god they better not take the delivery of the A380 otherwise SIA will this and that bla bla bla......

I just can't see a problem with SIA removing the "leadership" title. Maybe passenger does not appreciate the word "leadership"? Maybe SQ thinks that the "leadership" has had its effects already and now is the tiime to remove it? Maybe SQ reckons that they could find a better name instead rather than "leadership"?

At least it's obvious that SQ is still operating the A345 at present, and also in the future. SQ has never complained anything about the A345, well at least we could not hear much. I'm pretty confident that SQ will keep the A345s, not forever but at least in the further future because there are no planes at the moment that could replace them.

 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:41 pm

It is rumoured elsewhere that this is because they are going to order 772LR.

I have absolutely no idea if this is true.

Ruscoe
 
Guest

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:47 pm

As SQ are now calling it the A340-500 on their site, this suggests they are so proud of the plane they are using its industrial name. woohoo! Big grin Big grin
 
mrniji
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:51 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:06 pm

My goodness, incredible what topics are discussed here with a quality of assumptions...
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6812
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:08 pm

Bring Back "Celestar", that was a great name. For those who don't know, it means "the centre/middle star". I learnt that in Year 11 Science class Big grin

SUJ
 
United Airline
Posts: 8773
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:28 pm

When did SQ retire its LAST A 340-300?
 
Catatonic
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:58 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:53 pm

and the award for the crappiest thread goes to........................
Equally Cursed and Blessed.
 
ualonghaul
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 1:41 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 12:33 am

What does LEADERSHIP have to do with Airbus in the first place? Is MEGATOP a Boeing name? Jubilee? What exactly are you saying. The LEADERSHIP logo obviously has a covering over it. People already know it is a airbus by the small cabin size, let alone those tiny engines. Ha just kidding well i am not but kind of am.
 
9v-svc
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:27 am

UALongHaul :

I don't understand what you are trying to say. ? Sorry but can you rephrase your sentences ?

Tiny engines ? If the A345's engines are tiny, then what is A343's engines ?
Airliners is the wings of my life.
 
Mexicana757
Posts: 2635
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2001 3:21 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:40 am

If SIA is ashamed of flying Airbus, then why would they go ahead and buy the A340-500 and place orders for the A380??

Im sure passengers would know what airplane they are flying once they get inside the aircraft and see the emergency cards. Most people don't care what aircraft they are flying as long as it gets them to where they are going. And I think they wouldn't care about the name the airplane has, "mega top" or "Leadership".

I'm sure SIA has it's reasons for removing logos and names from its aircraft .
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:48 am

then why would they go ahead and buy the A340-500

Well, for one thing, the A345 was the only C-market aircraft available at the time SQ ordered it.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
andrewtang
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 8:51 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:52 am

Yes. Finally some people replied with posts that make sense and not just to stir trouble.

I know passengers will know the type printed on the Emergency cards but maybe the cards are changed also...

Ultimately I am just asking WHY SIA is removing the AIRBUS logo and Airbus name on the plane they just spent lots of effort and money promoting. It's just like earlier asked why Leadership is removed as this does bring me to think if this has something got to do with Mr B  Smile

Some people mentioned arguement internally and led to removal of the Leadership name. But still it dont make sense applying the word AIRBUS A340-500 and later change it to A340-500 for no economical reason. Is the word AIRBUS so strong that they need to remove it?

SIA is not an airline that does stupid thing so I just want to know if anyone knows the answer. If you don't and find this stupid, then just leave.

Thank you!

 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:57 am

Could this be SQ's method of discouraging aviation enthusiasts from boarding their plane and asking for the aircraft's registration?

LOL, Hell, I don't know... SQ is going in strange directions lately... or is it just me?

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Propulsion
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 8:30 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:17 am

I don't think simply removing a title indicates an airlines' dissatisfaction with an aircraft. It certainly does not mean SIA are ashamed of flying Airbuses.

Moreover, it is not as though the 'Leadership' title is some petty primary school-like award in recognition of being 'good' that may then be removed where circumstances render the A340-500 as having 'not been good' and undeserving of such an accolade thereafter. The titles have not gone to another aircraft type.

