quig
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 12:57 am

SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:54 pm

Just wondering if their has been updates on this?

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ngapore/Story/STIStory_782957.html
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:59 pm

It wasn't a successful strategy before, so I fail to see how it would be successful now.

Better to just retire the routes and the birds and do one-stops via HKG or NRT on the A380.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:02 pm

It's tiring reading about A345 bashers all day, when factually, a lot of their info is wrong. SIA isn't a charity, and the nonstops to EWR and LAX are hardly as loss-prone as this article reads. Loads on the EWR flight are persistently 65-85%, and SIA doesn't really offer discounted fares on this route.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
traindoc
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:35 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:27 pm

I am a Boeing fan. However, I have flown the A345 from EWR to SIN, and it is a great A/C. And my last trip was in the premium economy, before the all J renovation. SIA knows what they are doing and they are adapting to the changing market, just as they did going from Y/J to all J a few years back.
 
phxa340
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:33 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2):
It's tiring reading about A345 bashers all day

I don't think they are bashing the plane itself ... just its economics. The reality is that ULH is very expensive and for the amount of profit they can make , its just not worth it.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:36 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2):
It's tiring reading about A345 bashers all day, when factually, a lot of their info is wrong. SIA isn't a charity, and the nonstops to EWR and LAX are hardly as loss-prone as this article reads. Loads on the EWR flight are persistently 65-85%, and SIA doesn't really offer discounted fares on this route.

A345 bashing?

The fact is an aircraft that was designed for ultra long range operations is currently being used on 5 routes longer than 10,000 km, namely

SIN-EWR
SIN-LAX
AUH-JFK
AUH-MEL
AUH-SYD

The longest A345 route served by EK is less than 6,400 km (DXB-ACC), which can easily be served by an A332 or a 772.

Why do you think the A345 is not being regularly used for its design intent?

Also, achieving 65-85% LF on the EWR and LAX nonstop services doesn't mean SQ can breakeven.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6943
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:10 pm

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 5):
Why do you think the A345 is not being regularly used for its design intent?

Maybe because there aren't enough ULH routes with enough demand? Just a wild guess. How many 77L routes longer than 10,000Km do you know of? Heck, pick just about any aircraft at all and you'll find that 90% of the route it flies are well below it's maximun range. just because a plane is made to fly a certain distance it doesn't mean it will be used that way by the airlines. There are A332's and 77W's flying medium-haul segments around the world every day.
 
sq_ek_freak
Posts: 1179
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 4:48 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:26 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 2):
SIA isn't a charity, and the nonstops to EWR and LAX are hardly as loss-prone as this article reads. Loads on the EWR flight are persistently 65-85%, and SIA doesn't really offer discounted fares on this route.

And SQ is pretty notorious for being rather cut throat about axing loss making routes. Like look at Chicago and Las Vegas in the US. And you're right about the ticket pricing, fares for this flight are routinely decently higher than the one stop through Frankfurt, on an aircraft that now offers the same product than what's found on the A345.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 5):
The longest A345 route served by EK is less than 6,400 km (DXB-ACC), which can easily be served by an A332 or a 772.

Well EK's use for the A345 is no longer valid given that we have the 77L which came after the A345. If the airline wasn't so short of aircraft I'd imagine these aircraft would have been disposed of some time ago.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 5):
Also, achieving 65-85% LF on the EWR and LAX nonstop services doesn't mean SQ can breakeven.

Do you per chance have the breakeven load factor for this route? Wasn't aware that airlines made that information public.
Keep Discovering
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:10 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
How many 77L routes longer than 10,000Km do you know of?

A lot more than A345:

AC: YYZ-HKG, YYZ-PVG, SYD-YVR
DL: ATL-DXB, ATL-JNB, DTW-HKG
EK: DXB-DFW, DXB-LAX, DXB-SEA
ET: YYZ-ADD, IAD-ADD (both in one direction only)
QR: DOH-GRU, DOH-MEL, DOH-IAH
AI: BOM-EWR
PK: ISB/LHE/KHI-YYZ/JFK

5 more routes between 9,000-10,000 km.

Most of these routes are daily. Including the 5 9,000-10,000 km routes, it would require 35-40 aircraft to serve these routes. In another word, most of the 77L are being used on routes that the aircraft is designed for.

The A345 routes listed before would need no more than 7 aircraft.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):

Maybe because there aren't enough ULH routes with enough demand?

