aa87
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:37 am

EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:08 pm

I recall that the current longest scheduled non-stop commercial flight is the Singapore Airlines EWR-SIN at, I believe 18+ hours. Does anyone know how often, roughly, they've had to stop due to headwinds or other reason for refueling ? I imagine that flight is close to the endurance limit, and wondering how often they've been coming up short. Thanks.
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:35 pm

I dont recall SQ on that route having to stop anwhere for fuel stops. However what i can tell you is that

DL's (BOM-JFK) has had to stop at MAN and EDDF a few times due to strong headwinds.

conversely i dont believe CO's EWR-HKG has had to stop for a fuel stop. I think we can say that most flight that follow a more northernly route over the arctic have to deal with less headwinds.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:41 pm

CO's EWRHKG route is a polar route. DL's BOM flight is considerably further south but is still the world's longest scheduled 772ER flight based on time.

SQ also has far fewer seats on their A345s than the aircraft should have based on its size - just so they can carry enough fuel to make the flight. As has been pointed out in the US A340 discussion, no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft. The fact that SQ is still flying the A345 on EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN says more about SQ's need to maintain key markets than it does about the aircraft it is using to fly it.
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:27 pm

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft.

Really? I wonder what EK would say about that...
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
AlexPorter
Posts: 1655
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:10 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:54 pm

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft.

Not sure how true that is, but at least in SQ's case, it probably makes more sense these days to sell their A345s in favor of getting the 772LR. The 772LR wasn't yet available when they ordered the A345, but now the 772LR has an even longer range. Plus it would help out with fleet commonality since they have all those other 772s, but only a handful of A345s that exist solely for EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN.
Last Flight: SCX701 MSP-PHX B738 8Jan2008
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:56 pm

Since SIN-EWR is a truly polar route that has the shortest distance over the pole, strong winds will never hurt it if it takes the shortest route possible. But actually, strong winds helps the flight. If there are strong winds, the flight can alter its path in order to ride the wind and save fuel. Strong winds shorten the flight time.

EWR-SIN can be flown as a polar route or across Europe and Asia. It depends on the winds. If there are strong winds, they'll take the route over Europe and Asia. If the winds are weak, they will go over the pole. There are few strong winds north or south, and since the plane can make it by going that way, then there will not be a reason to make a stop.

SIN-EWR typically takes a route over the Pacific and then crosses North America. It finds where the jetstream is and travels along that route, so it can vary, but I know that when I took the route the key points we went over were Tokyo and then Vancouver. If the winds are not strong or good for the route, the flight can take a polar route.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
aviasian
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 8:11 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:06 pm

If this is any indication of whether the flight ever needed to make an unscheduled stop anywhere . . . the EWR-SIN flight often arrives in SIN up to an hour early.

KC Sim
 
airbazar
Posts: 6808
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:25 pm

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
As has been pointed out in the US A340 discussion, no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft. The fact that SQ is still flying the A345 on EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN says more about SQ's need to maintain key markets than it does about the aircraft it is using to fly it.

No offense but I'll take SQ's word over the experts here at a.net any day and what SQ has said on more than one occasion is that for their specific use, no other aircraft today offers enough operating savings that will justify replacing fairly new A345's, even at today's fuel cost. Bottom line is, SQ is still operating the A345 despite the fact that just about every expert here predicted that they would dump the aircraft the minute the 772LR was available. That hasn't happened and that must be making a lot of people uncomfortable because heaven forbit that an Airbus aircraft may actually be good enough for a blue chip carrier like SQ.

Lets look at some facts: the 772LR is a much better aircraft than the A345, true, but SQ would still continue to operate ULH flights with the same capacity. Their reputation rides on it and they can charge a premium for it too. So the fact that the 772LR can carry more people over the same distance is a mute point. The 772LR can carry more cargo over the same distance. True but SQ has a Cargo subsidiary for that so carrying cargo on passenger aircraft is not nearly as critical of an issue. More over, SQ's NYC cargo airport is JFK not EWR. Fuel burn, well, the 772LR is better but does it justify the investment on brad new and very expensive aircraft? I think SQ's actions speak louder than words and their actions lead me to belive that no, it doesn't justify it.
 
Fly2CHC
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 10:35 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:27 pm

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
SQ also has far fewer seats on their A345s than the aircraft should have based on its size - just so they can carry enough fuel to make the flight.

This is incorrect. It was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route. Same way they are equipping their great A380s with less than 500 pax.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
As has been pointed out in the US A340 discussion, no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft.