I suggest a more reliable sign of dissatisfaction would be an airlines desire to dump a particular type of plane as soon as is possible - something which we shall of course have to what and see for in the case of SIA's A340-500 fleet.
A bus is a vehicle that runs twice as fast when you are after it as when you are in it.
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:29 am

The titles were removed because people want to be assured they are flying on a plane, not in an air bus
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:48 am

HongKongTan:
This topic is to make people ticked off, right?
The jokes are on SQ having both A345 & A388  Big grin
Go eat a fried scorpion and leave us alone...

Micke/SE
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
daumueller
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:45 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:57 am

"ladies and gentlemen, welcome on board flight SQ xxx from SIN to LAX - this aircraft which type we're ashamed off has got 8 emergency exits..." - don't think so  Smile
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 4:36 am

The A340 cabin is smaller than the 777 cabin, but that's not a bad thing IMHO. One less seat = feels less packed.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
ualonghaul
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 1:41 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 4:42 am

"UALongHaul :

I don't understand what you are trying to say. ? Sorry but can you rephrase your sentences ?

Tiny engines ? If the A345's engines are tiny, then what is A343's engines ?"

I was not really saying anything of any value. Engines are appear small when sitting next to a 777.

Are they working on a new Decal for the Leadership or something? I see no real reason that they would be taken off other than something asthetic. Maybe Airbus ripped them off and they do not want to advertise?

I do not think any clear reason exists for this. I will check in EWR to see what is on the plane on the 28th.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 5:15 am

Some puzzling info about RR Trent 550:
Its 9000 nm (16.600km) to EWR from SIN, but the max.range for 345 is 8.650 mn? Are the Trent 550 better than RR claims?
Thx!
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
Pacific
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 5:35 am

SIA's A345s carry around 200 pax at full load, might be even less than 200! I'm sure it's payload restricted as well therefore the increase in range.

As for removing the external labels... :S

Aren't the Trent 500s bigger than the RB211s on the 744?
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 5:36 am

Solnabo, not really - SQ only has less passengers on the A345 than the configuration that Airbus uses as an example to get the 8650nm range: less passengers, less weight, more range.

Regards,
Frank
Smile - it confuses people!
 
N243NW
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:29 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 5:52 am

What about simple economics, people? I mean, it's the airline's choice of having certain manufacturer's stickers on the aircraft, but another sticker means extra time, money, and effort to apply, repair, or replace it. After all, DL used to have the "BOEING 767" and such on their a/c, but if I'm not mistaken, they were removed because of the extra money they cost the airline. I don't know if this is the case with SIA, but perhaps it's just because each extra sticker means more money spent and more time and effort needed to care for them. However, if this is the case, then why aren't they removing all the "Megatop" stickers and such? What a confusing world. And a rather trivial matter at that. Insane
-N243NW Big grin
B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 5:56 am

Whatever makes you happy  Insane
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
kavirajkhadun
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2001 9:26 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:09 am

I think SIA is making a big fuss here..Who told them to acquire A340 aircrafts anyway?????
Kavi_K340
 
mandala499
Posts: 6459
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:17 am

In the words of one SQ employee...
"This cost cutting has gone too far to make sense..."

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:17 am

Well, SIA isn't making a big fuss of it at all - they, as far as I know, are keeping completely quite so far as to why they've made these changes... and I have to admit that I'd really like to know.

As for who told them to acquire A340s? Well, I guess it has to do with the fact that, at the time they were presented with the proposals for the A345 they simply thought "that's a good idea - we could eliminate the stops on a few routes"... the guys with the calculators started working and liked the idea, so SIA's fleet planning department started negotiations with Airbus ending in an order for A345s...

Regards,
Frank
Smile - it confuses people!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:23 am

Its 9000 nm (16.600km) to EWR from SIN


Actually, try 8285nm (by the GC)  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:25 am

SIA's A345s carry around 200 pax at full load, might be even less than 200!

yes, 181 seats
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:34 am

According to SQ´s website it says 9000 nm (16.000 km) EWR-SIN......
Dont know who to belive, but it sounds more likely with 8285 nm so I´ll go with you C-boy  Big grin

Mike
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:45 am

According to SQ´s website it says 9000 nm (16.000 km)

I find it rather difficult to believe that they'd divert nearly 800nm off the GC (which is however plausible), or convert the measurements (i.e. nm to km) so blatantly inaccurately; hence my claim.

