User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 20241
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:57 pm

Singapore Airlines today operates final Airbus A340-500 service between SIN and LAX. The second longest non-stop passenger flight (7,621nm) will come to an end after today; the longest flight SIN-EWR (8,285nm) will be axed on November 23, 2013.

SQ38 currently en route SIN-LAX:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/S...8/history/20131020/0820Z/WSSS/KLAX

SQ37 scheduled final return flight LAX-SIN:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/S...7/history/20131021/0415Z/KLAX/WSSS
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
glbltrvlr
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:38 pm

A bit like the Concorde, I'm afraid. Having flown those flights on multiple occasions, I will miss them.
 
georgiaame
Posts: 951
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:55 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:13 pm

I did the LAX-SIN non stop shortly after it was introduced, in premium economy, and it was a surprisingly easy flight. PE was eliminated to boost the number of higher paying business class seats available, but apparently even that move was insufficient in boosting revenue return to justify the flights. I just did some homework on the Boeing website, and a 772LR has about an extra 1000nm range available, over the EWR-SIN flight distance, and it has considerably more seats available than the 345, at least in a multiclass setup. It's obviously a rhetorical question, but might Singapore benefit by using a LR rather than discontinuing the route? I know they don't own any , and I fully understand the logic, or lack thereof in packing extra fuel to burn when it is cheaper to carry less on board, land and refuel then continue on the route. But still, Singapore has been flying those two very long routes for more than 10 years. Our LAX flight lasted just under 17 hours, and shaved a good 4-5hours off transit time via Narita, and coupled with Singapore's service, it was a very easy flight. Any thoughts?
"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
 
trex8
Posts: 4620
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:49 pm

They crunched the numbers before, and fuel was cheaper then as well. The capital cost if a new 77LR despite its lower fuel burn cannot overcome the high cost of lifting that fuel to fly those last thousand odd miles!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5645
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:09 am

Great shame. these flights captured the imagination and provided a very convenient link for
passengers, amazing the performance of this Aircraft.



It was a very special part of a very special Airline whose star does seem to be fading of late.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
United Airline
Posts: 8773
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:35 am

Wonder if they will resume both flights once they have the right aircraft.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4995
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:52 am

Quoting United Airline (Reply 5):
Wonder if they will resume both flights once they have the right aircraft.

They don't currently have any aircraft planned that could cost-effectively operate the route. And I doubt they ever will. I don't see them as a likely 777-8X customer.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:17 am

They have the 359 on order to the tune of 70 of them with 20 options. It is listed by Airbus as 8,100nm in a 314 passenger three class layout. If you cut that to a mix of J and Y+ classes with ~150 seats, this a/c should be able to do the route with no problem. It would mean a sub fleet but that should not be an issue for Singapore.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sin-lax&MS=wls&DU=nm
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sin-ewr&MS=wls&DU=nm
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4995
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:15 am

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 7):
It is listed by Airbus as 8,100nm in a 314 passenger three class layout. If you cut that to a mix of J and Y+ classes with ~150 seats, this a/c should be able to do the route with no problem.

   You need an aircraft with at least 8500 nm of nominal range, ideally closer to 9000, to be able to fly the route. Nominal range translates only roughly to real-world range.
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:18 am

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 2):
I did the LAX-SIN non stop shortly after it was introduced, in premium economy, and it was a surprisingly easy flight. PE was eliminated to boost the number of higher paying business class seats available, but apparently even that move was insufficient in boosting revenue return to justify the flights. I just did some homework on the Boeing website, and a 772LR has about an extra 1000nm range available, over the EWR-SIN flight distance, and it has considerably more seats available than the 345, at least in a multiclass setup. It's obviously a rhetorical question, but might Singapore benefit by using a LR rather than discontinuing the route? I know they don't own any , and I fully understand the logic, or lack thereof in packing extra fuel to burn when it is cheaper to carry less on board, land and refuel then continue on the route. But still, Singapore has been flying those two very long routes for more than 10 years. Our LAX flight lasted just under 17 hours, and shaved a good 4-5hours off transit time via Narita, and coupled with Singapore's service, it was a very easy flight. Any thoughts?