And at the economic level the current aircraft can provide. That's why the demand for A345 and 77L is limited.



Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
Heck, pick just about any aircraft at all and you'll find that 90% of the route it flies are well below it's maximun range

I have demonstrated above that's not the case for 77L. Of course airlines will operate a mix of short, medium and long haul routes with their long haul aircraft. But you certainly shouldn't buy an aircraft that you don't use close to its capability at all, especially when alternatives are available.


Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 7):
Well EK's use for the A345 is no longer valid given that we have the 77L which came after the A345. If the airline wasn't so short of aircraft I'd imagine these aircraft would have been disposed of some time ago.

In another word, you're saying A345 is not efficient, right? Otherwise, why would they get rid of them?

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 7):
Do you per chance have the breakeven load factor for this route? Wasn't aware that airlines made that information public.

Of course I don't have. My point is just by stating their LF doesn't mean they can make money or not. But I know what you're trying to say, because you mentioned:

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 7):
And SQ is pretty notorious for being rather cut throat about axing loss making routes. Like look at Chicago and Las Vegas in the US.

The difference here is the 777 equipment used on those routes could be redeployed on other routes. The A345 has no where else to go. Perhaps losing some money on the EWR/LAX routes is better than parking the A345s.
 
steex
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:38 pm

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
DL: ATL-DXB, ATL-JNB, DTW-HKG

FYI, you're missing LAX-SYD there for DL. Additionally, DL has several 10,000km+ routes that it schedules with the 772 and occasionally operates with the 77L depending on availability. Obviously other carriers also operate many longer routes with the 772 (or 77W) rather than the 77L.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:45 pm

Quoting steex (Reply 9):

FYI, you're missing LAX-SYD there for DL. Additionally, DL has several 10,000km+ routes that it schedules with the 772 and occasionally operates with the 77L depending on availability.

You caught me. I knew I forgot to include it. I was going to edit it, but I thought no one was going to check every detail.  
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:10 pm

The A340-500 routes SQ fly - Newark and Los Angeles - wouldn't exist if they didn't make money. Maybe they would have lasted a year if the business model didn't work, but actually those routes have run for quite a few years now. That proves they are profitable.

SQ do enough incredibly cool stuff - how many Asian carriers run transatlantic and transpacific A380s? And they have probably the best economy product and almost certainly the best business product in the sky - so they don't need to gild the lily with loss-making vanity projects.

(On an a.net-related note, I love how these two routes are of constant fascination and discussion on this site, like BA's A318s to JFK. Every time a thread starts on the subject, you know it's going to run to 60+ replies. What will this one get to?)

[Edited 2012-07-26 15:20:56]
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
falkerker
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:53 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:24 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 11):
The A340-500 routes SQ fly - Newark and Los Angeles - wouldn't exist if they didn't make money.
Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 7):
SQ is pretty notorious for being rather cut throat about axing loss making routes

Totally agree. SQ is a well known brand that needs no money-losing, branding gimmicks. I believe if they have ran the route for so long it's because it's profitable. Maybe not the highest yield in SQ but certainly profitable. More on topic, I think having full J is probably more profitable than the Y/J product they used to have...

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 11):
(On an a.net-related note, I love how these two routes are of constant fascination and discussion on this site, like BA's A318s to JFK. Every time a thread starts on the subject, you know it's going to run to 60 replies. What will this one get to?)

At least 60. I was going to post that even if they lost money, those routes give nutters like us things to talk about!

Besides, if SQ slashed EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN, my bucket list would suffer tremendously!! (but probably the feeling is limited to a.netters!)
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5272
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:28 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 11):
The A340-500 routes SQ fly - Newark and Los Angeles - wouldn't exist if they didn't make money.

Lots of carriers fly money losing routes for a long time if they feel it provides them advantages in other areas (getting corporate contracts, keeping FF's happy, etc).
 
steex
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:29 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 11):
The A340-500 routes SQ fly - Newark and Los Angeles - wouldn't exist if they didn't make money. Maybe they would have lasted a year if the business model didn't work, but actually those routes have run for quite a few years now. That proves they are profitable.

I'm not 100% sure we can say that, though. They originally were operated with a different configuration and were not profitable, so SQ axed them and hoped to shed the 345s from its fleet. However, they couldn't find any takers for the planes and they're too expensive to have sitting around, so they re-tooled to the current premium configuration and decided to reinstate the LAX/EWR routes rather than fly the 345 on much shorter routes for which they already had more efficient aircraft.

