I have not heard fuel efficiency comments about the A345. I HAVE heard them about the 346 (specifically CX
whining that they are not getting the range performance they wanted and are having to weight restrict the JFK
It would surprise me greatly to hear that SQ
would have problems with the 345, given the fact that it only has about 180 seats. Standard configuration is about 240.
Second, the 777-200LR will probably be rated for 240min ETOPS. If that is true, then there should be no trouble flying the westbound polar route from EWR
. If it is limited to 180, then it will have to fly further west to keep ANC
within the three hour limit. Eastbound, there would be no ETOPS limitation, because the current route flies closer to the eastern coast of China, then up over Siberia before transiting the pole just north of Barrow. All of this fits within the 180min ETOPS currently in place and if Boeing gets the 240 min with the 772LR, then it won't be a problem at all. In fact, that aircraft will be at least a 10,000nm aircraft, which should make it between any two commercially viable points in the world... If the 777LR even comes close to what Boeing says it will do (and usually Boeing understates the performance), then watch a number of carriers (not just SQ
) line up to order them, since it will be able to do both LHR
nonstop without blinking.
Let's wait and see. Oh, and if someone has factual info re: SQ
and the A345, please pass it along.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998