Yes, thoughts:
The 777 (and even 350, 787, ...) are to my mind MUCH less comfortable. The 345s' 2-4-2 in Y and 2-3-2 in Y+ are much less "socially demanding" for pax than anything beyong 8 abreast. Besides that, the 777 is awfully noisy compared to 343/5/6 or 332/3. I have not experienced any 787 yet and neither (of course(?)) any 35? and cannot tell anything about how I would perceive noise level in these.

Best,
Ferroviarius
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:21 pm

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 2):
It's obviously a rhetorical question, but might Singapore benefit by using a LR rather than discontinuing the route?

In terms of fuel costs, undoubtedly. If I'm not mistaken, it was the acquisition costs of the 777-200LR, combined with the low resale value of the A340-500 which were the main reasons why SQ continued flying this route with the markedly less efficient A345.

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 9):
The 777 (and even 350, 787, ...) are to my mind MUCH less comfortable. The 345s' 2-4-2 in Y and 2-3-2 in Y+ are much less "socially demanding" for pax than anything beyong 8 abreast.


What about the 747 and A380 then?

But you forget that SQ operates these routes in an all business class, 1-2-1 configuration, each seat a lie flat bed, and with direct aisle access. How would any widebody be less comfortable than another in that configuration?
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:06 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):

Singapore Airlines today operates final Airbus A340-500 service between SIN and LAX. The second longest non-stop passenger flight (7,621nm) will come to an end after today; the longest flight SIN-EWR (8,285nm) will be axed on November 23, 2013.

Too bad to hear this, but we all have seen it coming. The days of the A340-500, the most beautiful civilian airplane ever to take to the skies will become a rather rare sight pretty soon. No matter how good she is, the fuel consumption in combination with the fuel price in the end have determined that she is not attractive to operate anymore.  .

After the demise of the 3-holers, this is an example of the diminishing presence of 4-holers. Which to me is sad, but it is the reality of the market. Which is always right in the end.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:18 pm

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 1):
Having flown those flights on multiple occasions, I will miss them.

how does the body feel after 18hrs under pressure, did the air feel dry?
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
yakima
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 3:58 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:27 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 11):
The days of the A340-500, the most beautiful civilian airplane ever to take to the skies will become a rather rare sight pretty soon. No matter how good she is, the fuel consumption in combination with the fuel price in the end have determined that she is not attractive to operate anymore.

How is the A340-500 doing for Arik Air? Also unprofitable?
 
BoeingMerica
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:39 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:31 pm

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 9):

Configuration is not an argument for or against a plane type on this route. With the A345 they had 100J seats, all with aisle access. If they were to deploy a -200LR or some other large two holer it is almost certain theywo uld use the same config, as the weight savings for the config was the only reason the route was possible.
I like my Barack like I like my vegetables, I hate vegetables
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:44 pm

Quoting yakima (Reply 13):
Also unprofitable?

I do not know. But I did not say these A340-500's are unprofitable to operate, but their yields will no doubt be very low due to the fuel situation compared to what the competition, or even other SQ-products are offering. And in combination with market demand SQ is now terminating the operations with these beauties.
 
glbltrvlr
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:38 pm

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 12):
how does the body feel after 18hrs under pressure, did the air feel dry?

Anytime you are traveling that distance, it won't feel good. I live at 2100m elevation and very low humidity, so a typical cabin altitude isn't much higher than what I'm used to. I took a United 787 (lower cabin altitude, higher humidity) to China recently and didn't feel any notable difference.

Mostly I liked the SQ non-stops as they avoided the need for the time and hassle of Narita.
 
dennys
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:19 pm

Yes , this is a saw expcted news ; nethertheless these five beauties did make their jobs for which SIA was counting on them . For 10 years .
 
dennys
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:39 pm

I have heard they would go to AR.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 20241
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:42 pm

Quoting dennys (Reply 18):
I have heard they would go to AR.