My point is that was can probably safely say that operating LAX/EWR is likely a net positive compared to eating the cost of the planes, but we can't say for certain that they are truly profitable.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 1614
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:01 am

Quoting steex (Reply 9):
you're missing LAX-SYD there for DL

You don't need a ULH plane for LAX-SYD. The route is also flown with 77Ws, A380s and 744s. Likewise DOH-MEL is a similar distance to DXB-MEL and AUH-MEL which are served non-stop with 77W and A346.

ULH remains a very difficult market to operate effectively with any aircraft.
717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772/E/W,300,310,319,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,ATR
 
docpepz
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 8:20 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:29 am

EK send the 77W DXB-LAX. It is just 300 miles shorter than SIN-LAX. Can't SQ send a 3-class config 77W to LAX nontstop from SIN?

If SQ can SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR, that's up to 200 pax a day they're potentially giving away to CX and the myraid of other airlines that offer a one-stop service from SIN to these cities. After all it's not like the one stops to LAX and JFK are flying empty. I guess SQ had to do the analysis of weighing losing pax to other airlines vs maintaining these routes, plus writing off the residual value of the aircraft.

I've always wondered why they do SIN-LAX because LAX is not a financial centre like NYC is. Does LAX release stats on load factors of flights like Houston Airport does?
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15324
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:41 am

Quoting steex (Reply 14):
My point is that was can probably safely say that operating LAX/EWR is likely a net positive compared to eating the cost of the planes

I think the cost of the planes = 0 since no one wants them. I also think SQ isn't making a dime on EWR, let alone LAX.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:49 am

Putting back Y seats on A345s means SQ can use them to fly short hop flights like SIN-CGK-SIN between ULH flights like the airline used to do. It was very nice to fly on premium economy class seats with regular economy class fare.  
 
intothinair
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:05 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:34 am

What we have learned from this thread is that everybody seems to be more interested in bashing the A345 or the whole A345 vs 772LR battle.

Now, back to what the original thread was about; does anybody know if SQ intends to still refit the A345 with Y class? I just went on SQ's website, looked at SIN-EWR for early next year, and it appears that only J class can be booked?

Thanks!

Kind Regards
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:27 am

Quoting intothinair (Reply 19):
does anybody know if SQ intends to still refit the A345 with Y class?

Internet searches come up with nothing and SQ still markets it as an all-Business Class product on their website.

So if they are planning on doing so, they're keeping it close to the vest.
 
steex
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:49 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 17):
I think the cost of the planes = 0 since no one wants them. I also think SQ isn't making a dime on EWR, let alone LAX.

You could argue that makes the value of the planes zero, but they still have a cost to SQ regardless. Even putting them into storage costs money and I wouldn't be surprised if they are also still paying for those birds (anyone know?).
 
sq_ek_freak
Posts: 1179
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 4:48 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:52 pm

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):

In another word, you're saying A345 is not efficient, right? Otherwise, why would they get rid of them?

If you are talking about the A345 as a standalone aircraft, then I'm not in a position to speak to that to be honest - but if you are comparing it with the 77L on ULH missions then yes from what I've read I think the 77L is more efficient.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
The difference here is the 777 equipment used on those routes could be redeployed on other routes. The A345 has no where else to go. Perhaps losing some money on the EWR/LAX routes is better than parking the A345s.

Well that might be a possibility - but since neither you or I have access to the information that would answer the debate definitively one way or another, arguing about it would be moot.

Quoting falkerker (Reply 12):
Totally agree. SQ is a well known brand that needs no money-losing, branding gimmicks. I believe if they have ran the route for so long it's because it's profitable. Maybe not the highest yield in SQ but certainly profitable.

I didn't even think of the time frame - the route has been running for nearly 10 years now right?

Quoting steex (Reply 14):
My point is that was can probably safely say that operating LAX/EWR is likely a net positive compared to eating the cost of the planes, but we can't say for certain that they are truly profitable.

That is another consideration I didn't think of, and quite possibly might be the case here too.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Internet searches come up with nothing and SQ still markets it as an all-Business Class product on their website.

So if they are planning on doing so, they're keeping it close to the vest.