Again this is incorrect. EK, from a very reliable source, are extremely satisfied with their 345s which they operate every day to SYD, MEL, AKL, CHC, JFK, KIX and others. They have had plenty of opportunities to swap to 772 LRs, and prefer the 345 fit in their fleet.
 
Norcal773
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:19 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:46 pm

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
no carrier that has flown the A345 is keeping it and is instead opting for more fuel efficient and better performing aircraft.

huuh? What the heck are you talking about?

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 4):
it probably makes more sense these days to sell their A345s in favor of getting the 772LR.

Not really. SQ has said they'll keep it because the cost of replacing it with the 772LR isn't worth it.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 7):
No offense but I'll take SQ's word over the experts here at a.net any day and what SQ has said on more than one occasion is that for their specific use, no other aircraft today offers enough operating savings that will justify replacing fairly new A345's, even at today's fuel cost. Bottom line is, SQ is still operating the A345 despite the fact that just about every expert here predicted that they would dump the aircraft the minute the 772LR was available. That hasn't happened and that must be making a lot of people uncomfortable because heaven forbit that an Airbus aircraft may actually be good enough for a blue chip carrier like SQ.

Lets look at some facts: the 772LR is a much better aircraft than the A345, true, but SQ would still continue to operate ULH flights with the same capacity. Their reputation rides on it and they can charge a premium for it too. So the fact that the 772LR can carry more people over the same distance is a mute point. The 772LR can carry more cargo over the same distance. True but SQ has a Cargo subsidiary for that so carrying cargo on passenger aircraft is not nearly as critical of an issue. More over, SQ's NYC cargo airport is JFK not EWR. Fuel burn, well, the 772LR is better but does it justify the investment on brad new and very expensive aircraft? I think SQ's actions speak louder than words and their actions lead me to belive that no, it doesn't justify it.

 checkmark 
If you're going through hell, keep going
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:47 pm

Let us not forget with such a long flight, and over areas with potential difficulties for available airports in case of diversions, (weather, isolated airports) a 4 engined a/c may be a better choice. I have never seen here of any diversions of this or other ULH SQ flights.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:06 am

Quoting The Coachman (Reply 3):
Really? I wonder what EK would say about that...

...or EY

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 7):
but SQ would still continue to operate ULH flights with the same capacity.

That's only an assumption on your part.

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
It was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route

Curious, are you TRULY naive enough to believe that?

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
They have had plenty of opportunities to swap to 772 LRs, and prefer the 345 fit in their fleet.

....in case ya didn't notice, they ordered the 772LR and could "swap" at any time post-delivery.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:30 am

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 1):
conversely i dont believe CO's EWR-HKG has had to stop for a fuel stop.

Because it can basically go straight over the North Pole and avoid headwinds, it has not stopped often, but I can think of at least one occasion when it had to stop at SEA due to solar activity which I believe caused dangerous radiation levels over the Arctic. I do not know if SQ's flights have ever been similarly affected--more likely, they are able to choose a different route to the south on those occasions (see below).

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Since SIN-EWR is a truly polar route that has the shortest distance over the pole, strong winds will never hurt it if it takes the shortest route possible. But actually, strong winds helps the flight. If there are strong winds, the flight can alter its path in order to ride the wind and save fuel. Strong winds shorten the flight time.

Exactly. Because SIN and NYC are basically on opposite sides of the earth, there is considerable flexibility in choosing the best route on any given day. Other long flights, like BOM-JFK, on the other hand, have no choice but to fight headwinds most of the way when flying west.
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:33 am

Quoting FoxBravo (Reply 12):
to solar activity which I believe caused dangerous radiation levels over the Arctic

Thats amazing, never heard of that happening before.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:41 am

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
IIt was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route.

SQ is most certainly weight limited on this route.

Steve
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:52 am

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 13):
Thats amazing, never heard of that happening before.

Indeed, it's rare-- but still more common than some would believe.

Concorde was the first (and IINM, still only) non-military aircraft to be equipped with cosmic radiation sensing and shielding material outside the cockpit; due to its higher exposure.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
onewickedboi
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:20 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:55 am

It may raise a few eyebrows around here to learn that SQ have also deployed the A345 on some shorter sectors.

In addition to several daily flights using the T7, SQ fly the A345 2x daily between SIN and CGK (Jakarta) (SQ 954/955, 962/963). The configuration on the A345 aircraft is the same Business + Executive Economy as the ULH flights to LAX and EWR.

I think, but am not positive, that SQ may have also flown the A345 to DPS at some point.

This would suggest that SQ take into account factors other than fuel burn and "specific mission" (as previous posters have suggested) with the A345.