[Edited 2004-06-14 23:46:19]
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:54 am

C-boy:
Go in and have a look about the new flight starting 06-28....
When I looked GCM it was 15.344 km/8285 nm EWR-SIN!!
SQ is lying, those ¤%&%¤ *lol*
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
boeingbus
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:44 am

BREAKING NEWS - They removed the logos because of the added wait.... again, they need to make it to EWR... lol...

It is interesting how people read into these action, which most likely mean nothing... and they come on here and interpret it as oh they are not happy or they are 'ashamed'.

I think ashamed is the wrong word in SQ's case... Being ashamed is how NWA still flies the DC-9/10... LOL... Sorry for all of you DC lovers - but get over it... It's embarrassing how they continue to fly those old birds... Donate it to a country who can't afford them and do a tax write off...
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:59 am

If anything it's just a marketing issue.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the 'Jubilee' stickers come off the 777 fleet either, as they don't really have any relevance to operations in 2004.

"Megatop", however, is obvious in what it refers to. The other two names are hardly obvious to the average passenger in what they mean (if anything).

In fact, LeaderShip could possibly have negative connotations. If a passenger is boarding an aircraft without the LeaderShip sticker, would they think the aircraft they are boarding isn't as good?

All points that marketing executives tend to consider, and why things get changed. Nothing to do with the aircraft, just how it is sold.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
qexonial
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:05 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:35 am

Howdy all,

I was so excited and happy when SQ named their A340-300E back in 1996 "Celestar". It was a cool name, I thought. Anyway, to those who forgot or didn't know, SQ held a competition then to name the aircraft. I wonder why they didn't do it for the A340-500.

When I first heard SQ naming their A340-500 "LeaderShip", I thought, is this a UFO? I mean, the word "leadership" is an adjective. I mean, the other planes have non-dictionary word; Celestar, Megatop, Bigtop. Jubilee is the exception.

RE: ZKSUJ
Celestar can't be used anymore. I mean, yeah they can, but it's been used before, and for us aviation enthusiast, we know the Celestar is SQ A340-313X. Some non-enthusiast might know that as well. So, that's my speculation on that. Having said that, both the B777-200s and B777-300s are christen the "Jubilee".

RE: The others
Well, maybe they thought of keeping the nickname "LeaderShip" for the A380-800. Any thoughts? If not, what do you reckon they would name their A380-800?

Cheers! And Have A Nice Day And Week Ahead!



Kind regards,
Benjamin Alexandre
 
sq452
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:49 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:28 pm

Well taking paint of the body of the plane is a good idea (not that removing "leadership" from the A345 would do much in my opinion) to cut cost, hell there was a post around here not too long about how much more "efficient" AA planes were with the polished metal bodies rather than painted silver. So in essence, SQ could probably polish their A345 and SAVE MORE MONEY!!!  Big thumbs up
SIN > CVG > BOS
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:54 pm

Come on. Anyone with even the slightest interest can figure what kind of airplane they are on by simply asking, by looking at the safety card, or even listening during the announcements.

In terms of aesthetics and as an aside, the 345 is a quantum leap in terms of aesthetics over the 342/343/333.
 
mark777300
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:30 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:00 pm

It's truly just a name that was removed. It means absolutely nothing about what SQ thinks of the A345 or Airbus. It wouldn't surprise me that the reason for the removal would be to cut back on weight??? Maybe someone filed a lawsuit against SQ because they might have claimed to be the person who invented that title? Who knows, who cares? And I truly doubt that anyone who falls under the category of your typical non-aviation educated passenger would give a rats behind as to what they are flying on and to what the difference is between an A345 and a Cessna!!!
 
buckfifty
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:05 pm

RE: SIA Ashamed Of Flying Airbus?

Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:11 pm

Although 800nm seems like a lot, it definitely isn't just 8285nm from SIN-EWR. The route does a lot of twisting and turning flying through Chinese and Russian airspace. Then you also have to consider that the aircraft will fly further south for stronger winds during certain times of the year. The air distance may be around 85-8700nm only, but the ground distance covered can be over 9000 nm, depending on the route.

I wouldn't be surprised at all that 9000nm is actually the correct figure. The GCM, as spoken of before, is the most misleading tool ever invented for aviation.