Either that or they are still going back and forth as to whether they are going to go ahead with the refit or not...
Keep Discovering
 
airbazar
Posts: 6943
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:59 pm

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
A lot more than A345:

Wrong answer. The correct answer is: Very few. My point is, there are very few viable ULH routes, regardless. Even the 787's aren't being deployed in ULH routes.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
In another word, most of the 77L are being used on routes that the aircraft is designed for.

Most but not all. Same applies to the A345. The difference is the 77L is a newer more capable airplane.
 
ORDJOE
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:27 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:22 pm

My thoughts, SQ is probably making some sort of money on this route, probably not the most profitable, but still makes money.

As for adding Y, it is tough to say. On these flights it is pretty much impossible to redeem miles to use (you have to use Kris miles and SQ is known to charge a boatload for their premium routes), so whomever is on this flight likely bought a ticket. Ticket prices on these flights seem to be only full fare J. If the load factors are low enough they can sacrafice these seats with Y (I am sure you can get a good amount of Y seats in for every J seat that is removed) then that could work to get some people on that might only pay $1200 or what ever. It is my understanding though that the EWR flight is usually pretty full with wall street types.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:33 pm

Blows my mind the hammering the A345 takes on here. Sometimes it feels like (*sarcasm on*)

"How can something that burns 147.5 metric tonnes of fuel per hour possibly make money? SQ must be having a laugh right? How much fuel do they use flying a half empty plane all that way? Thousands of tonnes probably. Why persist with the ancient, old-hat Airbus when they could have the shiny new (not-at-all-expensive-to-acquire) 77L which only burns fresh air and half a tonne of jetfuel to do the same mission?

Who is paying for SQ to keep these planet killing money holes on these routes? It doesnt add up. I mean, SQ and EK both have the 77W right? EK even have the 77L as well and they KNOW how much better it is - so why not scrap the A345s immediately and get a plane that wont lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year to run? They are either idiots or Airbus is paying them backhanders - either way they clearly dont read my posts on a-net. If they did, they'd know.

If *I* was fleet manager I'd dump them. The 77L is way cooler anyway. And it looks cool. And Delta flies them so it is, by defintion, a better plane than that airbus junk. No airline has ever, ever made a profit with the A345. It is impossible.

It burns so much fuel that EK use them on short routes because on longer ones they end up carrying more fuel than passengers and cargo. Imagine that! Madness.

TG have dumped theirs. They were silly to buy them in the first place. Airbus only sold some because Leahy is a traitorous liar who said it was possible to make money with them. If Cathay had bought them they would have dumped them even faster than the A346s, which are only marginally less inefficient.

I've never been on an Airbus. But i dont need to. I much prefer riding on the 777. I took one last year from ATL to MIA and it was brilliant. Much quieter than I think the Airbus is. Plus i fly the 777 a lot on FSX and i think it is a real joy to fly. I dont need to recycle at home, and I am happy to report my Dad proudly drives an Escalade, because I do a lot for the environment. I spread awareness that the Airbus is a planet killer. Approximately 56.2 square miles of icecap melts and an average of 13 polar bears die for every SIN-EWR flight SQ takes with those awful piece of crap A345s. FACT.

Lets look at the evidence here people.

A345 operators:

SQ – as we’ve proven, complete idiots. I won’t fly them out of principle. I’m not even going to apply for a passport until they dump the A345s. Being Emerald tier Star Alliance and a million miler annually, they need to listen to me, you know.
EK – they don’t make any money and are supported by crooked oil money. They don’t need to worry about how much gas it burns.
Arik – same. Don’t know what country they are from but I’m pretty sure they don’t care about the price of oil either.
Thai – dumped them. Very smart. My letters to the CEO really paid off.
TAM – I know for a fact the lessors are paying them to fly the airplanes. You couldn’t pay me to fly them.
Kingfisher – nuff said. Stupid.
Etihad – even with all that oil money they are getting rid of them. Can you imagine how much gas it would have to burn to make a country with as much oil as Ali Dhabi reject them?
Qatar – As above.

(*sarcasm off*)

[Edited 2012-07-27 08:36:09]
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
Flighty
Posts: 7717
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:38 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 11):
The A340-500 routes SQ fly - Newark and Los Angeles - wouldn't exist if they didn't make money. Maybe they would have lasted a year if the business model didn't work, but actually those routes have run for quite a few years now. That proves they are profitable.