R E G A R D S
"instant gratification takes too long . . . "
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:25 am

Quoting Onewickedboi (Reply 16):
This would suggest that SQ take into account factors other than fuel burn and "specific mission" (as previous posters have suggested) with the A345.

Yes they do, such as aircraft utilization (better to squeeze in a short round-trip than have the aircraft sitting on the ground all day at SIN until its next ULH departure) and crew training (so the pilots get enough takeoffs and landings each month, which they otherwise might not on the ULH flights).
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:32 am

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 4):
at least in SQ's case, it probably makes more sense these days to sell their A345s in favor of getting the 772LR.

No, SQ found that the resale value of the A340-500s was so low that selling them to buy 777-200LRs was not a good trade.

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
It was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route.

Incorrect. The SQ plan was for 202 seats in 3 cabins, but it had to be revised to 181 seats in 2 cabins due the payload/range performance falling short of promises.

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
Same way they are equipping their great A380s with less than 500 pax.

Yes, exactly the same problem: overweight.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:37 am

Quoting Onewickedboi (Reply 16):
It may raise a few eyebrows around here to learn that SQ have also deployed the A345 on some shorter sectors.

SQ has 5 A345s.....two for each ULH route and a spare that SQ schedules on ths short SIN-CGK route. Aside from keeping an airplane that would otherwise sit idle busy, it allows pilots to keep their take-off and landing statistics at acceptable levels. Due to the very long flight times and multiple crew members on each segment, combined with the small A345 fleet, SQ had to ""think outside of the box"" and come up with a way to ensure that its A345 pilots meet regulations. Thus, the ""extra"" A345 is used on quick hops between SIN and CGK when it is not needed to sub for another A345 on one of the ULH routes.

Quoting Onewickedboi (Reply 16):
This would suggest that SQ take into account factors other than fuel burn and "specific mission" (as previous posters have suggested) with the A345

Here the other factor is crew regs, as mentioned.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 9):
Not really. SQ has said they'll keep it because the cost of replacing it with the 772LR isn't worth it

SQ is looking at the big picture.......and the big financial picture when it comes to ULH. It seems (from reports) that SQ is not making tons of money on its ULH services (some reports say break-even, some say modest profits) and those financial results do NOT justify SQ replacing A345s with 772LRs. Consider that the 772LRs are very expensive airplanes and consider that the second hand market for the A345 is rather small.....thus while it seems so logical for SQ to move along from the A345 to the 772LR, they are not making their move just yet.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:46 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
while it seems so logical for SQ to move along from the A345 to the 772LR, they are not making their move just yet.

Unless someone offers SQ a fabulous price for their A340-500s with lease-back for two or three years, SQ will never order the 777-200LR. The replacement for the A340-500s will be either A350s or 787s. Note that the 787-9 which SQ have on order may match the payload/range performance of the A340-500. It might be a drop-in replacement with 20-30% lower operating costs on the ULH routes.
 
abrelosojos
Posts: 4049
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:48 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):
This is incorrect. It was SQ's specific choice to config. their 345s in this way to provide additional comfort in both classes - has nothing to do with any weight restrictions for the route. Same way they are equipping their great A380s with less than 500 pax.

= I am sorry but you are incorrect on this. SQ 345 suffer weight restrictions on this flight.

-A.
Live, and let live.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:11 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19):
thus while it seems so logical for SQ to move along from the A345 to the 772LR, they are not making their move just yet.

because not even SQ can throw away a US $750M investment since there is very little market for used A345s. SQ is not happy with the 345 but as often happens, the lack of performance on one Airbus type is what Airbus uses as a credit for a future type. While we may not know the exact concessions, Airbus is giving SQ SIGNIFICANT concessions for its delayed A380s and its underperforming 345s.
 
azncsa4qf744er
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 4:04 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:48 am

How many aircrafts are being used today? And how operate them?
 
jfk777
Posts: 5828
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:51 am

SQ is the Pan AM is its time, they do the leading edge research and always have the most advanced new airplanes. The world buys what SQ buys. The A345 may be less desirable then a 772LR, but not that much less. The A345 fleet is doing what it is supposed to do, it must be profitable if not SQ would kill the flights and sell the planes. The just wonder why SQ doesn't operate to SFO and ORD with this type of service ?
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:12 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 24):
The A345 fleet is doing what it is supposed to do, it must be profitable if not SQ would kill the flights and sell the planes

You make it sound so easy........as mentioned above, most reports indicate that SQ is breaking even or making a small profits on its ULH services and the ULH niche is not a successful as SQ and some other carriers had hoped. The LAX and EWR flights will remain for the forseeable future, but, on the other hand, SQ is not investing in ULH aircraft for the time being, either to replace the A345 fleet or add to the A345 fleet. Note that SQ did not take up its options on a further five A345s, which is very atypical of SQ. And, exactly who would SQ sell their five A345s to? AC seems to be having trouble finding new homes for their two A345s, although there is the US Airways rumor circulating.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 24):
The just wonder why SQ doesn't operate to SFO and ORD with this type of service ?