The A345s will go back to Airbus but it's possible they have found a new customer already.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
Birdwatching
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 10:48 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:53 pm

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 12):
how does the body feel after 18hrs under pressure

You got it wrong, you're "under pressure" when you stand on the ground. On board, you're the opposite of "under pressure". You got fooled by the fact that the cabin is pressurized. But that's only relative to the outside air (or lack thereof). Compared to the ground, you're under a much lower pressure.

Very common misconception.

Soren   
All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
 
AM777LR
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:54 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:58 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 19):
found a new customer already.
Quoting dennys (Reply 18):

I have heard they would go to AR.

AR just purchased 40 737-800s: Aerolineas Argentinas Orders 20 New Boeing 737 (by planemannyc Oct 23 2013 in Civil Aviation) and 4 A330-200s: Aerolíneas Argentinas Takes First A330 (by KarelXWB Sep 4 2013 in Civil Aviation) An order/lease for several A340-500 would be perfect to replace the A340-200s and the oldest A340-300s. Maybe they could start new routes to Africa and continue New Zealand and Australia. The A345 would look amazing in ARs livery!
 
stlgph
Posts: 9060
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:06 pm

Bloomberg did an interesting lengthy piece on this service.


Courtesy: Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...nds-travelers-enter-jfk-chaos.html
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:38 pm

One hopes this flight (and EWR) will someday be back on a hypothetical A359LR. A359 cruises faster than a A345, and saves what ~20% in fuel? If the revenue is there, and I do not doubt...it is the way to go.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 3287
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:40 pm

Quoting United Airline (Reply 5):
Wonder if they will resume both flights once they have the right aircraft.

I think its the economy more than anything. You need a significant amount of people willing to pay a significant premium for a non-stop. I just don't see it on that route in this economy. Once the economy recovers i could easily see this route being one to pop back but until you have enough people willing to pay the premium for a non-stop i think your gonna have to one stop.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 20241
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:40 pm

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 23):
One hopes this flight (and EWR) will someday be back on a hypothetical A359LR. A359 cruises faster than a A345, and saves what ~20% in fuel? If the revenue is there, and I do not doubt...it is the way to go.

More towards 30% savings I believe. And a much lower trip cost too.

[Edited 2013-10-23 14:40:58]
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
christao17
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:54 am

What caught my eye near the end of that Bloomberg article: 14 flight attendants for a 100 passenger flight! Granted, it is a long flight and is all business class so you have fewer passengers per flight attendant, but that still is a pretty significant personnel cost for just 100 pax.
Keeping the "civil" in civil aviation...
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:08 am

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 1):
Having flown those flights on multiple occasions, I will miss them

Indeed. LAX-SIN was good to me. I'm not a fan of connecting - I'd rather get it over with.

Quoting georgiaame (Reply 2):
I did the LAX-SIN non stop shortly after it was introduced, in premium economy, and it was a surprisingly easy flight

Agreed. It really was no more difficult (well, easier) than, for example, DFW-FRA in AA economy class.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:33 am

Quoting christao17 (Reply 26):

Check the revenue for this flight versus any TPAC flight. It's equal or higher. Those are 100 J pax, and the lowest RT fare i've ever seen is ~6500 USD all in, average seems to be 8500 USD, top FF is right around 10k USD. And well the EWR flight enjoys a very high LF, over 80%...
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
dennys
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:39 am

For the Time being no NSTP flight is schedueled
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 904
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:04 am

Quoting christao17 (Reply 26):
14 flight attendants for a 100 passenger flight!

How do duty hours play into this? I'm no expert on F/A rest requirements, but I assume that on a 17+ hour flight they have 2 full crews? Could most or all of them help with meal services and still be able to get the required rest aong the way? Or would there never be more than half of them working the cabin?
 
dennys
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:05 am

 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 20241
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:20 am

Quoting dennys (Reply 31):
Sorry it is in French .

Thanks, good to see those aircraft will have a second life.
Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: SQ Final A340-500 SIN - LAX Service

Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:56 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 20):
Compared to the ground, you're under a much lower pressure.

Very common misconception.

Thank you, that does make sense.  
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!