Almost. We can say it is the best business plan for their existing A345 at SQ's system and brand level. Knowing whether it makes or loses money would require a clearer demonstration. They could exit the A345 fleet and take a huge loss on them. All we know is, the A345 schedule earns better profit than that huge negative number.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4942
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:53 pm

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 25):
TAM – I know for a fact the lessors are paying them to fly the airplanes. You couldn’t pay me to fly them.

Don't have to worry about that, TAM parked theirs too!

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 25):
Qatar – As above.

Qatar doesn't operate the A345 in commercial service, there single A345 is for the Amiri flight.

I know the A345 gets a very brutal rap here on A.net. But when you have 2 operators parking their planes, another wanting to sell them, and a nice 4 year old white tail still awaiting someone to buy it...you know there is a problem with the plane, especially when the oldest one in service is not even 10 yet.

[Edited 2012-07-27 08:56:16]
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:54 pm

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 25):
Blows my mind the hammering the A345 takes on here.

LOL, well done you. Though you could probably post this same thing on the MH 747 retirement thread and be just about as accurate. Anything not the newest, shiniest, longest, widest, tallest, latest thing flying around is garbage to a lot of posters here, unless it's Concorde, of course, because that's still the fastest ever built.
International Homo of Mystery
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:06 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 28):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 25):
Blows my mind the hammering the A345 takes on here.

LOL, well done you. Though you could probably post this same thing on the MH 747 retirement thread and be just about as accurate. Anything not the newest, shiniest, longest, widest, tallest, latest thing flying around is garbage to a lot of posters here, unless it's Concorde, of course, because that's still the fastest ever built.

Aye. A very sad symptom of a modern consumerist society, sad to say.

My little brother doesnt play his PS2 any more. Its a waste of time apparently. X-Box much better. I can remember when the NES or Master System was the absolute doggie's danglies. Sad how people can just dispose of things.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4942
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:25 pm

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 29):
My little brother doesnt play his PS2 any more. Its a waste of time apparently. X-Box much better. I can remember when the NES or Master System was the absolute doggie's danglies. Sad how people can just dispose of things.

Except the A345 is not some old discarded jet, it is suppose to be a current (well, current up to the A380/787) gen jet. That would be analogous to your brother rejecting his new PS3/Xbox360/whatever and instead only playing with his old PS2.

A modern consumerist culture should be embracing new A345s to throw out the remaining 747s in service.

[Edited 2012-07-27 09:26:51]
 
steex
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:45 pm

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 25):
Blows my mind the hammering the A345 takes on here.

In fairness, it only took until Post #3 for someone to bring up that they hate the bashing the A345 takes, at which point nobody had bashed the A345 at all. The only mention of the aircraft at that point was in the OP's linked article, not from people on here. Besdies, if we don't want any A345 bashing (which I still don't think there really has been), then we should at least give the discussion a chance to exist without preemptively bringing up the subject.

Really, this thread has far more to do with the performance and viability of the two routes being discussed. Those routes happen to be flown with the A345, and that fact is a consideration because these are the sole mission with which the type is tasked by SQ. Despite what may be claimed by either side, none of us has any way of knowing whether or not these routes are profitable. As I mentioned (and Flighty put more succinctly)...

Quoting Flighty (Reply 26):
We can say it is the best business plan for their existing A345 at SQ's system and brand level. Knowing whether it makes or loses money would require a clearer demonstration. They could exit the A345 fleet and take a huge loss on them. All we know is, the A345 schedule earns better profit than that huge negative number.

We know the following facts:
- SQ previously operated EWR/LAX with a configuration including coach seats on the 345
- SQ attempted to shed its A345 fleet
- SQ couldn't find a deal to its liking to remove the type, so it changed to the current all-premium configuration
- SQ reintroduced EWR/LAX in its current service form
- SQ intends to again modify the configuration in an attempt to extract greater revenue from the routes

From that, we can say for sure SQ didn't make money on the routes originally. They openly acknowledged that they were then unable to sell the aircraft, and that they intended to therefore keep them and reinstate the service. I think it can be reasonably assumed, as explained above, that they are doing better running these routes than taking a loss on the fleet.

However, we don't know if that means they are taking a loss on the routes that is less than eating the A345, or if they are indeed profitable routes today. Even the fact that they are modifying the aircraft doesn't tell us this - it may be an attempt to try something different in hopes of reaching profitability, or it may be that SQ feels they can enhance their revenue and increase profit over the existing margins. Since none of us are privy to SQ's numbers, none of us can actually answer this question.