SQ does not have additional ULH aircraft to fly to SFO and ORD, and, as pointed out, SQ is still not convinced that there is a valid business case to justify further investments in ultra long haul services.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18850
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:18 am

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 24):
SQ is the Pan Am of its time

Except, unlike Pan Am, SQ is consistently profitable. Pan Am rarely was.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:45 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 25):
The LAX and EWR flights will remain for the forseeable future, but, on the other hand, SQ is not investing in ULH aircraft for the time being, either to replace the A345 fleet or add to the A345 fleet.

SQ is also facing the possibility that a number of airlines in S. and SE Asia will be buying their own ULH aircraft, eliminating the advantage SQ has in connecting traffic over SIN - a city that is not exactly at the crossroads of the world.

SQ also makes alot of money because of its 5th freedom rights using much bigger aircraft than the 345 or 772LR between key business markets enroute to SIN.

The ULH segment of the business is not a sure thing for any airline but SQ does face some unique challenges that may not justify more ULH flights. The fact that the 345 doesn't operate with anywhere near the number of seats for SQ that plane should have and that there is no market for the 345 doesn't help SQ.
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:07 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 18):
Incorrect. The SQ plan was for 202 seats in 3 cabins, but it had to be revised to 181 seats in 2 cabins due the payload/range performance falling short of promises.

Quoting Fly2CHC (Reply 8):Same way they are equipping their great A380s with less than 500 pax.

Yes, exactly the same problem: overweight.

So you're saying that the A380 overweight problem is the reason why their A380 will have less than 500 seats? The 777-300ER must obviously be seriously overweigh then!

The SQ 777-300ER is equipped with 278 seats, which is only 76 percent of the Boeing number of 365 seats on that airplane. In comparison, their A380 will reportedly have around 470 seats, which is 85 percent of the Airbus number of 555 seats. So the 77W is obviously 9 percent more overweight than the A380, right?
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:36 pm

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 24):
The world buys what SQ buys.

Not really anymore. SQ's current reputation is more for getting it WRONG in the initial order...

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 24):
if not SQ would kill the flights and sell the plane

...to whom?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:06 pm

Quoting RedChili (Reply 28):
The 777-300ER must obviously be seriously overweight then!

Compared to a possible 787-11 with the same payload/range performance, the 777-300ER is 80-85,000 lbs (40 tonnes) overweight.
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:32 pm

I believe that the EWR/LAX flights do very well up front. There is talk of them converting to all Business class on the ULH, with the new wide seats.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6808
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: EWR-SIN Nonstop - Batting Average?

Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:59 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 25):
SQ does not have additional ULH aircraft to fly to SFO and ORD, and, as pointed out, SQ is still not convinced that there is a valid business case to justify further investments in ultra long haul services.

The fact that SQ won't swap the A345 for 772LR speaks more about the ULH segment potential than the aircraft themselves. Everyone knows that the 772LR is a much better aircraft. It's just not sufficiently better enough to justify the loss incurred in replacing almost brand new A345's.
On the profitability front, SQ would not operate the flights if they were not profitable, and I'm not talking just marginaly profitable. There are other tangent aspects besides trip yields that contribute to the profitablitly of the ULH operation, such as market share taken from customers who would otherwise fly with a competing airline, or utilization rates by operating the aircraft on shorter routes. What I'm trying to say is that there are many factors that are specific to one airline's decision on what aircraft better suits their needs and the A345 appears to be working for SQ, at least for the time being.
With the 787 only a few years away, you will see the A345 remain in the SQ fleet until it can be replaced by the 787.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 787fan8, 910A, A330freak, ACATROYAL, AWACSooner, crazy357, Cyow, Floppie, fry530, Google Adsense [Bot], hilram, infinit, JAmie2k9, jasoncrh, JetBuddy, kd9gy, lavalampluva, Majestic-12 [Bot], MrHMSH, olle, qf002, SamoNYC, Sooner787, SpdBrdConcorde, speedbored, StTim, TheDBCooper, tvh, Ty134A, VC10er and 375 guests