[Edited 2012-07-27 10:10:56]
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4942
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:59 pm

Quoting steex (Reply 31):
- SQ axed both routes and attempted to shed its A345 fleet
- SQ couldn't find a deal to its liking to remove the type, so it changed to the current all-premium configuration
- SQ reintroduced EWR/LAX in its current service form

Just to note, I don't think they ever axed the flight. It was transitioned to an all J product (with EWR getting it first, then LAX) but they never suspended the routes as far as I am aware.
 
steex
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:11 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 32):
Just to note, I don't think they ever axed the flight. It was transitioned to an all J product (with EWR getting it first, then LAX) but they never suspended the routes as far as I am aware.

You're correct, and I have edited accordingly. I was recalling the temporary reduction in LAX service during the modifications.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3855
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:50 pm

It too bad, I love that A345's, was fling premium ULH routes. As I have said before, to me, an A340NG, looks like a hybrid of DC-8 and A300, and with these two a/c now hauling mostly cargo, it was nice seeing their hybrid, doing upscale routes.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:32 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 23):
Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
A lot more than A345:

Wrong answer. The correct answer is: Very few. My point is, there are very few viable ULH routes, regardless. Even the 787's aren't being deployed in ULH routes.

Hmmm... 3-4 times more 77L routes than A345 routes, 5-6 times more 77L long haul weekly frequencies than A345. That's what I said ... "A lot more than A345"

If you want to say there are very few ULH routes, I said it, too.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
That's why the demand for A345 and 77L is limited.

Be respectful when you say something like "Wrong answer". It was a comparison. It's relatively to the A345 routes.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 23):
Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 8):
In another word, most of the 77L are being used on routes that the aircraft is designed for.

Most but not all. Same applies to the A345. The difference is the 77L is a newer more capable airplane.

While it's true many long haul airplanes do not dedicate to strictly long haul services, 60-70% of 77Ls in airline service are used on long haul routes > 10,000 km. For A345, it's less than 30%. So, I don't think you can say "most of the A345 are being used on routes that the aircraft is designed for." EK is by far the largest A345 operator with more than a third of the A345s delivered, they don't use the A345 on any routes > 7,000 km.

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 22):
If you are talking about the A345 as a standalone aircraft, then I'm not in a position to speak to that to be honest - but if you are comparing it with the 77L on ULH missions then yes from what I've read I think the 77L is more efficient.

Since you say it's not as efficient as 77L on ULH missions, it will be even less efficient than other contemporary aircraft on shorter routes. Aircraft designed for ULH missions have a lot of redundant weight if you use them only on shorter routes.

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 22):
Well that might be a possibility - but since neither you or I have access to the information that would answer the debate definitively one way or another, arguing about it would be moot.

If that's the case, then you should tell people who said SQ is making money with their A345s to stop making baseless claims.   In fact, I never said whether SQ had made money or not. All I said was stating the LF on the route was not sufficient to determine whether SQ made money on the A345 routes or not.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 15):
You don't need a ULH plane for LAX-SYD. The route is also flown with 77Ws, A380s and 744s. Likewise DOH-MEL is a similar distance to DXB-MEL and AUH-MEL which are served non-stop with 77W and A346.

True. Some airlines will serve long routes with some payload penalty though. ULH airplanes on the same routes can also provide additional cargo revenue. That's something airlines will take into consideration.



Quoting Docpepz (Reply 16):
EK send the 77W DXB-LAX. It is just 300 miles shorter than SIN-LAX. Can't SQ send a 3-class config 77W to LAX nontstop from SIN?

Comparing great circle distance is not sufficient. You have to consider the enroute winds, too.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7700
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:35 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 28):
LOL, well done you. Though you could probably post this same thing on the MH 747 retirement thread and be just about as accurate. Anything not the newest, shiniest, longest, widest, tallest, latest thing flying around is garbage to a lot of posters here, unless it's Concorde, of course, because that's still the fastest ever built.

I see a lot of MD-88 and even DC-9 defenders on this website, so I would not agree entirely. Somehow it's very smart for some airlines to fly those gas guzzlers but mention the A340 and then the airline CEO has to be a moron.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15324
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:50 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 32):
It was transitioned to an all J product (with EWR getting it first, then LAX) but they never suspended the routes as far as I am aware.

With the exception of DMEIAH, EWR/LAXSIN are really the only routes that ever get reduced to less than daily. Since the two ULH routes started, and again excluding IAH, none of the other SQ routes to the US that are still operating were reduced to less than daily.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
steex
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:52 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 36):
I see a lot of MD-88 and even DC-9 defenders on this website, so I would not agree entirely. Somehow it's very smart for some airlines to fly those gas guzzlers but mention the A340 and then the airline CEO has to be a moron.

I think that's a bit extreme, but there's a critical difference between the DC-9/MD-88 compared to the A340-500. I think it's generally reasonable to continue operating aging aircraft on their intended missions until you reach such a point that the cheaper/owned frames can no longer outweigh the relative inefficiency (such as flying an owned MD-80 rather than paying for a brand new 737/320 aircraft).

I don't think the problem is the A340-500, the problem is its intended mission. The whole purpose of the 345 was ULH routes, and though the newer 77L is more efficient, it flies those missions well. However, ULH was a flawed concept out of the gate and made even more difficult with increasing fuel prices.

The problem now is that the 345 isn't as well suited to use on shorter routes as other aircraft in the fleet (even against its other A340 cousins), whereas the 77L moves downward in range a bit more efficiently. Additionally, since most 77L operators have large 777 fleets, it also allows the carrier to mix-and-match routes (look at DL, which regularly swaps between 772 and 77L on several routes) based on aircraft availability without changing aircraft configuration. Again, it's not a flaw in the 345 that makes it lack this commonality, it's just a bi-product of how fleets have developed.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:11 pm

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 4):
I don't think they are bashing the plane itself ... just its economics. The reality is that ULH is very expensive and for the amount of profit they can make , its just not worth it.

Notice as well how UA decided to add E- into the PS fleet, which has until now been all E+ in back. Granted U.S. transcon is not ULH, but perhaps the logic behind the moves is the same, where adding density, even at the lower price point, generates more revenue.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 5):
Why do you think the A345 is not being regularly used for its design intent?

Maybe because there aren't enough ULH routes with enough demand? Just a wild guess. How many 77L routes longer than 10,000Km do you know of? Heck, pick just about any aircraft at all and you'll find that 90% of the route it flies are well below it's maximun range. just because a plane is made to fly a certain distance it doesn't mean it will be used that way by the airlines. There are A332's and 77W's flying medium-haul segments around the world every day.

As airbazar points out, ULH is just incredibly expensive, and just because you have the capability doesn't mean it's the most economical use of the a/c. There are a good number of routes being plyed by ULH-capable planes that other planes could fly, the ULH plane can do better. Take ATL-JNB on DL: the 77E can make it, but especially westbound, it takes a hit both due to the range and the hot n high issue with JNB. Now, deploy the 77L on the route as DL does, and you fill the thing to the brim with no issues. Maximum range always takes a payload penalty, whether your in an RJ or a 345 or 77L.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:11 pm

Quoting steex (Reply 31):
SQ previously operated EWR/LAX with a configuration including coach seats on the 345

It was more like a premium Y product that standard Y, with much more spacious 7-abreast seating rather than the usual 8, and 37 inch seat pitch. Also some type of footrests if memory correct. Assume those are they seats they plan to reinstate. Photo below.

 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:22 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 36):
I see a lot of MD-88 and even DC-9 defenders on this website, so I would not agree entirely. Somehow it's very smart for some airlines to fly those gas guzzlers but mention the A340 and then the airline CEO has to be a moron.

I know, they think if a plane is full depreciated and paid off, even the Convair 990 could make money if you put in WiFi and AVOD.
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 40):
It was more like a premium Y product that standard Y, with much more spacious 7-abreast seating rather than the usual 8, and 37 inch seat pitch.

It was sold as Exec Economy. Flew EWR-SIN in both classes when the route started, and it was a great way to get to and from SIN quickly. The 345 is fantastic for the PAX on long haul as it is smooth and quiet, all 340's are same. The loads were also pretty good, and as people have said they put them onto CGK on downtime.

Once you have done this flight on SQ everything is pretty much mundane, except the 380, which gives it a good run.

77L is tiresome over long routes, but the Delta crews try their best.

I am sure SQ know what they are doing, and will take appropriate action.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15324
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:50 am

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 41):
even the Convair 990 could make money if you put in WiFi and AVOD.

Neither really draws anyone; one of EK's executives was mentioning the take rate of wifi on flights longer than 12 hours was below 4%
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:22 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 43):
Neither really draws anyone; one of EK's executives was mentioning the take rate of wifi on flights longer than 12 hours was below 4%

No one wants to pay to work on a plane, esp for a long flight. And likewise, a large number of people doing 10+ hour flights already have laptops or tablets loaded with things they want to watch. The QF tablet based AVOD solution might become more and more popular over time. Less weight, much more user friendly, and likely a lot cheaper to offer.
 
User avatar
huaiwei
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:36 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:58 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 37):
With the exception of DMEIAH, EWR/LAXSIN are really the only routes that ever get reduced to less than daily.

And your point being? Lots of other routes have their frequencies reduced during those difficult times, so how is this supposed to contradict his comment that the two routes were actually never suspended?

Quoting steex (Reply 31):
Even the fact that they are modifying the aircraft doesn't tell us this - it may be an attempt to try something different in hopes of reaching profitability, or it may be that SQ feels they can enhance their revenue and increase profit over the existing margins.

Every decision is naturally an attempt to increase profits. What I do not get is how some people rule that the whole ULH business concept makes no business sense based on SQ changing its seating configuration.

Trying to analyse SQ's actions in this particular case is actually rather complicated. Consider the following:
- Both destinations are served by alternative one-stop routes. We therefore have to look at LFs and yields not just for the ULH routes in question.
- SQ may be known to avoid "prestige" routes, but some markets are of particular importance to SQ which they will guard zealously. Hence, they are likely to run some non-profitable routes due to the network multiplier effect. For the longest time, SQ has wanted to fly non-stop to the UK (which they did with the 744) and to the US (which they have been pressing A and B for an airliner which can meet the specs). Flying non-stop to the US is important for it to compete with its main Asian competitors who can fly non-stop, to increase market share at both ends of the route through connections and codeshares with their partners, and for the possibility of future onward expansion into third destinations like Canada or even South America. SQ may be compelled to offer PE seats when the ratio of transiting passengers increases.
It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15324
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:04 pm

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 45):

And your point being?

It's pretty crystal clear. The only routes SQ has pulled down have been the EWR/LAX nonstops. LAX is still only 5/week.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4470
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:52 pm

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 4):

I don't think they are bashing the plane itself ... just its economics. The reality is that ULH is very expensive and for the amount of profit they can make , its just not worth it.

I'm guessing there is some profit in the route, or like an other carrier, SQ would drop it. I have sold many a J ticket on these flights, mostly always to business travellers with little more than 2 days stays in SIN.

Quoting intothinair (Reply 19):
Now, back to what the original thread was about; does anybody know if SQ intends to still refit the A345 with Y class? I just went on SQ's website, looked at SIN-EWR for early next year, and it appears that only J class can be booked?

I don't know when they will rotate the planes out to refurbish with E+ seats, but II read here on A.net a bit ago that it was going to happen. Maybe there is some uncertainty to that for SQ still, for a myriad of reasons possibly.

Quoting Polot (Reply 27):
know the A345 gets a very brutal rap here on A.net. But when you have 2 operators parking their planes, another wanting to sell them, and a nice 4 year old white tail still awaiting someone to buy it...you know there is a problem with the plane, especially when the oldest one in service is not even 10 yet
Quoting steex (Reply 38):
I think that's a bit extreme, but there's a critical difference between the DC-9/MD-88 compared to the A340-500

I think the A345 is the 74L of our day, and I think the few frames built will find new lives as VIP transports or with a carrier that can easily utilize the best of the A345's abilities for reasonably profitable routes. I'd love to see SAA buy them, and use them to start services to LAX via GIG, or JNB-IAH/ORD, or JNB-SYD/AKL, I do know I'm just dreaming.
Next Flights: PDX-HNL-OGG-LIH-PDX On AS, WP & HA
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:25 pm

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 47):
I'm guessing there is some profit in the route, or like an other carrier, SQ would drop it. I have sold many a J ticket on these flights, mostly always to business travellers with little more than 2 days stays in SIN.

I think the issue surrounds what is the profit. Is it revenue greater than the operating costs or is it revenue greater than the operating costs + the planes capital costs.
 
User avatar
huaiwei
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:36 am

RE: SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345, Any News?

Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:54 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 46):
It's pretty crystal clear. The only routes SQ has pulled down have been the EWR/LAX nonstops. LAX is still only 5/week.

And so? No it is not crystal clear, so perhaps you should elaborate on the point you are trying to make, rather than I make assumptions on your flawed reasoning.
It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)